Total posts: 1,321
-->
@IlDiavolo
I think the passage in the gospels u r referring to is where a man was performing miracles in Jesus's name but wasn't following the apostles. Jesus said who ain't against him is for him and not to worry about the guy. My guess is you r mistaken
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I have three honors degrees in engineering and science from competitive schools. Not just in formal education but otherwise I'm way over educated. The fact you think that makes me think that u r the uneducated one. Not calling myself genius, but there's a saying that genius mother Fuckers look like dumb mother Fuckers to people who r themselves dumb mother fuckers.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You know what modern historians don't attribute to historical figures? Magic. There's a good reason for that.
that looks like a deflection. ancient historicans did refer to him as a magician. whether or not modern historicians would seriously entertain magic is irrelevant. you can choose to ignore what ancient historians said, but at least state that you are choosing ignoring it.
someone who is willing to die for their faith, it bolsters what they say. i understand people die for their faith all the time, and some of those faiths are untrue.. but it's still indiciative of soemthing when someone dies for their faith.This is incoherent. You're agreeing with me AND suggesting dying for your beliefs points to factuality. You can't have it both ways.Clearly, death for beliefs has absolutely no relevance to the truth of those beliefs. There are countless examples of people dying for beliefs that we know to be absolutely bogus. (Heavensgate, Jonestown, etc.)
you misquote me and misunderstand me. if someone is willing to die for their faith, they probably have a good reason for why they'd make that sacrifice. sometimes people are just stupid, but that's the exception to the rule. and the part you didn't quote which is a stronger point, is that the apostles had first hand witness to the events, not just stupid fanatics who die for a random belief.
it seems far fetched that someone would happen to have a seizure when as far as we can tell, they were otherwise healthy, that just happens to lead to him being a central figure in the worlds most dominate religion.I don't think so. A seizure would explain the vision, the blindness, and the change of heart afterwards. It's certainly more plausible than the alternative.
i guess we just disagree. i dont think a one time event of a seizure makes the best explanation with all the other context, too big of a coincidence.
you haven't pin pointed a good motive in why they would lie about supernatural claims.I think maybe you didn't understand what I said. I didn't claim early believers were generally lying about Jesus. I said the opposite - early followers believed their testimony. That's not to say their testimony accurately reflected reality. Add to that legendary accretion as time passes and Jesus becomes more and more extraordinary. Again, we can see this occuring with modern figures. Who knows, in a thousand years, Elvis or Dwayne Johnson might be considered a deity.
you misquoted my later post where i acknowledged that even if they weren't lying, you dont explain why they'd be mistaken about the thing theyd die for. sure a mistake is possible, but you look like you just ignore trying to explain it. people generally dont make mistakes in that nature that cost their lives. you say it's possible that legend develops over time, but that speciic point is irrelevant as to explaining their mistake. i understand that is just an additional point you're making, though.
their first hand testimony and willingness to die for their faith is compelling.FYI, legendary accretion also applies to the apostles. The martyrdom of the apostles is a church tradition. There are multiple (and contradictory) martyrdom stories for some of the apostles - different churches have different death stories for their apostolic heroes.Furthermore, the gospels are not thought, at least not by critical scholars, to be eye-witness accounts. That is another 'church tradition' with questionable relation to reality.
do you think the willingness to die due their first hand accounts have anything to do with church tradition? i'm not sure what point you are trying to make. my understanding is that there are objective third party historicans who attest to the martyrdom of the apostles.
on a last point, you could make the argument about cults. was jesus a cult leader? it's an interesting idea. most people aren't stupid enough to fall for cult hucksters, and it isn't likely that histroicans would record the cult leader as a historical figure and record the deeds the cult leader are said to have performed. were other false messiahs recorded by historicans? i really dont know that answer. a cult, it's an interesting idea i hadn't really considered too much. so a cult leader that was followed by a seizure dude with all their followers writing profound spritiual letters? it seems far fetched, but i dunno.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I would agree that it's not so far fetched to think Jesus might have really meant that generally, only sexual deviance was the only grounds for divorce. People r not always precise in what they say plus this is just a recording and translation anyway even if Jesus was precise
Created:
I don't tend to think the early followers of Jesus were 'lying'. Someone might have told a lie, but for the most part I accept they believed their testimony. I just don't believe their testimony, at least, not the supernatural parts. I see no good reason why it should be accepted at face value.you haven't pin pointed a good motive in why they would lie about supernatural claims. i can understand being a skeptic, but you just choose to assume they are lying. again, their first hand testimony and willingness to die for their faith is compelling. and the historicans who called jesus a magician
or if they weren't lying and just mistaken, you haven't pin pointed the reason they would make such a blunder. you just choose to ignore the degree of how compelling their testimony is.
Created:
i see that there was someone who said that a historican from where jesus lived, when he lived, didn't record anything about jesus. but if the skeptic claims about all the hucksters trying to claim being a messiah are true, maybe jesus and his followers claim didn't seem unique. what if it was unique, though? that ties back to the strength of their claims, which is what we've been debating. there are jewish and roman historicans who report about jesus, just not the historicans tied more directly to jesus' place in history.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I wouldn't be surprised if an iterant Jewish rabbi with a devoted following was crucified around 33CE. I wouldnt be surprised if people made supernatural claims about him. That happens today with modern figures. Supernatural claims, from any time period, I do not believe.To answer specific questions, people die for things they believe. Sometimes those beliefs have no basis in reality. I see no reason why deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus are different or special in that regard.
historians from antiquity sometimes referred to jesus as a magician. even if those supernatural claims are not true, there's at least some more objective measues that referred to him as a miracle worker. also, if we trust that the followrs of jesus were genuine, they said he committed miracles. someone who is willing to die for their faith, it bolsters what they say. i understand people die for their faith all the time, and some of those faiths are untrue.. but it's still indiciative of soemthing when someone dies for their faith. if we beleive they personally knew jesus, it's more compelling than someone who just happens to die for something they believe. they had a tie to the thing they witness to, that's different, and compelling.
I don't have any strong opinions on Paul, but I have found seizure to be a compelling explanation of his Demascus road experience.
it seems far fetched that someone would happen to have a seizure when as far as we can tell, they were otherwise healthy, that just happens to lead to him being a central figure in the worlds most dominate religion. and even if you are a skeptic, his writings are clearly inspired. someone just happened to have a seizure and all this just happened to play out that way? huge coincidence if so. if this was just his own testimony, that would be one thing and not very compelling, but christianity predates paul, and paul just corroborates it.
I don't tend to think the early followers of Jesus were 'lying'. Someone might have told a lie, but for the most part I accept they believed their testimony. I just don't believe their testimony, at least, not the supernatural parts. I see no good reason why it should be accepted at face value.
you haven't pin pointed a good motive in why they would lie about supernatural claims. i can understand being a skeptic, but you just choose to assume they are lying. again, their first hand testimony and willingness to die for their faith is compelling. and the historicans who called jesus a magician
Created:
it looks like a lot of what we think we know about jesus might not be reliable. as for a lot of reason said by oromagi. but we know the central aspects and message by any measure, being good people and loving God? i mean, i realize it's healthy to be skeptic, but i choose to just go with it and accept orthodox teachings like the virgin birth, unless i have a good reason to doubt it. there's an element of "i want to believe" like is the phrase of the x files. also, st paul didn't invent christiananity, but he's the most influential, other than maybe st helena as oromagi said. but it's possible to reconcile jesus' message and st paul's message, there's a tension there, but it's just a matter of how you reconcile them. such as the role of faith versus being a good person. if st paul really was divdinely inspired by vision and insight, maybe that's what God intended. (it's not possible to read the new testament in good faith and not think it's not inspired writing... even if you choose to stay skeptic, it's poetic and profound teachings if you're being honest and not black hearted)
Created:
there's also the fact that supernatural looking healing looks like it occurs to christans, and christian NDEs are common. these things as far as i can see can't be said about non christians or atheists. i know these points are debateable and open to interpretation, but my interpretation seems to be the most straight forward. jesus said you can know him not just by what he says but by his signs and wonders. and, the central message of NDEs is love and focus on God and relationships, which is also the message of jesus. it's also clear in our human nature to seek unconditional love and to give it, even if it's in our depraved state to not measure up. we all have a God sized hole that only God can fill. i realize these things im saying here are faith oriented, but it's not just faith, it's also a good dose of logic and reason too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
whether it's forced is a play on words. i can see yes or no calling it 'forced'. i'm more interested in the reasons skeptics would think religion shouldn't be taught to kids. i can see your points on full consent and knowledge, but is it actually bad to teach your kids your traditions? it's like teaching them about history, only the history is contested by some people. but just because it's contested, doesn't mean the religion is untrue or that it's bad to teach them.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
it looks like there must be something to this Jesus story, and the following events with his followers. but you assume the christian version is far fetched, so you choose not to worry about the fact that it looks like there's something to it. that's rationalizing.
Created:
the consensus of historicans is that jesus existed. his apostles are recorded to have spread the faith and to have died for their faith. historicans have record of when jesus' brother was martyred, the local communities were aghast. st paul one of the leading writers of the bible, is a historical fact that he existed and spread the faith, and to have then died for it. he said he had a vision of jesus at his conversion.
so what do skeptics think happened? if you dont think jesus existed, why do you deny scholar consensus? why do you think the apostles died for their faith? i know it doesn't prove the things they said were true, but why do you think they died for it? do you think st paul was a schizophrenic who happened to otherwise be sane, and to become of the leading figures of christainity? were the apostles and st paul deluded, was it a conspiracy of group delusion? why would they lie if they weren't deluded? does trying to rationalize and minimize the historical nature of all this stuff seem prudent, when there's the possibility that they weren't just deluded?
Created:
Posted in:
i think it's misguided to think we should base so much life and death and existential issues on what the bible says. as a christian, i think we should generally defer to it, but we should be careful. for example, st paul was writing to christian communities in the early church, to spread the faith... but to think he intended for his writings to be considered the word of God, is a stretch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
just do what homer simpson did, and sell your soul for a donut
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
it's one thing not to be a literalist, like maybe the text of a story isn't meant to be taken literally. but the bible passage about only sexual immorality being grounds for divorce is clear, and there's not much context to think it's not meant to be taken at face value. the websites i posted make good arguments for why we shouldn't take the verse at face value, but it's going beyond the words of the verse. if you are willing to take a verse that is clear like that and then throw the label "not literal" on it, and then completely change its meaning, you are very much undermining the bible, if you truly believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.
Created:
-->
@John_C_87
those are big walls of texts, but you didn't do much to address the yes and the why of domestic abuse not being a grounds for divorce and remarriage.
Created:
there's a question if jesus was referring to women who were 'divorced' or 'put away'. being put away meant the husband abandoned her without a bill of divorce. here are some alternate ways of reading this passage.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
you're one of the few left on this site that believes the bible has no errors in it. what do you think of this hypothetical?
Created:
jesus said getting remarried after divorce is adultery, except in cases involving sexual immorality. st paul has some other exceptions such as believers being married to unbelievers.
so what if a wife is victim of domestic physical abuse? she can't get divorced and remarried if there's no sexual immorality in the marriage. literalists would say the most she can do is separate from her husband and never remarry.
i think this is a case of maybe the bible isn't inerrant afterall, or being too literal about what it says. maybe jesus meant 'generally' only sexual immorality is the only exception? this is running loose with interpretation. i'd take that stance, but i'm not a bible is inerrant kinda guy.
i know there aren't many fundamentalist christians left on this site, but, what say ya'll? can a victim of domestic abuse with no sexual immorality involved get divorced and remarried?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
you hate hating, apparently
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
i am pro force and pro coercion
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
this was a fun related debate... 'the uinverse most likely didn't cause itself'
Created:
instead of saying god is necessary, id just say that the most straight forward way of looking at it, is that it looks like something other than the universe caused the universe to exist, and posit that that something might be God.
Created:
Posted in:
eastern christians such as eastern orthodox dont believe we are born into sin, we are only born the propensity to sin. that sounds better in my book. plus it's more common these days among christians to take adam and eve as a educational fiction. id say we shouldn't discount half of christians and pretend only western fundamentalist christianity matters.
Created:
Posted in:
engineering is more practical, so i would guess it would pay better. i think physics majors are smarter, but that doesn't pay the bills. at least, that's my impression. i majored in electrical engineering and environmental science, and it's nice to know there's lots of good paying jobs out there especially with my engineering degree.
Created:
Posted in:
the ohio state university. yes, the 'the' is necessary in the title.
Created:
for a hot minute there, the republican speaker race was between jordan versus scalise.... a pedophile sympathizer, versus a KKK sympathizer.
Created:
Posted in:
Sorcerers and magicians in bible days might have just been slight of hand and the Bible is being misleading to call magic
Created:
Posted in:
We don't have examples of things that r inexplicable being explained. That would be a contradiction. We only have examples of things that look inexplicable at first later being explained. If something truly looks inexplicable, it's fair to offer theories
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I missed that part. It's possible the Bible made a mistake, it's possible evil sources can do the supernatural too, but we have no examples in modern life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You r playing word games. Would it be fair for you to say the healings r inexplicable but that it looks like the body healed itself? According to you thats a contradiction. Apparently all we can do is say things r inexplicable and offer no theories.
Created:
Posted in:
The miracles of pope John Paul is
https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/the-miracle-that-made-pope-john-paul-ii-a-canonized-saint
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Christians can show evidence of things that look supernatural and r inexplicable. Non Christians and especially atheists can't show that, or at least never do. The Bible says Satan can work false signs and wonders and might pretend to be good, but I don't know if that includes the supernatural... we certainly don't ever see demonic things that look supernatural
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You talk about credentials and personal attributes. I think there would be consenus that biden is better. But you leave out substance, the issues. It's reasonable for people not to focus as much on what you think is important, credentials and personal attributes. Since I have a liberal bias I would agree biden is better on the issues, but a reasonable person could disagree
Created:
there's objectively pros and cons to both biden and trump. i can see preferring one or the other, and maybe even being somewhat passionate about it. but if you think half the nation is nuts for preferring the candidate that you oppose, that says a lot more about you than it does about them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
it is odd that you have such hang ups on the intricacies of the bible. either you are excessively worried about a fiction book, or you harbor some sympathies to it being something that is worthy of concerning yourself. at least, that's what it looks like to me. you might want to honestly reflect on that.
Created:
Posted in:
ABORTION
the wisdom of family guy, when it comes to abortion
ABORTION
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Even if all a man had to do is shape up to date women r still too picky. Maybe women r picky cause men suck but the fact remains women r picky.
I also highly doubt u have recent experience with dating apps. It's a sludge out there. Handsome successful men struggle. Dating is nothing like it was 20 years ago and especially longer
Created:
Posted in:
there's a heirarchy for who has it easiest with dating. lesbians have it hardest, cause they are all women and have to deal with the lesbian shit. straight men have it next hardest, cause they have to deal with women's shit. straight women have it next after that, cause they have to deal with men, which while they may not be as bad as women, have their own problems. and gay men have it easiest cause they are both men, and no one is dealing with a difficult woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
everyone cant be the top twenty percent of men. also, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. point, some people are just not as hot as others, and that's all there is to it... yes he can make himself as hot as possible, but to suggest that anyone can get into the top 20 percent is by definition misleading. even 'hot' guys struggle with online dating, even hot successful guys.... women on there want to be entertained, if a man doesn't use pick up artist skills, he has to be funny and interesting and smart, or he doesn't have much of a chance.
your point that anyone could aspire to be, or be good enough to be compared to, the top 20 percent is by definition wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
is the hearsay strong enough for an impeachment iquirery or investigation?
Created:
Posted in:
maybe i'm making it too complicated. if we dont know if big foot exists, then we can't call it evidence and we can't call it not evidence... it might be evidence. so on weaker arguments for God, if we can't say it's evidence and we can't say it's not evidence.. we'd have to say it might be evidence. right?
Created:
Posted in:
"At first glance, I read this and agreed with you that it was a good point. But now after considering it, I don't. It really is an unscientific way of looking at evidence and theories. It presumes much and it denies the purpose of evidence which is neutrality. "
back to the big foot example. if big foot dont exist, the foot print is more accurate to say consistent with big foot, but it'd be sketchy to call it evidence. if big foot does exist, then it'd obviously be evidence. but what if we dont know? i guess that is your point... we'd have to be neutral. but at that point, is it, or is it not, evidence of big foot, if we dont know if big foot exists? i know you said the footprint is evidence of something... but on that specific point, how do you answer it if we dont know if big foot exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
i agree, that 'evidence' in its most simple form, legally, is whether something is 'probative', whether it makes the liklihood of something being more true or not. it's not a high standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
i didn't respond to your post cause it was so weak. i typically only engage in responses that are quality worth responding to.
the fact of the matter, is that something happened to that lady that looks like it reaches beyond the realm of what is possible. a damaged optic nerve as far as humans know, dont just spontaeously just heal themselves, especially when it was after praying for intercession. you call it just inexplicable and not supernatural. but you are rationalizing it. again, it looks like something happened that is beyond the realm of what is possible. you deny it to cling to your own preocnceived notions, when the evidence is plainly right in front of you. i understand that your theories are true, that there could be something naturally occurring that we dont understand... but with common sense, even acccording to our known science.... the most straight forward way of looking at it is something beyond the realm of possible actually occurred. why dont these sorts of things happen to atheists? to follow your belief, we would have to believe your big assumption that they do occur,and it's just not reported. you claim there's no evidence, only because you have a dark heart, and a dark mind.
Created:
Posted in:
the majority of swipes with online dating from women, go to the top ten percent of men. the average woman thinks 80 percent of men are below average looking, while the average man thinks only 50 percent of women are below average. women are known to engage in hypergamy, where the man must have similar or better education and income. men generally dont care about that much, and sometimes being better in that regard than the man is a red flag to the man. the conventional women is that 80 percent of women are chasing the top 20 percent of men. if you are an average man, you dont get very many mutual 'likes' on dating apps, but the average women gets swamped with matches. they say the average woman lacks quality matches, but the average man lacks quality and quantity of matches. it's common for women to go for years with no relationship, not because she can't find a date, but because she's too picky. the average woman gets swamped with men pursuing them. i realize not every option is decent, but it's the case that there's gotta be something decent if they tried even just a little. the stats, are that for men under 30, 60 percent are single, while only 30 percent of those women are single.in general, in the next ten years, it's predicted that getting close to half of people will be single. it's a cultural phenomenon regarding our rugged indivuduality... but the main reason is that women are just too picky.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
i would need examples to believe your claims. maybe the mind causes healings, but it's always associted with belief in God from what i can tell. i'd even go so far as to say christians receive healings, and non christian claims are suspect. you say you know of a cancer healing, but cancer healings can sometimes spontaneously manifest... so that's not a good example.
it's a correlation versus causation thing, maybe it's not belief in God, but something that the mind causes. i wouldn't think so but who knows.
for "God" to mean anything, it has to be a being,or at least a higher power, like 'source' that NDE people often talk about.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
what if we just used the word 'like'?
taxation is 'like' theft? i'm not a libertarian, but i understand why a person would say this.
the lack of an option in choosing to participate in our system, is 'like' slavery?
i suppose it's possible to say it's all pie in the sky, it's just different philosophical ways of looking at things.
Created: