Total posts: 1,001
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
so would you agree with the conclusion that half the country is either stupid, ignorant, or engaging in cognitive dissonance? if there's more to that half of the population, how would you describe the rest of trump supporters?
i would think there are some conservatives who dont like voting for democrats, and trump is the one standing out to throw their support behind. wouldn't quite call that cognitive dissonance, as long as they are wiilling to admit trump is a terrible person. there are plenty of trumpsters who vote for him despite acknowledging that he sucks.
Created:
Posted in:
i dont have enough faith to be an atheist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
do you think there are reasonable trump supporters out there? can't half the country be crazy? or they are reasonable despite the fact they support trump? or maybe like nazi germany moved a whole country off the cliff, trump has led half the country off the cliff?
how would you characterize all this?
Created:
Posted in:
this site needs more trump supporters, or at least trump supporters who try to take politics seriously. i cant imagine half the country has gone crazy.... where are all the sane trump supporters to come here to defend trump and to defend their support of him?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
i dont believe in bodily autonomy... i believe in external influence or coercion.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
are you choosing not to reproduce as if you have a choice to begin with, or are women choosing for you?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
so you're sayin that you dont support the death penalty for women that have abortions?
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
you are over scrutinizing it. if a medical doctor says there's evidence for an afterlife, then we need to assume there's something to what he says. doctors are distinguished with smarts and science.
if we can establish that a soul exists, it follows that an afterlife probably exists too, given out of body experiences and afterlife experiences usually go together. i know you just said something like "it doesn't necessarily one thing prove the other" but you are being overly posturing yourself as if you dont think an afterlife would follow a soul being proven, when that's almost certainly not the case. you are engaging in truisms but your tone and the meaning of what you say is clear and flawed.
we can't prove that dead family members proves an afterlife. but it's at least evidence to begin with, cause we should be seeing more living nonrelatives and living relatives and dead nonrelatives, but we dont. it's possible people hallucinate dead family members, given so many were close to dead family. but if this is just a hallucination, why aren't people hallucinating taylor swift? why not their best friend that died when they were in elementary school? why not their living mother as a hallucination? not everyone was super close to dead family members so the 'people are often close to dead family' argument is weak.
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
you look open minded. you might like this thread. id say you look like an open minded christian, but i'm not sure if you are christian? you say things that indicate that you are, but also say things that show you are willing to doubt. if you are christian, you are open to truth as a general rule, and only accept jesus based on your best pursuit of truth, and not cause someone told you to.
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
there's also the possibility that we are dealing with the consequences of original sin, due to the fall of man. i agree with eastern christians, that we dont inherit sin, we inherit just the propensity to sin. but even just the propensity to sin, means that on this side of heaven, there is imperfection. near death experiences teach us that a purpose of life, is to experience separation.... the next life is about unity and oneness, but this life is about separation and imperfection.
Created:
is it possible for there to be a purpose for suffering? yes. it can help us make progress to end suffering. we are co creators in that sense. it can give people the perspective to appreciate no suffering. as jesus said, the man wasn't born with health problems because of something him or his parents did, but to give glory to God when he's one day disease free.also, asking why we still have suffering is like asking why darkness exists. that's just the way it is. can we have just light? i dont think that is possible in our reality. same way, suffering may need to exist in this reality too.of course, a person can just insist that if it's possible for suffering not to exist but does, then it isn't necessary. a person could rationally cling to that principle, but they have to admit that they might be wrong if everything i say is true, and they need to admit that the alternative view that i present is completely realistic. What if God and heaven exist, and the reality is how i present it? then the skeptic is just clinging to philosophy that has no basis in reality. the words and thoughts, the pointless ramblings, of mere men.
more
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
It is different than the apostles just making up a story. Cult members in general don't think they r making anything up. But while the theory that Jesus led a cult doesn't address your proposed ideas in your opening post, the theory is still possible, isn't it, as a natural explanation?
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
so you asked for a naturalistic explanation for why the apostles did what they did, and i pointed out the cult theory. why doesn't the cult theory fit the definition of an adequate naturalistic answer? do you think cult members wouldn't make up seeing a resurrected cult leader?
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
if someone said that jesus was a cult leader what would you say?
Created:
ancient historians note factually that the apostles died for their faith based on what they say they saw. usually people dont die for hoaxes.... yes sometimes fanatics might die for second hand testimony or for cults, but the apostles testimony was first hand. ancient historians dont know about all the apostles, but the core ones they do know, such as peter, paul, james, and john. ancient historians called jesus a magician based on his reputation for doing mystical things. both jewish and roman ancient historians made note that jesus existed. there's a consensus among modern historians that he existed. basically, there's compelling reasons to think there might be something to this jesus story. that's not looking at miracles, near death experiences, or just looking at the writings of the apostles philosophically... as jesus said, his sheep know his voice, the shepard.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
do you like being woke? i thought sane people knew that being woke is bad, given by definition woke means irrational about identity politics. i dont know why anyone would choose to say and think woke stuff
Created:
the fact that half of murders are committed by black people, might help explain this. despite blacks being a small minority of the population.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
oh, so a person is now a psychopath if they call their newborn son a boy. gotcha.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
what movies have good guys torturing bad guys? im sure it's out there, but i question if it's as common as you are indicating.
Created:
fun topic
Created:
maybe bacon doesn't prove God.
maybe bacon IS God.
all hail bacon!
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
you have a very weak argument. "the placebo effect helps heal people. therefore all inexplicable healing of incurable diseases, are based on placebo or the mind". i saw two examples in your articles... someone's burn healing faster, someone's headache going away faster. those aren't considered incurable, only things healing faster than they otherwise would. what about what were thought to be incurable illnesses being cured? what about someone who has a damaged retina suddenly being able to see, or someone with Parkinson suddenly being disease free like we see with miracles of the saints? i will admit, it's possible these 'miracles' are only related to the brain, but you are making a really weak argument that that's the case. i should just uproot everything that has been established in the congregation for the causes of the saints and elsewhere over millennia, cause you posted some flimsy science on the placebo effect?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
maybe simon the magician was a fraud. i am open to the possibility of dark magic, but it's not covered in much detail in the bible and we dont see it in every day modern life.
christians perform miracles to this day. the catholic church requires that for a saint to be canonized, there has to be three miracles that are inexplicable. there's lots of examples outside of the catholic church too, in christianity. there's barely any or questionable examples outside of christianity. i know you contested that point once, but it was a non sensical response so i didn't respond to you. if you want me to show the flaw in your reasoning, go ahead and argue your points.I'm taking issue with your arguments because you are stuck in the bible when it comes to find an explanation for the miracles, even when the bible doesn't give good reasons for explaining the phenomena, which is fine because it's based on a primitive mindset. We are in the 21st century, we need to find out what the fuck this is all about and I am incapable of buying what the bible try to sell us.
frankly this is a non sense answer. i'm making claims of things that look supernatural, happening in modern times. you then for some reason say i'm stuck in the bible and that we need modern principles to understand it. okay, the bible point is a non sequiter, i dont know why you are trying to paint my miracle argument with being stuck in the bible, as that's only loosely relevant. you should use modern science to refute what i say, but when it comes to that, in the past you always get into pseudo science or hearsay. i think it might help you to take a class in logic and reasoning.
this is a debate website, so sorry if i'm not full of love and affection. i truly do have a softer side. you came at me sideways, so i tried to set straight your insults.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
are you saying there were reports from ancient historians of magic from nonchristians? or is this a contemporary thing? you need to cite something or add better context for me to accept your proposition.
christians perform miracles to this day. the catholic church requires that for a saint to be canonized, there has to be three miracles that are inexplicable. there's lots of examples outside of the catholic church too, in christianity. there's barely any or questionable examples outside of christianity. i know you contested that point once, but it was a non sensical response so i didn't respond to you. if you want me to show the flaw in your reasoning, go ahead and argue your points.
i dont know why you keep harping on the point. i read all day every day. with formal education im over educated, and even outside of formal education. im conversant on a wide range of complex topic, which is a sign of high intelligence. my scores on standardized tests and on aptitude tests show me to have a high IQ. are you insecure with yourself or something? i know i can be sloppy with my writing but the content of my posts illustrates knowledge and wisdom. i'm not gonna carefully craft everything i write for a stupid internet forum.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
it was just a figure of speech. jesus' point was that when someone dies, you have to move on with life, you can't dwell on the past. it's excellent wisdom.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I think Jesus replied let the dead bury the dead. What is your point?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Jesus followers performed miracles in Jesus name. Even Jesus said that would and should happen. I think u r confused again
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
For conservatives, it's always a conspiracy
Created:
I miss the old days when the race was between a pedophile sympathizer and a kkk sympathizer
Created:
-->
@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: