Tom Pierron wrote:
In short: How can one be truly certain
of one's faith?
Just having faith that your faith is correct
is not good enough, as our experiences with COBU
has painfully taught us. Absolutely a case
in point we all know too well. We gave
up everything to live for a certain way
and understanding and unity and then found it out to be something different
than we thought it was in the beginning.
Or we grew.
Interesting perspective. Haven't thought of it in quite that way before.
> Those in COBU are those who REFUSE to grow. They must be> under the voice of someone else, as they cannot cut the umbilical cord or die. Or, like in The Matrix, they'll be flushed into the sewer.
They are a fine example of what I term "Mindless Vessels of
Belief." They are unable to think critically about their own
beliefs systems, unable to ask questions and seek answers.
> (BTW, this fellow that wrote Cracking the Bible
Codes is
> into a lot of stuff. Besides cryptology
and how that necessitated the computer - he> speaks of "building a quantum
computer".)Quantum computers are still the stuff of science fiction.
They are possible in theory; the problem is does one
construct one to do useful work. I don't expect to see
anything practical with quantum computers in our lifetime.
> The Matrix here we come. (p 253)> "For we walk by faith and not by sight."
The problem with this, of course, is in knowing what "faith"
is the correct one. If by "sight" is meant our reason and
critical thinking, we are supposed to cast aside critical
thinking to "just accept" something, anything, without a
clear basis -- that can only come through reason and
critical thinking. Thus, the Bible itself serves as a recipe for creating
cults.
I recall my experiences with COBU. My reason was shut down
by the cult, supported by various bible verses like the one above.
Also, one must ask the question: why is faith pushed so much
in the first place? Looking at this from a memetics
standpoint, faith memes and reason memes cannot co-exist, so
the faith memes must find ways to inoculate its host against
logic and reason. The faith memes best at forcing out reason
memes are selected for in some hosts.
> Bottom line, to be honest, you'd have to say
> it's your understanding and you're giving it
your best> shot.
> Some people would rather it be faith instead
of etched in> stone:
That is, some are better faith receptacles than others. And
faith requires you to be a Mindless Vessel of Belief in order for it
to work.
> Cracking the Bible Codes - pp15&16:
> "...There were many wise people
of every faith, or none,
> who found it flatly> objectionable
that scientific evidence of this sort
> should even be thought to
> exist. My father-in-law,
Joseph Leff, a well-respected
> leader of the New York> Jewish
community and current president of the
> influential Ninety-second> Street
Y, was appalled at the prospect that
> mathematically rigorous evidence
> for God was claimed to exist.
"What would faith mean,> then?" he asked me,
> as I debriefed him in the Sky Club
atop the former Pan> AM Building follow-
> ing my return from Israel."
The faith memes have become more powerful by transcending
themselves to a lofty goal to be achieved. The faith concept
itself becomes a powerful ideology.-Fred
================================
From: "Raynard" <n8vzl@mountain.net>
Yes I love that reference...
I am no mindless vessel, yet I do believe. One could also
consider you a mindless vessel, and that Satan has sifted
you out by using the cult and thereby defeating you. I will not
claim it but rather pray that you return to the body.
Ray
==============================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>
Fred wrote:In short: How can one be truly certain
of one's faith?
Just having faith that your faith is correct
is not good enough, as our
experiences with COBU has painfully taught us.
Tom wrote: Absolutely a case in point we all know
too well. We gave
up everything to live for a certain way and understanding
and unity and then
found it out to be something different than we
thought it was in the
beginning. Or we grew.
Fred wrote: Interesting perspective. Haven't thought
of it in quite that way
before.
Tom wrote: Those in COBU are those who REFUSE
to grow. They must be
under the voice of someone else, as they cannot
cut the umbilical cord or
die. Or, like in The Matrix, they'll be
flushed into the sewer.
Fred wrote:They are a fine example of what I term
"Mindless Vessels of
Belief." They are unable to think critically
about their own
beliefs systems, unable to ask questions and
seek answers.
Tom wrote: The Matrix here we come. (p 253) "For
we walk by faith and not by
sight."
Fred wrote: The problem with this, of course,
is in knowing what "faith" is
the correct one. If by "sight" is meant our reason
and
critical thinking, we are supposed to cast aside
critical thinking to "just
accept" something, anything, without a clear
basis -- that can only come
through reason and critical thinking. Thus, the
Bible itself serves as a
recipe for creating cults.
Tom wrote: I recall my experiences with COBU.
My reason was shut down
by the cult, supported by various bible verses
like the one above.
Fred wrote: Also, one must ask the question: why
is faith pushed so much in
the first place? Looking at this from a memetics
standpoint, faith memes and
reason memes cannot co-exist, so the faith memes
must find ways to inoculate
its host against logic and reason. The faith
memes best at forcing out
reason memes are selected for in some hosts.
Mark writes: (12/27) Hi Fred, you certainly have a different understanding
of faith than I do. The faith I have does not shut out reason,
common
sense, critical or logical thinking... However, you seem to have
a belief
system of some sort, so therefore you must have some faith. It is true
that
our experiences make it difficult to trust pastors and churches, but
the way
you described faith is different from my experience of faith.
I don't
suggest "blind faith" for anyone... BTW Tom, wasn't there an album
with that
title.
Fred wrote: That is, some are better faith receptacles
than others. And
faith requires you to be a Mindless Vessel of
Belief in order for it to
work.
Mark writes: (12/27)Everyone has some faith, it is what one puts their
faith
in that makes the difference in how it works. Einstein was on his deathbed
saying there is a God, some of the greatest scientists like him and
Newton
had faith.
Fred wrote: The faith memes have become more powerful
by transcending
themselves to a lofty goal to be achieved. The
faith concept itself becomes
a powerful ideology.
================================================================================
Fred wrote: Also, one must ask the question:
why is faith pushed so much in
the first place? Looking at this from a
memetics standpoint, faith memes and
reason memes cannot co-exist, so the faith
memes must find ways to inoculate
its host against logic and reason. The
faith memes best at forcing out
reason memes are selected for in some hosts.
Hi Fred, If you know anything about reason & logic, it's that the
reasoning
process is only a tool. It's effective only when you start with right
premises or else you will come to the wrong conclusions even though
you
followed sound reasoning. (wrong input = wrong output).
Biblical faith is a faith based on facts, 2 PET 1:16, while there are
many
things hard to understand, of which we must simply trust, the Bible
gives
enough proofs (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it's author is God.
That's if
one were willing to fairly search &
not dismiss it because of his presuppositions.
Herm Weiss
=============================================================================
> Mark writes: (12/27)Everyone has some faith,
it is what one puts their faith
> in that makes the difference in how it works.
Einstein was on his deathbed
> saying there is a God, some of the greatest
scientists like him and Newton
> had faith.
Yes everyone has a measure of faith. We exercise our faith each time
we step
into an elevator, or sit in a chair. We trust that the unseen molecules
will hold
up under our weight. How about when we step onto an airplane, are we
not
blindly trusting the pilot with our very lives. I've only been in flight
once, and I was
a kid and it was a blast. The thing had pontoons and we took off from
a lake
and landed on another lake. I could groove on such a plane today too.
I do think the Lord is calling you back to the Body Fred. His Word
is the same
as it was when you first believed, accept Him as you are and He'll
heal those
memories.
Ray
==============================================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
Raynard wrote:
> > Mark writes: (12/27)Everyone has some faith,
it is what one puts their faith
>> > in that makes the difference in how it works.
Einstein was on his deathbed
> > saying there is a God, some of the greatest
scientists like him and Newton
> > had faith.>
> Yes everyone has a measure of faith. We exercise
our faith each time we step
> into an elevator, or sit in a chair.
Wrong. It does not take "faith" to step into an elevator. It takes trust
- quite
a different thing. It takes trust in those responsible for the elevator,
and
trust of the city that license the elevator. Plus, the overwhelming
experiences
with elevators demonstrates that they are highly reliable. There is
no need for
"faith" here.>
We trust that the unseen molecules will hold
> up under our weight.
They do so countless times before, therefore there is no real reason
to suspect
that they will not at any one given time. We take it for granted, we
don't even
think about it. This is not "faith", but complacency.
> How about when we step onto an airplane, are
we not
> blindly trusting the pilot with our very lives.
I've only been in flight once,
> and I was a kid and it was a blast. The thing
had pontoons and we took off from a lake
> and landed on another lake. I could groove
on such a plane today too.
Planes have an impeccable safety record. It is actually more dangerous
to be on
the road than it is to fly. Again, this is not something you think
about, but
take it for granted.
> I do think the Lord is calling you back to
the Body Fred. His Word is the same
>> as it was when you first believed, accept
Him as you are and He'll heal those
> memories.
Which "lord"? There are an infinity of possible "lords", and absolutely
no way
to verify any of them. Incidentally, the very fact that there is no
way to
verify any of the "lords" or "gods" means that they are ALL irrelevant
(assuming
ANY of them exist). Remember that faith and trust are two entirely
different things. I can trust
that something will work or not break down because it has worked countless
times
before. In the event that it fails to work or break down, there are
courses of
action I can take to circumvent the problem and minimize any potential
damage.
Also, if I have any doubt about something not working, I can always
take it
apart myself and check every component. There's a great deal of empiricism
I can
bring to bear to raise my confidence level.
And most things like elevators, planes, and chairs I simply take for
granted. I
have no reason to suspect their failure, and if I do, I can always
do a check.
This has nothing to do with faith.
-Fred
=================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> Fred wrote: Also, one must ask the question:
why is faith pushed so much in
> the first place? Looking at this from
a memetics standpoint, faith memes and
> reason memes cannot co-exist, so the
faith memes must find ways to inoculate
> its host against logic and reason. The
faith memes best at forcing out
> reason memes are selected for in some
hosts.> >>
> Hi Fred, If you know anything about reason
& logic, it's that the reasoning
> process is only a tool. It's effective only
when you start with right
> premises or else you will come to the wrong
conclusions even though you
> followed sound reasoning.
Ah, yes. But the application of the Scientific Method ensures that
you usually
have sound input to your reasoning process. Being able to test your
basic
assumptions is essential in making sure you don't fall into the "Garbage
in-garbage out" trap.> (wrong input = wrong output).
> Biblical faith is a faith based on facts,
Are those "facts" verifiable? Testable? Observable?
> 2 PET 1:16, while there are many
> things hard to understand, of which we must
simply trust, the Bible gives
> enough proofs (beyond a reasonable doubt) that
it's author is God.
I have yet to see any compelling proof. The number of contradictions
in the Bible
alone would strongly suggest that there were many more than just one
author. So,
how does this work? Do you ignore the data that doesn't fit your "One
author"
model? Saying that it's "hard to understand" is a poor excuse. There
has to be
some level of falsifiability here in order to be credible. We cannot
ignore the
glaring contradictions, nor can we attempt to simply excuse them away.
They MUST
be dealt with.Scientific Method as applies to the bible:You start off
with the hypothesis of "One Author".You establish metrics to measure this.
One such metric must be the number of contradictions.You also need a control.
Perhaps some work of similar length KNOWN to be written
by a single author.You use the same set of metrics against this work,
and compare the results.
I have no time for such an experiment, but just from what I know of
the Bible, I
can outright say that it would fail this test miserably.
> That's if one were willing to fairly search
& not dismiss it because of his presuppositions.
Define "fair search". If my "search" turn up results other than what
you expect,
would you jump to say that my search is not "fair"? Herman, I've already
done my
"search", and it has turned up less than favorable results. If you
want to call
my search "unfair", then you are welcome to your opinion. I still have
very
simple, fundamental questions that NO christian has been able to answer
with
regards to their faith. This has been the case over the past 20+ years.
Just how
much longer should I "search"?
Instead, I have taken a "step back", ala Flatland or "The Matrix" -
I took my
self out of the whole picture of the "faith", "belief" and "religion"
arena, and
peered at them for what they really are, with regards to the nature
of humans.
What I now see makes it impossible for me to ever again take any religion
or
belief in "god" seriously. I pity my fellow humans.
======================================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>
Mark writes: (12/27)Everyone has some faith, it
is what one puts their faith
in that makes the difference in how it works.
Einstein was on his deathbed
saying there is a God, some of the greatest scientists
like him and Newton
had faith.
Ray wrote: Yes everyone has a measure of faith.
We exercise our faith each
time we step into an elevator, or sit in a chair.
Fred wrote: Wrong. It does not take "faith" to step into an elevator.
It
takes trust - quite a different thing. It takes trust in those responsible
for the elevator, and trust of the city that license the elevator.
Plus, the
overwhelming experiences with elevators demonstrates that they are
highly
reliable. There is no need for
"faith" here.
Mark wrote: (12/28)This gets close to hair splitting
on words, faith and
trust are closely related, you can't have one
without the other.
BTW I've seen some elevators where you need faith
(smile).
Ray wrote: How about when we step onto an airplane,
are we not
blindly trusting the pilot with our very lives.
I've only been in flight
once, and I was a kid and it was a blast. The
thing had pontoons and we took
off from a lake and landed on another lake. I
could groove on such a plane
today too.
Fred wrote: Planes have an impeccable safety record. It is actually
more
dangerous to be on the road than it is to fly. Again, this is not something
you think about, but take it for granted.
Mark writes: That's what most of the airlines
are trying to promote, you
could do commercials, Fred.
Ray wrote: I do think the Lord is calling you
back to the Body Fred. His
Word is the same as it was when you first believed,
accept Him as you are
and He'll heal those memories.
Fred wrote: Which "lord"? There are an infinity of possible "lords",
and
absolutely no way to verify any of them. Incidentally, the very fact
that
there is no way to verify any of the "lords" or "gods" means that they
are
ALL irrelevant (assuming ANY of them exist).
Mark writes: (12/28)If you wish to be your own
Lord enough, you won't see
the true Lord of all as worthy in your life.
This is a choice you're allowed
to make based on a "freed" will, no one with
a sinful nature has a truly
free will.
Fred wrote: Remember that faith and trust are two entirely different
things.
I can trust that something will work or not break down because it has
worked
countless times before. In the event that it fails to work or break
down,
there are courses of action I can take to circumvent the problem and
minimize any potential damage. Also, if I have any doubt about something
not
working, I can always take it
apart myself and check every component. There's a great deal of empiricism
I
can bring to bear to raise my confidence level.
And most things like elevators, planes, and chairs I simply take for
granted. I have no reason to suspect their failure, and if I do, I
can
always do a check. This has nothing to do with faith.
Mark writes: (12/28) I still don't see faith and
trust as being much
different. Trust and confidence is right in the
Webster's dictionary
definition of faith. Anyways you show great
faith in your sources that say
patriarchy is evil and same sex marriages are
good. You have more faith in
these sources than I do... Fred, your writings
on those subjects show you
still have the notion of a conscience, even if
it is reversed, the concept
of right and wrong is still there.
====================================================================================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>
Fred wrote: Ah, yes. But the application of the
Scientific Method ensures
that you usually have sound input to your reasoning
process. Being able to
test your basic assumptions is essential in making
sure you don't fall into
the "Garbage in-garbage out" trap.
Herm wrote: Biblical faith is a faith based on facts,
Fred wrote: Are those "facts" verifiable? Testable? Observable?
Mark writes: (12/28) There are facts that are verifiable if you have
inner
vision. The fact that you still have a conscience should tell you something,
if you are willing to admit it. If anyone plays God in their life,
they will
have a sense of conflict with the real God. The existence of conscience
shows the existence of a true standard, which the proud intellectuals
don't
want to accept... There are other things which are evidences
for those with
eyes to see, but there are some who refuse to see due to the inclination
of
their soul. To be truly fair and objective, you have to put emotional
considerations aside and look at the facts in a dispassionate manner...
How
about the creation itself. Do you think the creation created itself?
Who
caused the singularity that led to the big bang? There must be a first
cause. Can you look at that objectively, Fred?
=======================================
From: CbHIMtg@cs.com
fred@mitchellware.com writes:<<
Which "lord"? There are an infinity of
possible "lords", and absolutely no way
to verify any of them. Incidentally, the
very fact that there is no way to
verify any of the "lords" or "gods" means
that they are ALL irrelevant(assuming
ANY of them exist). >>
Hi Fred, One of your presuppositions is what you stated above: "and
absolutely no way
to verify any of them," & that's a fact according to you. your
use of the
words "absolutely
no way" shows that no amount of evidence can or would persuade you,
because
your mind is absolutely set against it. Your first presupposition is
there
absolutely is no God,
thereby dismissing any evidence presented to you (such as is contained
in
Josh McDowell's book). One thing is certain your betting your life
on it.
Herm Weiss
======================================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> And most things like elevators, planes, and
chairs I simply take for granted. I
> have no reason to suspect their failure, and
if I do, I can always do a check.
> This has nothing to do with faith.
Don't you have faith in something you trust? Even if not a teensy
eensy amount.
They are related - faith and trust. Faith can grow out of trust
and trust can
grow out of faith. You can't have one, you can't have one,
you can't have one without the oth er er err.
=========================================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Hi, Fred,
I can't take too much time to write here as I've got some other things
to
do, but I did want to respond to just one thing you said below.Mark
wrote,
> > (wrong input = wrong output).> > Biblical
faith is a faith based on facts,
and you responded,> Are those "facts" verifiable?
Testable? Observable?
I have a lot of respect for you and the scientific method that you
are
encouraging us to use. In many cases, that is appropriate. When it
comes
to historical events, however, the scientific method is not the
appropriate method to apply. One can't test and observe a historical
event from two millennia ago. In this case, I believe that it's better
to
use the methods that historians would apply. Not being a historian
myself, I can't go into detail about that. What I can say, though,
is
that of all the theories I've heard about the Resurrection of Jesus
of
Nazareth, the one that seems most credible is the one given by the
writers of the New Testament.Looking forward to your response,
Bob San Pascual
==================================
From: CbHIMtg@cs.com
Fred wrote: Ah, yes. But the application of the Scientific Method
ensures
that you usually have sound input to your reasoning process.
Being able to
test your basic assumptions is essential in making sure you don't
fall into
the "Garbage in-garbage out" trap.
Herm wrote: Biblical faith is a faith based
on facts,
Fred wrote: Are those "facts" verifiable? Testable? Observable?
>>
Hi Fred, Even using the Scientific Method requires
faith in that the first
step in the process is formulating a Hypothesis
(an educated guess,
assumption). If by faith you continue to investigate
& test your Hypothesis &
some evidence shows it to be true, it becomes
a Theory. By faith that you are on the right tract, you continue
testing until the results of testing prove true
every time, then it become a Law. You see
how each step is motivated by educated guesses.
Read (JN 9:32-33, 10:25,
10:30-33, 10:37-38,15:24, 20:24-31, HEB 2:3-4).
Even the gospels accounts
show that the evidence for Jesus's claims was
his appeal to the miracles he
had done & not some blind faith in His divinity.
The only explanation of His
enemies for these miracles was they were done
by the power of the devil.
Herm Weiss
=================================================================================
> Fred wrote: Remember that faith and trust are two entirely different
things.
> I can trust that something will work or not break down because it
has worked
> countless times before. In the event that it fails to work or break
down,
> there are courses of action I can take to circumvent the problem
and
> minimize any potential damage. Also, if I have any doubt about something
not
> working, I can always take it apart myself and check every component.
There's a great deal of empiricismI
> can bring to bear to raise my confidence level. And most things like
elevators, planes, and chairs I simply take for
> granted. I have no reason to suspect their failure, and if I do,
I can always do a check. This has nothing to do with faith.
Raynard has written:
Wrong, you have faith and or trust in a particular
Airline that they will not
fail you. I do not take air travel for granted,
so the we in we take certain
things for granted does not fit aptly here. We
trust an airline flying machine
will not fall out of the sky. You say they are
quite dependable, but they do
for unexplainable reasons fall out of the sky
at times. Now cars which have
a higher accident rate, don't fall off the roadway
and don't "just" explode
while in transit. However I am "trusting" the
auto will get me from here to
there with little difficulty and yes I need to
keep it oiled, gassed, and whatnot
to be reasonably sure it will run. I take precautions.
I have also taken a
precaution to assure myself of everlasting life.
I have accepted the "only Way"
to God and that is through Lord Jesus, the Son
of the Living God. Now my
friend you may take our report, trust in Him
or you can one day stand before
our Holy God and explain to Him what you have
done with His Son and the Words
that were shared with you. Your wisdom will not
save you, and you do seem like a
wise person, but wisdom cannot help you before
a Holy God. All you need to do
is accept His Grace and His Mercy. I suppose
the first thing you need to do
is accept that The Bible is God's Word to man.
If you cannot accept the Bible as
God's Word to man, then there is little else
we can do for you except pray
that one day you will. Love In Jesus Holy Name.
Raynard
================================
Fred,
Your post sounds very credible and I commend you for your lucid style
of
writing and debating. I'd like to offer just one response to what you
wrote.
It seems in the case of religion you're trying to find a way to prove
whether or not Christianity is credible based solely on scientific
evidence. As I said in another post, the scientific method is a great
method to use in many areas of life, and even in the field of religion,
there are times when it is an appropriate method.
Please keep in mind, however, that many things cannot be proven or
disproven by science, as of right now. Just as an example, scientists
don't go around telling us whether or not a man and woman are "in love."
Perhaps psychiatrists and psychologists do, but that's not "hard"
empirical science, which seems to be the type of science you're trying
to
use to test whether or not any religion is worthy of a person's
allegiance. Another example: can scientists prove or disprove that
Julius
Caesar ever lived? Again, this lies outside the field of "hard" science.
Nevertheless, the faith that God requires from us is not blind faith,
unverifiable by nothing at all. There is the evidence from the
Resurrection of Jesus, which includes an empty tomb, a body that was
never found, eyewitnesses to the risen Christ, reliable historical
documents to the effect, people willing to die because of their
conviction that He had risen from the dead, and radical conversions
of
skeptics past and present. Is any of this verifiable by the empirical
method? Of course not. But it is evidence nonetheless, evidence of
the
historical, psychological, and perhaps philosophical kind.
Fred, I know that you're an intelligent person. And because you are,
I
know that you're able to expand your mind to accept not just empirical
evidence, but other types as well.
Bob San Pascual
===================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com
> Mark writes: (12/27)Everyone has some faith,
it is what one puts their faith
> in that makes the difference in how it works.
Einstein was on his deathbed
> saying there is a God, some of the greatest
scientists like him and Newton
> had faith.
Einstien's God is not the God you think it is. He saw God as a metaphor
for the
whole of the universe, not so much as the separate being that Christians
believe
in. Also recall that Einstien was Jewish.
> Ray wrote: Yes everyone has a measure of faith.
We exercise our faith each
> time we step into an elevator, or sit in a
chair.>
> Fred wrote: Wrong. It does not take "faith"
to step into an elevator. It
> takes trust - quite a different thing. It takes
trust in those responsible
> for the elevator, and trust of the city that
license the elevator. Plus, the
> overwhelming experiences with elevators demonstrates
that they are highly
> reliable. There is no need for> "faith" here.>
> Mark wrote: (12/28)This gets close to hair
splitting on words, faith and
> trust are closely related, you can't have one
without the other.
> BTW I've seen some elevators where you need
faith (smile).
Hehehe. See my other post, where I detail the differences.
> Fred wrote: Planes have an impeccable safety
record. It is actually more
> dangerous to be on the road than it is to fly.
Again, this is not something
> you think about, but take it for granted.>
> Mark writes: That's what most of the airlines
are trying to promote, you
> could do commercials, Fred.
No, check the safety records with the FAA, note also the number of
times you've
ever heard of commercial flights crashing and the handful of people
that die
from that vs. the number of traffic fatalities per year, which is in
the
thousands.
> Ray wrote: I do think the Lord is calling you
back to the Body Fred. His
> Word is the same as it was when you first believed,
accept Him as you are
> and He'll heal those memories.>
> Fred wrote: Which "lord"? There are an infinity
of possible "lords", and
> absolutely no way to verify any of them. Incidentally,
the very fact that
> there is no way to verify any of the "lords"
or "gods" means that they are
> ALL irrelevant (assuming ANY of them exist).>
> Mark writes: (12/28)If you wish to be your
own Lord enough, you won't see
> the true Lord of all as worthy in your life.
This is a choice you're allowed
> to make based on a "freed" will, no one with
a sinful nature has a truly
> free will.
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What is a "sinful nature",
how
do you define that? In terms of your own chosen set of precepts and
religious
writings? How do you know YOU have the right set, as opposed to the
others? And
just what is "free will", anyway? "Free will" is what I term
a "mirage concept"
-- when you actually try to analyze what "free will" is, the whole
concept
quickly falls apart. "Free will" has no practical meaning. Nothing
to pin it on.
For instance, If I were to walk up to you and slap you in the face,
did I do
that out of my own "free will"? Or did "something" make me do it? How
would you
answer the question? How would you verify your answer? Or would you
fall into
circular reasoning? And if you were to slap me back, did you act on
your own
free will? Was it an impulse? If you act on impulse (and we all do
from time to
time), is that "free will"? Or did "something" make you do it? And
what is the
nature and basis of that "something"?
> Fred wrote: Remember that faith and trust are
two entirely different things.
> I can trust that something will work or not
break down because it has worked
> countless times before. In the event that it
fails to work or break down,
> there are courses of action I can take to circumvent
the problem and
> minimize any potential damage. Also, if I have
any doubt about something not
> working, I can always take it apart myself
and check every component. There's a great deal of empiricism I
> can bring to bear to raise my confidence level.
> And most things like elevators, planes, and
chairs I simply take for
> granted. I have no reason to suspect their
failure, and if I do, I can
> always do a check. This has nothing to do with
faith.>
> Mark writes: (12/28) I still don't see faith
and trust as being much
> different. Trust and confidence is right in
the Webster's dictionary
> definition of faith. Anyways you show
great faith in your sources that say
> patriarchy is evil and same sex marriages are
good.
I do not go by other sources to make that determination. That is a
matter of
personal determination, based on logic and reason and my own understanding
of
the human condition. Furthermore, I do not place value judgments on
either
patriarchy or gay/lesbian marriages, anymore than I place value judgments
one
way or another on "traditional" marriages. Each person must determine
for
oneself what is "right" and "wrong" for oneself, and not try to push
that
determination on other individuals, who may think differently or have
made
different determinations for themselves. Where there is consent, as
far as I'm
concerned, there is no "evil."> You have more
faith in
> these sources than I do... Fred, your writings
on those subjects show you
> still have the notion of a conscience, even
if it is reversed, the concept
> of right and wrong is still there.
What are you trying to say here? My "source" is myself, period. I think
for
myself, I make my own determinations, I establish my own bases for
determination. My goal is to maximize liberty for all, and to encourage
all to
practice self-determination, rather than be a "follower" of someone
else's
determinations. Only in this fashion can we be assured of avoiding
the "cult
effect" -- or becoming yet another Mindless Vessel of Belief.-
Fred
============================================================
Raynard wrote:
Raynard has written:
Who do you think you are? A god?
Wrong, you have faith and or trust in a particular
Airline that they will not
fail you. I do not take air travel for granted,
so the we in we take certain
things for granted does not fit aptly here. We
trust an airline flying
machine will not fall out of the sky.
YOU may not take air travel for granted, but I fly so routinely I hardly
think about it. I take it for granted, just like I take driving on the
road for granted. Actually, I don't take driving for granted. I understand
how airplanes fly and the physics behind it. The physics are very sound,
well tested a million times over, and has been shown to be very reliable.
If YOU have apprehensions about flying, don't project your own apprehensions
onto the rest of us.
You say they are quite dependable, but they do
for unexplainable reasons fall out of the sky at times.
And far, far more often cars on the road run into each other, killing
those inside. Planes DO NOT "fall out of the sky", as you put it, for inexplicable
reasons. There are who teams brought to bear to explain exactly WHY airline
accidents happen on those infrequent times they do. They sometimes spend
years combing over every tiny piece of recovered wreckage to find the reason.
Once the reasons are found, they then find ways to prevent it from happening
again. This is why air travel has become as safe as it is. I wish the same
could be done for road travel.
Ray, I think you need to learn to manage your fears, not let them carry
you away to irrational conclusions.
Now cars which have
a higher accident rate, don't fall off the roadway
and don't "just" explode
while in transit.
But far more people die in car crashes per year
than in plane crashes. We are talking the range of tens of thousands PER
YEAR! Sounds pretty scary to me!!!! You have to be concerned with EVERY
DRIVER AROUND YOU and, more importantly, ALL THOSE DRIVERS PASSING YOU
IN THE OPPOSING LANES. Frankly, I don't trust other drivers on the road,
and my level of distrust (and the resultant effects it has on my defensive
driving) has kept me from having any serious accidents over the past 20+
years!!!!
However I am "trusting" the auto will get me
from here to
there with little difficulty and yes I need to
keep it oiled, gassed, and
whatnot to be reasonably sure it will run. I
take precautions. I have also taken a
precaution to assure myself of everlasting life.
How can you have "assurance" of "everlasting life" when you can't even
demonstrate that "everlasting life" exists? You may have faith in "everlasting
life", but there is NO WAY you can have any level of assurance. Well,
I suppose you can have false assurance...
I have accepted the "only Way"
to God and that is through Lord Jesus, the Son
of the Living God.
That may be the "only way" to your particular "god", but there are
legions of beliefs and faiths and religions in the world. For you to claim
that yours is the "only way" borders on bigotry.
Now my friend you may take our report, trust
in Him or you can one day stand before
our Holy God and explain to Him what you have
done with His Son and the
Words that were shared with you.
Now you are sounding like a COBU member! Is there a real Ray in there
somewhere?
Your wisdom will not save you,
That presupposes that I "need" to be "saved", and from "what". No,
I don't "need" to be "saved" from anything.
and you do seem like a wise person,
Actually, I'm a blithering idiot. Perhaps in 500 years or so from now
could I even hope to call myself "wise". I am just starting to scratch
the surface. My "wisdom" is in knowing that I am an idiot. This is something
I am painfully aware of every day.
but wisdom cannot help you before a Holy God.
You mean YOUR "Holy God".
All you need to do
is accept His Grace and His Mercy. I suppose
the first thing you need to do
is accept that The Bible is God's Word to man.
And ignore all that I have come to know about it? If you knew a bridge
was in bad repair and about to fall, could you walk across it? Well, maybe
you could fool yourself into thinking the bridge is 'OK', but I cannot.
I suck miserably at self-deception.
If you cannot accept the Bible as
God's Word to man, then there is little else
we can do for you except pray
that one day you will.
You first have to show me WHY I should accept your Bible as the "word"
of a "God" I don't even believe in in the first place! Just saying "Just
Accept It" is not enough, and you know better.
Sorry, been there, done that. I am not repeating the same mistakes
yet again!!!!!! I may be stupid, but I'm not THAT stupid!!!!
Je suis libre!
-Fred
====================================================================================
Fred,In your post you mentioned that you have "been there, done that."
Just
wanted to point out that where you and I where was in a cult. And no,
I
wouldn't want you or me or anyone else to make the same mistake of
joining another cult. But to authentically follow Jesus -- my gracious,
wise, and loving friend -- there's a world of difference!
Bob San Pascual
===========================================================================
Fred has
written:
If YOU have
apprehensions about flying, don't project your own apprehensions onto the
rest of us.
Raynard has
written:
I have no
apprehensions about flying. I neither have the resources nor the
present
need to fly, and I am not projecting anything towards anyone. You
are the
apprehensive one, feeling the need to proove your faith in "No God".
I am not apprehensive, nor do I have a need to prove anything. Nor is it a matter of "faith" that I don't buy any one person's view of "God". I have in many past posts, asked my questions about your god, the same questions I've been asking since I was a kid. And here I am, age 38, and not one person anywhere has been able to come up with convincing answers.
Unless my questions can be answered, your much vaunted faith stands on shaky sand.
Fred has
written:
And far,
far more often cars on the road run into each other, killing those inside.
Raynard has
written:
There are
far, far more cars on the road, than planes in the air.
And far, far, fewer people in each car. And yet, looking at the percentages, air travel is still the safer bet.
Fred has
written:
Ray, I think
you need to learn to manage your fears, not let them carry you away to
irrational
conclusions.
Raynard has
written:
Who said
anything about fear. I fear nothing, I know the author & finisher of
my faith.
Do you?
Spoken like a true COBU acolyte.
Fred has
written ( and also shouted):
But far
more people die in car crashes per year than in plane crashes. We are talking
the range of tens of
thousands
PER YEAR! Sounds pretty scary to me!!!! You have to be concerned with EVERY
DRIVER AROUND
YOU and, more importantly, ALL THOSE DRIVERS PASSING YOU IN THE
OPPOSING
LANES. Frankly, I don't trust other drivers on the road, and my level of
distrust (and the
resultant
effects it has on my defensive driving) has kept me from having any serious
accidents over the
past 20+
years!!!!
Raynard has
written:
I have not
been in any serious(hmmm I haven't been in any accidents) in the past
20+ years.
I don't have faith in other drivers either, I also drive defensively.
Back to
my previously mentioned point, There are more cars on the road than
planes in
the air. There is also less road-space than there is air-space. Wait
until every
person and yes teenagers get their Jetson type vehicles in the air.
Twist the facts as you wish, the truth still remains that if you wanted to travel from, say, Philadelphia to Miami, you are much safer making that trip in a plane than on the ground in a car.
Fred has
written:
How can
you have "assurance" of "everlasting life" when you can't even demonstrate
that "everlasting life"
exists?
You may have faith in "everlasting life", but there is NO WAY you can have
any level of
assurance.
Well, I suppose you can have false assurance...
Raynard has
written:
Blessed
assurance!
Nice, flowery words. Where's your evidence?
Fred has
written:
That may
be the "only way" to your particular "god", but there are legions of beliefs
and faiths and
religions
in the world. For you to claim that yours is the "only way" borders on
bigotry.
Raynard has
written:
The Lord
is One God, there is no other.
You are starting to sound like a COBU acolyte again. Show me the proof or evidence that your God is the only one. And that Rama, Vishnu & Shiva are "false". Then I'd like you to prove that to the millions of Indians who are just as self-assured in their faiths as you appear to be in yours.
Raynard has written:
but wisdom cannot help you before a Holy God.
Fred has
written:
You mean
YOUR "Holy God".
Raynard has written:
There is but One God
All you need to do
is accept His Grace and His Mercy. I suppose the first thing you
need to do
is accept that The Bible is God's Word to man.
You have yet to prove to me that your god is the correct one and that Vishnu is not. Surely you know that merely claiming that you have the right god is not enough! EVERYONE claims they have the "right god", just like nearly every criminal in jail claims innocence!
Fred has
written:
And ignore
all that I have come to know about it? If you knew a bridge was in bad
repair and about to
fall, could
you walk across it? Well, maybe you could fool yourself into thinking the
bridge is 'OK', but I
cannot.
I suck miserably at self-deception.
Raynard has written:
If you cannot accept the Bible as
God's Word to man, then there is little else we can do for you except pray
that one day you will.
What a cop out. Why not admit the REAL TRUTH? That your "faith" is arbitrary, that you have no solid basis for it, it is simply a personal preference, nothing more. Well, nothing wrong with personal preferences, but to sell your personal preference as the absolute truth to others without being able to back it up is the real crime. Haven't you had enough of that with COBU? Why then do you turn in like measure to repeat the same mistake again and again? Such is the way of cults.
Fred has
written:
You first have to show me WHY
I should accept your Bible as the "word" of a "God" I don't even
believe in in the first place!
Just saying "Just Accept It" is not enough, and you know better.
Sorry, been there, done that.
I am not repeating the same mistakes yet again!!!!!! I may be stupid, but
I'm not THAT stupid!!!!
Raynard
has written:
As I said there is little I can
do except pray that you will come to realize the Bible
is God's Holy Word to man.
You need to realize that you do not hold the monopoly on "faith" -- there are many thousands of other faiths in the world, and for you to be this close-minded is a pity and a shame. In my estimation, the cult mind still prevails. Hide from my probing questions you might, but hiding will not help you.
Sorry, but I always seem to reach this point of frustration. You sell me on paradise, but when I ask for some pictures from the place, there are none to be found. Just nice, flowery words, smooth promises, and the like, with the charge of "just believe". (Would you travel to some nice resort for a holiday without seeing some pictures first? Or would you just trust the smooth fast-spoken words of a salesman? Just give him your money. BTW, there's a bridge I wanna sell you...) Been there, done that, wasted 4 years of my life. I learned a hard lesson at great expense, that affected the rest of my life. Yes, I managed to recover -- took another 4 years to reconstruct myself -- a total of 8 years blown that I could've been doing something more meaningful. I find your "there is little I can do except pray that you will come to realize..." statement very hollow.
-Fred
===========================================================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
What it it supposed to tell me? I am currently giving a lot of thought
and plan
to do some research in the area of human consciousness and artificial
intelligence. Just because something is a mystery does not automatically
imply
"GOD"! Just think back a thousand - hell, even a hundred years ago.
Many things
that were complete mysteries to those who lived in the past, which
were thought
to be due to "divine intervention" or the equivalent, and completely
known and
understood in terms of science. "Mysteriousness" only means that there
is more
to be learned and discovered, NOT that there is a "god in the works."
> If anyone plays God in their life, they will
> have a sense of conflict with the real God.
Really? That statement does not make any sense.
> The existence of conscience
> shows the existence of a true standard, which
the proud intellectuals don't
> want to accept...
Hogwash. The existence of consciousness is obviously a response evolution
selected to enhance survival in harsh conditions that required some
way to make
sense out of what would otherwise be a meaningless mass of data. In
short,
consciousness -- as we know it -- arose to enable our survival in a
complex and
ever more challenging world.
And for you to deny reason speaks volumes. This is the way the cult
mind
operates -- to deny anything that might prove the belief wrong, to
claim that
those who ask probing and inconvenient questions as "evil" or "proud"
or "just
won't accept what WE want them to accept".
If you wish to be of the cult mind, that's your right. I would only
ask that you
refrain from sucking others in on it.
> There are other things which are evidences
for those with> eyes to see,
Listen to your phraseology. You are making sure that those who "don't
see it
your way" are labeled as "the other", on the other side -- in short:
dualism.
You shield yourself from being proven wrong by pigeonholing those who
don't
agree with you as "of the devil" or the genteel equivalents.
This is how COBU and many other cults operates, and I won't stand for
it. I know
a rat when I see one.
> but there are some who refuse to see due to
the inclination of> their soul.
More of the same COBU acolyte language.
> To be truly fair and objective, you have to
put emotional
> considerations aside and look at the facts
in a dispassionate manner...
And when you begin doing so, all the better!
> How about the creation itself. Do you
think the creation created itself?
Yes. How much do you know of the nature of space and time, and of quantum
mechanics? The nature of causality, and the testable fact that there
are acausal
events going on around us all the time. In the best of vacuums, you
have
particles popping into and out of existence -- it's called "Zero-point
energy",
and is a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle -- you can't
even
achieve zero levels of energy with precision. I suggest you spend a
little time
reading up on cosmology and quantum mechanics -- there are many, many
books
written for lay people to understand. And it will bring your views
out of the
dark ages and into the 21st century.
> Who caused the singularity that led to the
big bang?
No one. This was an acausal event. Read "The Nature of Space and Time"
by
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.> There must
be a first cause.
That is an erroneous assumption. Learn your physics first. As I have
done since
I was a kid.> Can you look at that objectively,
Fred?
I have already. Now its your turn to. Other books to read:
The Quark and the Jaguar -- Gell-Mann
The First Three Minutes - A Model of the Origin of the Universe --
Steven
WeinbergA Brief History of Time -- Stephen HawkingChaos -- James Gleick
The Blind Watchmaker -- Richard DawkinsThought Contagion -- Aaron Lynch
The Conscious Mind -- ChalmersHow The Mind Works-- Steven Pinker
Artificial Life -- Steven Levy
That should make for a nice, "well-rounded" selection, covering everything
from
the cosmology, evolution, and human consciousness.
If you actually read ALL of these, I'll be impressed! I guarantee,
in fact I
would place good money on it that if you DO read and understand all
of the
above, you would no longer see "God" as a explanation for everything
in the
world around you. Not to say you would become an atheist, not at all
-- but it
would certainly change the way you see the universe and your god. Most
of the
above books were written for the lay person, with the possible exception
of The
Nature of Space and Time. But even a lay person can glean some of the
ideas
expressed in that book, even if the math is a bit much. Besides, I
enjoyed the
banter between Hawking and Penrose. Two of our greatest minds carrying
on a
debate about the greatest "mystery" we know of.
And I AM willing to bet. I'll put $1000 on the table. Any takers? Or
do you not
believe in putting your faith where your mouth is? :-)-
Fred
========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> fred@mitchellware.com writes:>> <<
> Which "lord"? There are an infinity of
possible "lords", and absolutely no
> way to verify any of them. Incidentally, the
very fact that there is no way to
> verify any of the "lords" or "gods" means
that they are ALL irrelevant
> (assuming> ANY of them exist).>
>>>>
> Hi Fred, One of your presuppositions is what
you stated above: "and
> absolutely no way to verify any of them," &
that's a fact according to you.
> your use of the words "absolutely no way" shows
that no amount of evidence can or would
> persuade you, because> your mind is absolutely
set against it.
What a total twist of what I said?!!! What have I been literally begging
for
the whole time here?PLEASE SHOW ME THE HARD EVIDENCE ALREADY!
I have yet to see any.> Your first presupposition
is there absolutely is no God,
> thereby dismissing any evidence presented to
you (such as is contained in
> Josh McDowell's book).
Is the book itself "evidence"? Or does McDowell say where I can go
and examine
this evidence? Words on a page is not evidence, and never will be.
If he states
where I can go and look at the evidence, then just tell me here.
> One thing is certain your betting your life
on it.
Betting my life on what? I did that already, back at COBU. I'm not
betting my
life on anything ever again without HARD EVIDENCE.-Fred
===========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
Robert San Pascual wrote:
> I have a lot of respect for you and the scientific
method that you are
> encouraging us to use. In many cases, that
is appropriate. When it comes
> to historical events, however, the scientific
method is not the
> appropriate method to apply. One can't test
and observe a historical
> event from two millennia ago. In this case,
I believe that it's better to
> use the methods that historians would apply.
Not being a historian
> myself, I can't go into detail about that.
What I can say, though, is
> that of all the theories I've heard about the
Resurrection of Jesus of
> Nazareth, the one that seems most credible
is the one given by the
> writers of the New Testament.
The problem, the BIG problem that I have with the Jesus question is,
the
gospels seems to represent the ONLY account of Jesus in the historical
record. He was not even found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and did not
turn up in
any of the Roman records from that time -- and Romans are noted for
their
record keeping, as I understand.
So, this just probably means that Jesus is another legendary figure
created
to "embody" the precepts and morality the writers of the gospels wanted
to
convey in their times. They could easily get away with this too, since
there
was little communication infrastructure to speak of, and most people
never
ventured far from their small villages anyway. Travel itself was slow
and
arduous, etc. You would not do it unless you had a real need to. And
never
just to check the facts behind the babblings of some stranger in your
streets.
I have no problem with Jesus as a legendary figure -- no more than
I would
have a problem with Hercules or Oddesseyus. But when claims are made
that
these events actually took place for real, a whole new set of standards
are
brought to bear. I even understand that the "virgin birth" bit was
added
later on by a Catholic monk somewhere, since sex was abhorred and looked
down
upon. I wonder how many other alternations and omissions in what we
consider
the Bible today went through over the past 2000 years or so to suit
the
mindsets and goals of the times.-Fred
==========================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>> From:
Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> And I AM willing to bet. I'll put $1000 on
the table. Any takers? Or do you not
> believe in putting your faith where your mouth
is? :-)
Ah, it's come down to filthy lucre.
I am still hurt over what you said about Santa.
And that takes me back to first grade where my teacher said
Santa lived at the North Pole and I KNOW my mom said he
lived at the South Pole and then my mom said she never said
that and. . .
. .A thousand bucks, eh?
=========================================
Hi, Fred,
I'm starting to feel a little left out here (smile). I see you're
answering the posts of other people on this onelist but not mine. Was
it
something I said? Was it something I did? :-) That's okay -- I'll just
keep trying.
You said that you wanted "to see some pictures first" of paradise before
you would believe in it. Fair enough. Part of the reason Jesus came
was
to tell us that there really is a God and there really is a heaven
from
which He descended (figuratively speaking), and to which He ascended
in
bodily form in the presence of witnesses. Some of these witnesses wrote
about this and other events of Jesus' life and we have their writings
which I believe to be historically accurate, and not only I but also
some
of the foremost archaeologists.
So how can Christians like me have assurance that our beliefs are true?
1. Jesus claimed that He was the Son of God and that He came from heaven.
2. Jesus backed up His claims by signs, wonders, and miracles. "Signs"
are those which point to the reality of other things. In this case,
by
performing miracles, Jesus was "signifying" that He was the Son of
God.
3. The greatest of these signs was His own resurrection from the dead,
which He foretold to witnesses (the 12 disciples) who at first didn't
believe Him.
4. After He had risen from the dead as He foretold, those witnesses
(the
12 disciples minus Judas) were converted from cowards who ran away
when
Jesus was arrested, to convinced witnesses. These men and others chose
rather to die for their convictions that Jesus was who He claimed to
be
than to escape persecution and martyrdom.
5. Some of these men wrote about these events (Matthew aka Levi, John,
Peter), and archaeologists have confirmed them to be historically
reliable.
You may not believe as I do, but I trust that at least you'll give me
enough credit to say that my faith is not a blind one. My faith (speaking
for myself only) is based on rational, logical convictions that the
above
5 points are true and verifiable, not scientifically, but by other
means
(see my previous posts).
About your "been there, done that" comment: Where we were was a cult,
and
what we did was follow a cult leader. Real Christianity is not a cult,
and Christ is no cult leader. Real Christianity is a love relationship,
and Christ is love personified.
Bob San Pascual
==========================================
Nice, flowery words. Where's your evidence?
Faith is the evidence
of things not
Seen, like we been tellin'
ya dood.
===========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> Hi Fred, Even using the Scientific Method requires
faith in that the first
> step in the process is formulating a Hypothesis
(an educated guess,
> assumption).
That's not faith. That's just a simple guess. Why is it you feel the
need to
claim everything as a "matter of faith?" If I make a guess, that does
not mean I
have faith in that guess. The whole point of the Scientific Method
is to
ELIMINATE THE "NEED" for faith!!!!!!!!!!
> If by faith you continue to investigate &
test your Hypothesis &
> some evidence shows it to be true,> it becomes
a Theory.
There's more to it than that. Just because you experiment succeeded
does not mean
that it is automatically "true". More, many more tests must be done
-- the
experiment MUST be repeatable by yourself and others around the world.
Cold
Fusion fell flat on its face because of the lack of repeatability.
Labs around
the world could not produce consistent results.
> By faith that you are on the right tract,
You NEVER make an assumption that you are "on the right track". That's
not how
science works. Science eliminates the need for assumptions. You are
either
correct or you are not. Or you may wind up in a grey area, calling
for deeper
investigation -- more experiments, review by peers, etc.
And even after all that, you can never be ABSOLUTELY certain. The tests
continue.
Today, we are still looking for new ways to verify Einstein's General
Theory of
Relativity, even though many experiments have verified it as being
correct to
about 9 or 10 decimal places!
Why do we bother testing? Because us scientists are willing to admit
we're wrong.
There are no dogmas, no sacred cows, nothing no sacrosanct that it
cannot be
tested and come under scrutiny.
Compare the this humble attitude of a scientist to some of the attitudes
you see
with many religionists. Instead of the attitude of "we could be wrong",
you see
the attitude of "we are definitely right", with NO justification for
the
overconfidence, and worse, many of these religionists strike out at
others that
would dare question or have a different opinion. In short,
A scientist tests to see if she is right, and even then makes no assumptions.
A religionist assumes he is right, and defies every attempt to be proven
wrong.
A scientist words his claims in a fashion to make them as testable
as possible.
(falsifiability).
A religionist words his claims in such a fashion to make them impossible
to be
proven wrong. Facts, to a scientist, are mandatory.
Facts, to a religionist, are optional. A scientist encourages you to
think.
A religionist encourages you to "just believe."
A scientist admits, even when the tests look favorable, to a possibility
of being
wrong. A religionist never admits, even with no hard evidence to be
had, to the
possibility of being wrong.> you continue testing until
> the results of testing prove true every time,
then it become a Law.
You have it completely wrong.
Firstly, you are confusing the layman's notion of "Theory" with scientific
theory, which are nearly diametrically opposed. This is a common source
of
confusion. A scientific theory represents a wealth of understanding
tied to a
wealth of observations. Theory from a lay person's perspective is closer
to what
a Hypothesis is to a scientist. Or better yet: conjecture.
Whenever you hear me use the word "theory", I always mean scientific
theory.
> You see how each step is motivated by educated
guesses. Read (JN 9:32-33,
> 10:25,
> 10:30-33, 10:37-38,15:24, 20:24-31, HEB 2:3-4).
Even the gospels accounts
> show that the evidence for Jesus's claims was
his appeal to the miracles he
> had done & not some blind faith in His
divinity.
Miracles, I'm afraid, are not sufficient. How do you distinguish a
miracle from
the trickery of an illusionist? The miracle must be conducted under
scientific
conditions and pass the muster of the scientific method. That is, it
must be
repeatable, the conditions scrutinized, and the facts raked over coals.
I have
NEVER seen a supposed miracle conducted under these conditions, and
most of the
so-called miracles I have seen either cannot be directly verified,
or they were
slight-of-hand tricks conducted by an illusionist trying to sell himself
off as
divine.
Besides, there are certain miracles that I have NEVER seen conducted
anywhere.
Such as bringing someone back from the dead (after being dead for much
longer
than medical science can revive the person), or the restoration of
limbs of an
amputee (something that would be easy to verify by medical records,
etc.) Yet
Jesus supposedly did miracles of this nature routinely. Why don't we
see them
today? If the miracle cannot be scientifically validated, I must discount
it.
> The only explanation of His
> enemies for these miracles was they were done
by the power of the devil.
We are smarter than that today. Then, they did not have the Scientific
Method at
their disposal. Today we do. So, tell me about the scientifically validated
miracles of today. Where are they?-Fred
===========================================
From: CbHIMtg@cs.com
HERM 1:
> Your first presupposition is there absolutely
is no God,
> thereby dismissing any evidence presented
to you (such as is contained in
> Josh McDowell's book).
FRED: Is the book itself "evidence"? Or does
McDowell say where I can go and examine
this evidence? Words on a page is not evidence,
and never will be. If he states
where I can go and look at the evidence,
then just tell me here.
HERM 1:One thing is certain your betting your
life on it.
FRED: Betting my life on what? I did that
already, back at COBU. I'm not betting my
life on anything ever again without HARD
EVIDENCE. -Fred -
HERM 2: Hi Fred, Again acting as none of us ever told you about the
evidence which
you can research in McDowell's book. Why not go out & buy the book
with some
of the $1,000 you offered to bet & research it without dismissing
it offhandedly.
Herm Weiss
==========================================
From: CbHIMtg@cs.com
In a message dated 12/31/1999 4:34:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fred@mitchellware.com writes:<<
Compare the this humble attitude of a scientist
to some of the attitudes you see
with many religionists. Instead of the
attitude of "we could be wrong", you see
the attitude of "we are definitely right",
with NO justification for the
overconfidence, and worse, many of these
religionists strike out at others that
would dare question or have a different
opinion. In short,
A scientist tests to see if she is right,
and even then makes no assumptions.
A religionist assumes he is right, and
defies every attempt to be proven wrong.
Hi Fred, Who are you trying the fool. Scientists disagree about the
age of
the Universe
& the earth by billions of years apart in some cases. These are
only educated
guesses at best, or maybe give or take a few billion years doesn't
matter to your
scientific circles.
Herm Weiss
==================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> I even understand that the "virgin birth"
bit was added
> later on by a Catholic monk somewhere, since
sex was abhorred and looked down
> upon. I wonder how many other alternations
and omissions in what we consider
> the Bible today went through over the past
2000 years or so to suit the
> mindsets and goals of the times.
One of Bill Alnor's anti cult talks was on Catholicism. His wife
(his better
half) did a lot of talking as she was raised Catholic. (Just
saw that book on sale
that I got for my Catholic sister-in-law back when it came out "I Was
Raised
Catholic,Can You Tell?") And Mrs. Alnor brought up that Catholics
don't believe Jesus
had actual physical brothers and sisters, as her father would say around
the house -
"I wouldn't stick my "thing" where Jesus came out of..." And
Bill (her husband)
sheepishly leans over to the microphone and looks up at the guy in
the taping
booth:"You can edit that out, right?!"
People are hung up and they will make the necessary changes the
truth be hanged.
Hey, true story, my social studies teacher told us that there was a
group in the
1800'sin Pennsylvania that didn't believe in intercourse. They
died off.
Also, I hear that when the Christian types in Napoleon's charge found
a lot of
the stuff in Egypt, they cut off and rearranged the statues to make
them politically
correct for their morals - and thus we don't know what the originals
looked like, but for
the ones that weren't mangled. And last but not least, the plaster
of paris fig
leaves that were added to all the statues way back when because they
thought that all
this out in the open was promoting all of the rampant immorality.
The Torah has suffered very little alteration and thus the codes are
basically
intact. The codes do not appear in the Samaritans version of the Torah,
as they do change
it all over the place. In the case of the Torah, you know how
strict they were
about copying, but they feel some changes nonetheless may have occurred.
If these were
substitutions instead of omissions, then they wouldn't affect the existing
codes
as much as an omission would - which would throw a lot off.
"Cracking the Bible Codes" If that ain't proof, what is?!
===============================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>
From: CbHIMtg@cs.com>>
> Hi Fred, Who are you trying the fool. Scientists
disagree about the age of
> the Universe & the earth by billions of
years apart in some cases. These are only educated
> guesses at best, or maybe give or take a few
billion years doesn't matter to your
> scientific circles.
Scientists may disagree, but - from Cracking the Bible Codes, p 275
"The kabbalist whose studies of the creation account in Genesis are
the most pre-
cise and authoritative was Nechunya ben HaKanah. Among other
matters in which
he was expert, Nechunya specifically asserted that the 42-lettered
name allowed
one to deduce from the creation account the correct age of the universe...
...In
other words, says Nechunya, Genesis tells us that the universe came
into existence15.3
billion years ago.Nechunya lived in the first century AD."
==============================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
Robert San Pascual wrote:
Hi, Fred,>
> I'm starting to feel a little left out here
(smile). I see> you're
> answering the posts of other people on this
onelist but> not mine. Was it
> something I said? Was it something I did? :-)
That's okay> -- I'll just
> keep trying.>No, nothing you said or
did -- just a matter of timing and
the holidays, etc.> You said that you wanted
"to see some pictures first" of
> paradise before> you would believe in it. Fair
enough. Part of the reason
> Jesus came was> to tell us that there really
is a God and there really is
> a heaven from> which He descended (figuratively
speaking), and to which
> He ascended in> bodily form in the presence
of witnesses. Some of these
> witnesses wrote> about this and other events
of Jesus' life and we have
> their writings> which I believe to be historically
accurate, and not only
> I but also some> of the foremost archaeologists.>
I know of nothing in archaeology that support Jesus'existence.
> So how can Christians like me have assurance
that our> beliefs are true?
> 1. Jesus claimed
that He was the Son of God and that
> He came from heaven.>I can claim that, too.
> 2. Jesus backed
up His claims by signs, wonders, and> miracles. "Signs"
> are those which point to the reality of other
things. In> this case, by
> performing miracles, Jesus was "signifying"
that He was> the Son of God.>
Well, what a pity we can't examine those "signs" first hand.
All we have is hearsay "evidence".
> 3. The greatest
of these signs was His own> resurrection from the dead,
> which He foretold to witnesses (the 12 disciples)
who at> first didn't
> believe Him.>Again, we cannot examine
that. All we have are words on
paper. How do we know that his "Resurrection" is nothing
more than a legendary tale? There are countless of those from that
era.
> 4. After He had
risen from the dead as He foretold,> those witnesses (the
> 12 disciples minus Judas) were converted from
cowards who> ran away when
> Jesus was arrested, to convinced witnesses.
These men and> others chose
> rather to die for their convictions that Jesus
was who He> claimed to be
> than to escape persecution and martyrdom.>
Again, all we have on that is words on paper.
> 5. Some of these
men wrote about these events> (Matthew aka Levi, John,
> Peter), and archaeologists have confirmed them
to be> historically> reliable.>
What archaeologists? Names and references, please. And
exactly what was confirmed? I need details here.
> You may not believe as I do, but I trust that
at least> you'll give me
> enough credit to say that my faith is not a
blind one.>
I'll reserve judgment until you give me more details about
the archaeologists and the papers they have written, etc.>
My faith (speaking
> for myself only) is based on rational, logical
convictions> that the above
> 5 points are true and verifiable, not scientifically,
but> by other means
> (see my previous posts).>
The scientific method is the most reliable way we have of
knowing. Historical and archaeological approaches must have
a set of well tested methodologies that have been found to
produce reliable results -- or at least be able to state how
reliable the conclusions are. I eagerly await your references.
> About your "been there, done that" comment:
Where we were> was a cult, and
> what we did was follow a cult leader. Real
Christianity is> not a cult,
> and Christ is no cult leader. Real Christianity
is a love> relationship,
> and Christ is love personified.>
I can have a loving relationship with an invisible rabbit,
too. Not to be too flippant here, but I do need something
solid, not good feelings. I don't need to believe in deities
to feel good about myself -- that's what self-esteem is for.-Fred
============================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
CbHIMtg@cs.com wrote:
> Hi Fred, Again acting as none of us ever told
you about the evidence which
> you can research in McDowell's book. Why not
go out & buy the book with some
> of the $1,000 you offered to bet & research
it without dismissing it off
> handily. Because:
1) I assume you have read the book, and can just give me one example
to look at,
which will tell me if the book is worth my time.
2) I have many, many books in my queue, and want to know if this book
should be
bumped up in priority.
3) I have heard of many books before, and when I go to look at them,
they are
usually less than adequate.
So, could you please present me with just one point of evidence out
of McDowell's
book? Just one. That's all I ask.--
Fred Mitchell http://www.mitchellware.com
http://www.syc.org
========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
CbHIMtg@cs.com wrote:
> Hi Fred, we have already posted Roman testimonies
concerning the historicity
> of Jesus Christ, among them being the Roman
historian, Tacitus, Annals XV, 44,
> You> seem to want to dismiss any historical
evidence of Jesus.
No, just that I have not seen any. If you have posted this material
already, I am
sorry -- I do not read every messages written in the COBU list. I simply
do not
have enough hours in the day.
If you could re-post that information, or give me a couple of keywords
to search
for, I'll take a look at it. I do keep postings in the group archived
locally,
even if I don't read everything.> Either
you have not
> researched your material well or you have willfully
dismissing the evidence.
> No reliable historian that I know of that era
claimed that Jesus was just a
> legend. Even His enemies attested to historicity
of Jesus & so what's your
> problem?
Well, I never claimed to be a historian. Actually, History was my worst
subject!
:-) Seriously, I'll take a look at it. Just give me a keyword to search
on. I'll
try searching on "Tacitus" and see what turns up.-Fred
=========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
CbHIMtg@cs.com wrote:
> No reliable historian that I know of that era
claimed that Jesus was just a
> legend. Even His enemies attested to historicity
of Jesus & so what's your
> problem?
>
Herm Weiss>
OK. I did the search, and here's one of the things I've turned up.
A post by
Beverly D. There are two versions of writers which have come down to
us from those who WERE
contemporaries of Jesus.The one on which most Christians lean most
heavily, Josephus, is unfortunately
probably either 'inserted' or 'enhanced'. Many critics believe
that the writing style shows signs of this,but
the most important clues are that the strongest passages referring
to Jesus were NEVER quoted by founders of the early
church until about the fourth century, though they did use and quote
Josephus extensively before that time.
They do not appear in early indexes of proofs of Christianity, though
again, Josephus was included in such
lists. Why at a time when they were seeking to convert all kinds
of people to Christianity wouldn't they use
such material which they had in their hands - unless, in fact, the
passages were 'beefed up' at a later time?
The other contemporary secular source for the historicity of Jesus
is Tacitus,
and there are both problems with the accuracy and the interpretation
of what he is supposed to have recorded, as well
as the fact that he himself was not witness to the events, but recorded
from hearsay.
Now, it could well be that despite the problems, above, both sources
and the others are completely legitimate; I
haven't closed my mind to that possibility. However, they do
NOT constitute solid, reliable, non-Christian proof
of the historicity of Jesus, let alone the resurrection and other miracles.
Is this the case? Is this hearsay evidence here? I must reject it out
of hand if
it is. How about a direct, dispassionate witness of Jesus? Today, many
people
claimed to have seen UFOs, Elvis, and The Virgin Mary. I have not seen
any of
these things myself and would be hesitant to write about them. Hearsay"evidence"
is not evidence.-Fred
===========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
CbHIMtg@cs.com wrote:> In short,
> A scientist tests to see if she is right,
and even then makes no assumptions.
> A religionist assumes he is right, and
defies every attempt to be proven
> wrong.> >>
> Hi Fred, Who are you trying the fool. Scientists
disagree about the age of
> the Universe & the earth by billions of
years apart in some cases. These are
> only educated guesses at best, or maybe give
or take a few billion years doesn't matter to
> your> scientific circles.
They are not "educated guesses", but are based on what we can glean
from
observations. Galaxies recede from us at a speed related to their distance
from
us-- the father away the galaxy is, the faster the recession. Using
these
observations and doing some calculations gives us a good picture of
how many
billions of years old the universe is. Now, we do not know the exact
distances of
the galaxies, and there are other errors in measurement of the Hubble
Constant.
In Cosmology, if you are accurate to within an order of magnitude,
you are doing
well. As we are able to refine our observations, estimates of the age
of the
universe will only become more accurate. We still have some very fundamental
questions about the nature of space-time, about the level of "dark
matter" in the
universe, inflation, etc., all of which will affect how we determine
the age of
the universe.Check out this website:http://www.hubbleconstant.com/
for deeper understanding behind the problem.-Fred
=========================================
Hi Fred, Again acting as none of us ever told
you about the evidence which
you can research in McDowell's book. Why not
go out & buy the book with some
of the $1,000 you offered to bet & research
it without dismissing it off
handily.
I've pulled up his book on Amazon, and this are the reviews I have
found:
Reviewer: A reader from Salem, Oregon December
20, 1999
This book is quite a joke in learned circles. It's shallow arguments based
on nonexistent or
little supported facts are clearly designed for those who want "good" reasons
to believe but
who aren't looking for criticism.
That McDowell was an atheist as most would understand it is debatable;
and that he was
going to find answers to prove Christianity wrong at the library of the
religious school he
attended is unlikely.
Any book that quotes Napoleon's belief in Jesus as a proof of Christianity
(by way of
"intelligent people sure believe it so it must be true") is suspect.
If anyone is interested in more thorough arguments, search the web for
"A Verdict that
Demands some Evidence." This is a point-by-point refutation of volume 1.
--This text refers
to the Paperback edition.
Reviewer: A reader from Tallahassee September
11, 1999
This book will convince only those who are already Christians who would
never question
their faith- no matter what, or those who are intellectual lightweights.
The author does not
make any pretense of having rigorously searched for the truth before arriving
at his foregone
conclusions. Rather, he ignores biblical and historical scholarship in
blind devotion to his
one-sided preconceived conclusions. If anyone wants to examine whether
the bible really is
the inerrant word of God, I recommend reading "THE FIVE GOSPELS-WHAT DID
JESUS REALLY SAY" by Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. --This
text
refers to the Paperback edition.
Reviewer: josephcatholic@yahoo.com July
5, 1999
This work certainly does not present any kind of compelling argument
for Christianity. It reads like a set of footnotes used to make an
argument, which is admittedly, the author's intention. For this it gets
2 stars instead of 1. However, the selected notes are still one-sided and
simply reading them will not demonstrate to anyone with training in philosophy,
history, or theology that Christianity is true. What one will get is a
collection of opinions stated by various persons.
The book shows no real appreciation for the advances in biblical
scholarship and does not even really present
arguments in outline form (as I mentioned, it just gives lists
of opinions under each topic). Many of the quotes, though interesting,
are not very helpful for constructing an argument and there seems to be
an over reliance on secondary literature. A better, though not perfect,
source would be Kreeft's "Handbook of Apologetics."
Reviewer: frankwilson@worldnet.att.net from Columbus, GA
April 26, 1999
While the book is a good reference source for Christians, I find
it lacking enough evidence for conversion of non believers let alone skeptics.
I would have to equate it with using Peter Pan to validate Captain Hook.
Still all in all it is interesting reading. --
Reviewer: A reader from Berkeley, CA March
12, 1999
This book would be very impressive to someone with very little
education in biblical criticism and scholarship. Many fundamentalists like
to carry it around and quote it as evidence of the Bible as the literal,
inerant Word of God because it does give the impression of being very learned
to someone who doesn't know any better. If you do know better, you will
be irritated and frustrated by his simplistic and dogmatic scholarship.
Still, it's not breathtakingly bad like most conservative Bible books,
just very limited and one sided in its approach. There are any number of
writers, such as Crossan, Paigels, Borg, Spong, and many, many more that
present a far more comprehensive and intelligent analysis.
Reviewer: jlowder@infidels.org
August 20, 1997 http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
This "handbook" of alleged Christian evidences leaves much to
be desired. So much, in fact, that I have edited a book-length rebuttal
to McDowell at the above URL. If you really do want to love God with all
your mind, you will check out what I and my colleagues have to say before
making a decision.
And, I also found this at the above mentioned website:
...
Thus, McDowell’s claim concerning the rationality of the Christian faith
is two-fold. First, McDowell argues that Christianity is true (and not
just that Christian belief is rational). According to McDowell, Christ
is the son of God and resurrected from the dead. But McDowell does not
stop there; he goes on the offensive and makes the additional claim that
the lack of Christian belief is irrational. According to McDowell, non-Christians
do not deny that Christianity is true; instead they have "intellectual
excuses," "exercise blind faith," are in "darkness," and are "unwilling
to believe." So not only does McDowell attempt to provide a hard apologetic
for Christianity, but he launches a preemptive strike against a soft apologetic
for non-Christian belief as well and therefore is attempting to argue a
hard apologetic for Christian faith.
To call this pair of claims bold would be a major understatement. As
a Christian, it is perfectly understandable that McDowell would want to
defend the truth of Christianity and therefore make the first claim. And
it is obvious that the first claim is probabilistic in nature; McDowell
makes it clear that his goal is to show that "the scales tip the way" of
Christianity. But the second claim, that non-Christians are somehow irresponsible
or intellectually dishonest in rejecting Christianity, is extremely strong.
It is also by definition a hard apologetic.
It would seem that McDowell cannot just present his evidence and leave it at that -- leave us to judge the validity of his evidence and presentation; he goes on to claim that those who don't believe him are not being intellectually honest. Which tells me right off the bat that his "evidence" must be very weak, indeed, for him to have to resort to ad-hominem attacks on those who might question his work. If his evidence were strong, then the evidence should speak for itself; there would be no need for such preemptive attacks.
Now there were positive reviews as well, but they seemed to all come from ardent believers. Not all who gave negative reviews are all non-believers, either.
Here's some more snipits from the above site:
What Does Uniqueness Prove?
The answer to this question is that it doesn't prove anything. If one
wanted to quibble, he could argue that all books are unique in that each
is different from all others, but nothing is ever gained by quibbling,
so let's cut to the heart of what McDowell really means when he speaks
of the "uniqueness" of the Bible. He means that its storyline, its survival,
its circulation, its influence, etc. aren't just slightly but radically
different from all other books. McDowell develops points like these at
length (aided by the testimony of carefully selected "scholars" who, of
course, have nothing but words of praise for the Bible) only to arrive
at a rather anti-climatic conclusion. "The above does not prove the Bible
is the Word of God," he states at the end of this chapter, "but to me it
proves that it is unique (different from all others; having no like or
equal)." So all of the "evidence that demands a verdict" on this particular
point leads McDowell to the conclusion that none of the evidence about
the uniqueness of the Bible proves that it is the word of God, but the
uniqueness of the Bible
certainly proves that it is unique. His circular conclusion was hardly
worth the effort he put into reaching it.
...
Much of this section of McDowell's "uniqueness" chapter was devoted
to the subject of prophecy, which was about the worst topic that he could
have chosen to try to make a case for the inspiration of the Bible. McDowell
quoted Wilbur Smith, who said, "It [the Bible] is the only volume ever
produced by man, or a group of men, in which is to be found a large body
of prophecies relating to individual nations, to Israel, to all the peoples
of the earth, to certain cities, and to the coming of One who was to be
the Messiah." Whether no other religious book has presented any sizable
body of prophecies is a matter I am not qualified to speak to, but I certainly
do feel qualified to say that there is a twofold problem in what Smith
has alleged here: (1) many of the prophecies that have been identified
by New Testament writers and Christian apologists are prophecies only in
the fertile imaginations of those who have claimed them to be prophecies,
and (2) many of the prophecies that were undoubtedly intended by their
writers to be understood as prophecies were never fulfilled.
The Old Testament prophecies against Tyre and Egypt are excellent examples
of prophecy failure. Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would completely
destroy Tyre and that it would never be rebuilt (26:7-14, 21; 27:36; 28:19).
We know from historical records, however, that Nebuchadnezzar's invasion
destroyed only Tyre's mainland villages, but his siege of the island stronghold
was unsuccessful. Even Ezekiel himself acknowledged later in his book that
his prophecy against Tyre had failed, and so Yahweh, as compensation for
his unpaid labors at Tyre, was going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar (29:17-20).
That prophecy also failed miserably, as we will notice later, but first there is a matter of contradiction between Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre and one that Isaiah also made that we should look at first. As Ezekiel did, Isaiah uttered prophecies of destruction against the nations around Israel, and one of those prophecies was against Tyre. In 23:1, he said, "The burden of Tyre. Howl you ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them." The prophecy continues in typical fashion through the chapter, predicting waste and devastation, and beginning in verse 13, Isaiah clearly indicated that the destruction of Tyre would be only temporary, not permanent:
Well, you can peruse the site yourself at your leisure. Perhaps you
have other books to suggest, but it would seem that McDowell's book is
worthless.
-Fred
=============================================================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Fred <fred@mitchellware.com> writes:
No, nothing you said or did -- just a matter
of timing and> the holidays, etc.
>Bob 1/1:Hope you had a good celebration of the New Year! Thanks for responding.
Fred:> I know of nothing in archaeology that support
Jesus'> existence.
Bob 1/1:
We have a slight misunderstanding here -- no one's fault. What I said
was
that archaeologists have said that the writings of the New Testament
were
reliable (see below).
Fred:
> Well, what a pity we can't examine those "signs"
first hand.
> All we have is hearsay "evidence".>
> Again, we cannot examine that. All we have
are words on
> paper. How do we know that his "Resurrection"
is nothing
> more than a legendary tale? There are countless
of those> from that era.
You're not responding to what I said about eyewitness account and
historical documents. People saw Jesus die on the cross and buried
in a
tomb which was guarded by Roman soldiers. Three days later, the tomb
was
empty, the body has never been found, cowards and skeptics were converted
and later died for their convictions that Jesus rose from the dead
rather
than escape with their lives. Before their deaths, some of these people
(Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, James) wrote about what they saw and heard
and felt.
This is historical evidence, not "hearsay evidence." if you disregard
this kind of evidence, then you have to disregard the whole field of
historiology. I know you're more open-minded than that.
Fred:
> Again, all we have on that is words on paper.
Bob 1/1
Why such a low regard for "words on paper?" I bet you your $1000 (only
kidding) I can safely assume that most of your knowledge has come from
what you've read in books, journals, magazines, and internet articles
.
I'm sure you haven't tested every hypothesis and theory that you believe
in.
Fred:
> What archaeologists? Names and references,
please. And
> exactly what was confirmed? I need details
here.>
> I'll reserve judgment until you give me more
details about
> the archaeologists and the papers they have
written, etc.
Bob 1/1:
Thanks for staying open-minded. What I claimed was that the New Testament
is historically reliable. The following quotes are from Evidence That
Demands a Verdict:
"Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote, 'It may be
stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever
controverted a biblical reference' "(p. 65).
William F. Albright: "Discovery after discovery has established the
accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition
to
the value of the Bible as a source of history" (p. 65).
Millar Burrows: "On the whole, however, archaeological work has
unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the
Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect
for
the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine" (p.66).
Fred:
> The scientific method is the most reliable
way we have of
> knowing. Historical and archaeological approaches
must have
> a set of well tested methodologies that have
been found to
> produce reliable results -- or at least be
able to state how
> reliable the conclusions are. I eagerly await
your> references.
Bob 1/1:
All I'm saying, and I explained this more in another post, is that
to
restrict yourself to only the scientific method, as useful and valuable
as that is, would be limiting yourself to a world of knowledge. If
you
limit what you accept to what the scientific method can show you to
be
true, then you can't accept that Julius Caesar ever lived, that men
and
women can be "in love," that Michael Jordan was the best basketball
player of his generation, that Aretha Franklin has a beautiful voice,
that racism exists, and I could go on and on.
Fred:
> I can have a loving relationship with an invisible
rabbit,
> too. Not to be too flippant here, but I do
need something
> solid, not good feelings. I don't need to believe
in deities
> to feel good about myself -- that's what self-esteem
is for.
Bob 1/1:
My point here is that you can't say "been there, done that" when people
ask you to experience authentic Christianity. What you and I experienced
was not genuine Christianity but a warped one. While in COBU, you and
I
rarely if ever felt the love and grace of God that is the crux ofChristianity.
Bob San Pascual
==================================================
Brother Robert and Fred,
Like thinking you've done skydiving because you played it on a video
game a
few times.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
=========================================
Dear Fred and Brother Ray,
Thomas wouldn't believe until he actually touched the holes in Jesus'
hands and put his hands in the wound in Jesus' side. Then his heart cry(Jesus
said "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks") was "My
Lord and my God!"
Fred, have you ever asked Jesus to help your unbelief ? Or asked Him
to make Himself real to you? If He is just a myth, you will have proved
your points. If you discover the Savior, you will have gained a pearl of
great price. God says "Call to me and I will show you great and wonderful
things you have never known."
Dare you honestly do this Fred? Or is your bluster your courage?
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
=================================================
Fred,
My friend, harder and much more real atheists than you(Russian Communist
and Chinese Communist) have come to believe in this God who doesn't exist.
Jesus said "You will 'know' the truth and the truth will set you free".
This "knowing" refers to a very intimate and deeply personal kind of proof
that is even more than what you are asking for. It is God's personal seal
applied personally to the heart of those whom He adopts into His family.
If it is His sovereign will, you will eventually end up coming to believe
and be saved and there is nothing you can do about it. Jesus said "All
that the Father gives Me will come to Me and him who comes to Me I will
not cast out". Jesus has proved Himself worthy of your trust Fred. He earned
your trust because He loved you enough to die on the cross. It isn't from
wisdom that you argue against Him.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
==========================================
Fred,> What are you trying to say here? My "source"
is myself, period. I think
for> myself, I make my own determinations, I
establish my own bases for
> determination.
What I hear you saying is I will not have this man ruling over me.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
===========================================
Dear Fred,
Sorry, but to me your logic is flawed and your belief system is not
as centered on truth and reality as it is on cross-your-fingers generalizations.
Also, God has absolutely left a witness for Himself in His creation.
"The heavens are telling the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work
of His hands."
Fred, if you look at anything made on earth, a book, a table, a chair,
a car, a desk, a computer etc etc. you have to conclude there was a mind
behind them because they have form and function. You (unless you had the
brain of a poached egg)would never seriously argue that these things just
appeared or evolved over thousands of years. In the same way God's creation
shouts out that
HERE WE ARE! AREN'T WE MAGNIFICENT! AREN'T WE AWESOME! WE HAVE DESIGN,
WE HAVE FORM, WE HAVE FUNCTION. WE ARE GOVERNED BY LAWS. Fred, design demands
a designer and laws demand a lawgiver. God.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
=====================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
> From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> And most things like elevators, planes, and
chairs I simply take for granted. I
> have no reason to suspect their failure, and
if I do, I can always do a check.
> This has nothing to do with faith.
Don't you have faith in something you trust? Even if not a teensy
eensy amount.
They are related - faith and trust. Faith can grow out of trust
and trust can grow
out of faith. You can't have one, you can't have one,
you can't have one without the oth er er err.
Who told you this? Why is faith required?
Ok, time to pull out Mr. Dictionary.
faith (fâth) noun
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness
of a person, an idea, or a thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof
or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance:
keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. Often Faith . Theology. The theological virtue
defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim
faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
And we must also look at Belief:
belief (bî-lêf´) noun
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing
trust or confidence in another.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the
truth, actuality, or validity of something.
3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially
a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
And while we are at it:
trust (trùst) noun
1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or
character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another;
charge.
4. a. The condition and resulting obligation
of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust. b. One in
which confidence is placed.
5. Reliance on something in the future; hope.
6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a
purchaser to pay in the future; credit.
7. Abbr. tr. Law. a. A legal title to property
held by one party for the benefit of another. b. The confidence reposed
in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer
for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property
and the beneficiary. c. The property so held.
8. A combination of firms or corporations for
the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a
business or an industry.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996
I have emboldened what I consider the relevant parts of these definitions.
I do trust people and things. I trust that the sun will rise tomorrow -- because science explains how and why the sun rises, and experience has shown that this is a extremely reliable event. That does not mean that the sun will rise tomorrow - the earth could be destroyed by a black hole, some large body in space could block the incident solar rays, or perhaps Clinton may run off with the sun and get her dress a bit messy. These events could take place, but are extremely unlikely. Do I have any logical proof that these wacked-out events would not happen? No. But to call that "faith" is quite a stretch
Now, do I really believe anything? Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something? By this definition, I believe nothing without some level of backup from logic, reason, or observable evidence.
Which leads me to the ultimate question: Do I have faith in anything at all? Do I have any beliefs that does not rest on logical proofs or material evidence? Absolutely not. To that extent that a thing is believed is that extent that it can be proven, observed, or supported with rigorous logic and reason. I rate things on levels of believability -- Clinton, for instance, is 25% believable (and I am probably giving him too much credit!!!!) Quantum Mechanics is extremely close to 100%, since the observational data is extremely strong. Existence of an extra-universal deity ("God") is extremely close to 0%, since there is no evidence of such existence, and no logic and reason (based on science) that would suggest such an existence.
Life elsewhere in the universe? 99% or so, because the science supports it, even though we have not made any direct observations yet. Life elsewhere in our solar system? 10% -- there may be a possibility of microbes on Mars or some type of life in the deep seas of Europa, but I consider these somewhat unlikely, since the conditions there are not like the conditions for life is on the earth. I hope we do discover life there -- Mars or Europa, for it would teach us much about how life arose on our planet. Only time will tell.
As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY absolute truth is mathematics. Mathematics exists independent of the universe -- we discover its concepts and wrap human-invented symbols around it, but intelligent beings ANYWHERE would discover the same concepts, even though the symbols would be different or the results may be interpreted differently. Even science is not so absolute, because scientific principles we have discovered thus far only apply to our universe, and did not exist before the beginning of our universe, and if the universe contracts later on (the "Big Crunch"), the nature of space and time would be destroyed.
This may seem alien to some of you, but there it is. I have very rigorous definitions on what is "truth", and religion can never hope to measure up. I see religion for what it is. It is sort of like "Harvey the Rabbit" for adults. Our "invisible friend" has simply changed form and have become a bit more sophisticated. All is well. If it works for you, more power to you. But I can no more buy it than you can buy the "true existence of Santa Claus."
-Fred
========================================================
Fred,
Ray wrote:
Now my friend you may take our report, trust
in Him or you can one day stand before
our Holy God and explain to Him what you have
done with His Son and the
Words that were shared with you.
Then Fred wrote:
Now you are sounding like a COBU member! Is there
a real Ray in there somewhere?
Fred, COBU members also used to refer to what the bible teaches as Ray
just did.
Your argument is with God my friend, the author of the bible.
Yours in Christ
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
===================================================
Robert San Pascual wrote:
Fred,
Your post sounds very credible and I commend you for your lucid style
of
writing and debating. I'd like to offer just one response to what you
wrote.
Why, thank you!
It seems in the case of religion you're trying to find a way to prove
whether or not Christianity is credible based solely on scientific
evidence. As I said in another post, the scientific method is a great
method to use in many areas of life, and even in the field of religion,
there are times when it is an appropriate method.
Actually, I'm really trying to make the bigger
point that the issue of religion A over religion B is undecidable by any
means other than personal preference and/or acculturation. Attempts by
people like McDowell and others to find "evidence" to validate their beliefs
is specious at best and deceptive at worst. They should be honest and admit
the truth -- it's personal preference, merely this and nothing more. For
it to be more than that, science or some rigorous valid objective dispassionate
methodology MUST be involved. McDowell's works hardly comes close to being
rigorous. It will impress the choir, yes -- and no one else, and there
are easier ways to preach to the choir. It fails at it's presumed intended
goal -- to convince non-Christians. Or maybe McDowell had no intentions
on doing that in the first place.
Please keep in mind, however, that many things cannot be proven or
disproven by science, as of right now. Just as an example, scientists
don't go around telling us whether or not a man and woman are "in love."
We have made vast progress in brain and neural research. Understanding
love from a neurological perspective is a lot closer than you think. It's
only a matter of time and research. One or two of the books in that list
I posted talks about some of these issues.
Perhaps psychiatrists and psychologists do, but
that's not "hard"
empirical science, which seems to be the type
of science you're trying to
use to test whether or not any religion is worthy
of a person's
allegiance. Another example: can scientists prove
or disprove that Julius
Caesar ever lived? Again, this lies outside the
field of "hard" science.
There are rigorous methodologies to determining THE LIKELIHOOD of the
existence of Julius Caesar. You can never be 100% certain of such things.
Many a lay person becomes frustrated, because "ordinary people", unschooled
in the process, expects black and white answers, and becomes suspicious
when told it can only be a "maybe".
The only thing that's absolute is the speed of light in a vacuum, and
even THAT is not absolute at the quantum scale!!!!!! So you see, our world
is full of uncertainties, yet the hearts of men and women crave certainty.
Crave it so much that many are willing to eschew more critical approaches
and latch onto anyone and anything who can speak the sweet tunes and smooth
promises of certainty. This is why so many fall for the cult or wind up
pursuing other worthless pursuits, allowing themselves to become not only
vessels of exploitation, but becoming blinded to the very exploitation
themselves. This is EXACTLY what happened at COBU, and some have fallen
into that trap again post-COBU.
It is my wish and hope to see all escape from
that trap.
Nevertheless, the faith that God requires from
us is not blind faith,
unverifiable by nothing at all. There is the
evidence from the
Resurrection of Jesus, which includes an empty
tomb, a body that was
never found,
Go to your local police (or at least the police of any major metropolitan
area) and ask them about the many bodies that were never found.
eyewitnesses to the risen Christ, reliable
historical
documents to the effect,
I'm still waiting to see some. So far, I've been very disappointed.
people willing to die because of their
conviction that He had risen from the dead,
Islamic extremists are willing to die for there extreme beliefs --
even strap bombs to themselves, because they believe their god will reward
them for blowing up innocent civilians -- even children -- to bits. I am
even willing to die to defend my rights to be an atheist. Jerry Falwell
send chills down my spine whenever I hear him speak publicly. Well, every
family member has a passport....
and radical conversions of
skeptics past and present.
I used to be an ardent believer -- but I radically went back the other
way.
All that you list is specious -- there are counter-examples that nullify
your assumptions as to what it means. The problem is that you are not motivated
to be critical enough to see this. I have to say this, and I'm sorry --
but it's the same level of mindlessness I remember back at COBU. This saddens
me greatly. I recall the intense struggle I went through -- it was not
pretty. I suppose I should not be surprised if others were not as successful.
Is any of this verifiable by the empirical
method? Of course not. But it is evidence nonetheless,
evidence of the
historical, psychological, and perhaps philosophical
kind.
You miss my entire point. My point is to get you to think critically
about what you believe, and to not except everything at face value. All
things must be brought into question and examined. What really motivates
you? A yearning for the real truth? Or a paranoid fear of some type of
post-mortem punishment?
In short, do you "fear hell"? If so, why? And do you see how that visceral
fear drives you?
Or it may not even be the "fear of hell". Some other very visceral
vise may have you. Does the vise lead you, or are you in control of the
vise? That is the question you must personally and honestly ask yourselves.
(in other words, don't bother telling me.)
Fred, I know that you're an intelligent person.
And because you are, I
know that you're able to expand your mind to
accept not just empirical
evidence, but other types as well.
I am a critical thinker. And I have truly escaped from what I call
the "COBU effect". It is my hope that you and all on this list are or become
free of that effect as well. What I've seen is that although many of you
physically escaped from COBU, the COBU effect is still with you. This saddens
me deeply, and I'll do anything I can to help. But as they say, you can
only lead a horse to the water...
-Fred
=====================================================
Nice, flowery words. Where's your evidence?
Faith is the evidence
of things not
Seen, like we been tellin'
ya dood.
That's not evidence. That's double-talk. Faith
itself CANNOT be the evidence. I can have "Faith" that the world will end
tomorrow -- but the world will still be here tomorrow.
I once had FAITH that God would heal a lady of
cancer, but she died anyway. So, you see, faith is NEVER evidence of anything
other than self-delusion.
-Fred
===================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>steve saxton
wrote:
> My friend, harder
and much more real atheists
> than you (Russian
Communist and Chinese
> Communist) have
come to believe in this God who doesn't exist.>
So what? Some have converted to Judaism, some have converted
to Buddhism, some have converted to other faiths, and most
remain atheists. Even I converted to Christianity for a
while -- and converted back to atheism when I saw I was
right all along. So what's your point? You seem to think it
makes a difference one way or another.
And what's the point of "much more real atheists than you",
anyway? You wouldn't be getting into a "More Atheist than
Thou" mode, now would you? I give you more credit for intelligence
than that!!!!
If you really validate your faith on the basis of some
atheist converting to your faith, you stand on very shaky
ground. Just because a million atheists convert to your
particular faith does not make it any more valid. Millions
followed Hitler, yet that did not validate the "rightness"of what Hitler
did.
In short, there are no "safety in numbers". Sorry.-Fred
============================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>steve saxton
wrote:
Dear Fred and Brother
Ray,Thomas wouldn't believe
until he actually touched
the holes in Jesus'
hands and put his hands
in the wound in Jesus'
side. Then his heart
cry(Jesus said "out of the
abundance of the
heart the mouth speaks") was "My
Lord and my God!"Fred,
have you ever asked Jesus
to help your unbelief
? Or asked Him to make Himself real to you?
Been there, done that, many years ago.
If He is just a myth,
you will have proved your
points. If you discover
the Savior, you will have
gained a pearl of great
price. God says "Call to
me and I will show you
great and wonderful things
you have never known."Dare
you honestly do this
Fred? Or is your bluster
your courage?
Like I said, been there, done that, it didn't work. And over
the years I have learned why. You see, unlike most people on
this planet, I suck at self-delusion big time. But then I
took a couple of steps back to look at the whole picture. I
see human belief systems for what they are, and because of
that I would never return to them.
It's sort of like finally reading the label of some tasty
favorite food of yours, only to find out one of the
ingredients is unsavory. Could you ever eat that favorite food again?
That's about as simple as I can put it. My goal is to let
you know about that unsavory ingredient; it is up to you
whether or not you wish to still eat.Bon appétit! :-)-Fred
===========================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> > And I AM willing to bet. I'll put $1000 on
the table. Any takers? Or do you
not> > believe in putting your faith where your
mouth is? :-)>
> Ah, it's come down to filthy lucre.
> I am still hurt over what you said about Santa.
> And that takes me back to first grade where
my teacher said
> Santa lived at the North Pole and I KNOW my
mom said he
> lived at the South Pole and then my mom said
she never said
> that and. . .
. .> A thousand bucks,
eh?
Yep!
You read ALL the books in that list, I'll come up with a set of questions
based
on those books to see if you actually read and understood them, and
after all that
--and you pass the test -- if you can honestly tell me that you are
still of the
same mind, that you still see the world and your God in the same way,
the check will
be inthe mail on its way to you. I'll do this with the first 5 that
commits. I'll have to formalize it a bit, but
that's the basic idea. During the formalization, I'll alter the list
of books a
bit one or two are really too technical to be fair, and there's perhaps
a couple
of other better choices that should be there.Fair enough?-Fred==
=====================================
Fred,You said in one of your posts that scientist take a humble approach
towards life. I like that. And because I know you're willing to take
this
humble approach, I'd like you to reconsider something you wrote. You
said
that "the issue of religion A over religion B
is undecidable by any means
other than personal preference and/or acculturation."
Wouldn't a humble
approach here insert the word "probably" or the phrase "in my opinion"
somewhere in there? What you said in the quotes above could be perceived
to be a little dogmatic, even for someone who has been asking good
honest
questions for 20 years.
You also wrote: "There are rigorous methodologies
for determining the
likelihood of the existence of Julius Caesar.
You can never be 100%
certain of such things." I think this
is a wise observation, and here I'm
in agreement with you. What I've been trying to say in my recent posts
to
you is that the likelihood that Jesus existed and rose from the dead
is
very high.
You wrote: "Go to your local police...and ask
them about the many bodies
that were never found." While what you
say here is true, there is a
difference between those bodies and the one of Jesus. Jesus' body was
laid in a tomb, secured by a large stone, guarded by Roman soldiers,
and
closely watched by the Jewish leaders who had Jesus put to death. Yet
despite being under such heavy scrutiny, the body "disappeared."
Several weeks after that, Jesus' disciples began preaching that He
had
risen from the dead. You can be sure His enemies would love to have
been
able to say, "No, he hasn't risen from the dead; here's his body!"
But
they couldn't produce the body that they guarded so closely.
Several theories have been advanced about what happened. And again,
the
question is, which theory has the greatest likelihood of being true?
You also wrote about how you're still waiting to see some reliable
historical documents. Just go to your nearest bookstore and ask for
the
Bible. :-) In my other posts, I gave you the names you wanted of those
archaeologists who believe that it is a reliable historical document.
I'd
suggest you start at the Gospel of Luke and then the book of Acts(smile).
This post is getting too long and I'd better get to bed soon, so I'll
make this comment my last. Sorry if I don't get to respond to all your
points.
I like what you said about being a critical thinker. I'm with you that
all of us should be that way. I'm sorry you don't feel that way about
me,
but that's all right. I'll leave you with this personal note:
I have and continue to look at Christianity from a critical and open
mind. I consider myself a logical and rational thinker. Christianity
stands or falls on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If He didn't rise
from the dead, then Christianity itself is a dead religion. If it is
a
dead religion, then I would become an atheist like you. But again,
of the
many theories concerning this event, the most logical and rational
conclusion to me is this: the Lord has risen indeed!
Bob San Pascual
==============================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
steve saxton wrote:
Dear Fred, Sorry, but
to me your logic is flawed
and your belief system
is not as centered on truth
and reality as it is
on cross-your-fingers generalizations.
It would be most helpful to me if you would point out the
flaws in my logic. Also, I'm not sure where you see the
"cross-your-fingers generalizations". I thought I was very
explicit and succinct. I don't believe in "crossing my
fingers" -- I am a man of action, and I take a proactive
role in all my endeavors, not just sit on the sidelines and"cross my
fingers".
Also, God has
absolutely left a witness for
Himself in His creation.
"The heavens are telling
the glory of God and
the skies proclaim the work
of His hands. "Fred,
if you look at anything made
on earth, a book, a
table, a chair, a car, a desk,
a computer etc. etc.
you have to conclude there
was a mind behind them
because they have form and function.
One of the books in that list I created is The Blind
Watchmaker, which speaks about how complexity can arise on
its own. Also, try doing a search on "Complexity" on the web
and see the wealth of sites that turn up that also addresses this issue.
You (unless you had
the brain of a poached
egg)would never seriously
argue that these things
just appeared or evolved
over thousands of years.
Yes I would. I really wish you would just do a cursory scan
of the web to get more information on this. I can support
what I say from both an empirical and mathematical
perspective. Don't you think I haven't spent the past 17
years or so -- every since I left COBU -- researching this
very issue? Give me some credit for intelligence,please!!!!!!!!
And it would be MILLIONS, not thousands of years. The earth
itself is about 4.5 billion years old.
Also, a good website for you to check out is
http://talkorigins.org -- another fine place to find
high-quality information on this very subject.
I mean, you DO live in the 21st century, don't you? (I
always wanted to say that! :-) Tons of information on the
web to address all your questions and you don't even bother
looking at it? Well, like I said before, you can lead a horse to water...
http://talkorigins.orgGo ahead. I dare you to click it! I dare you
to spend as
much as an hour on that site looking up answers to these
issues. The water is just a single mouse-click away.
Unless, of course, you prefer mythology over facts.
In the same way God's
creation shouts out thatHERE
WE ARE! AREN'T WE MAGNIFICENT!
AREN'T WE AWESOME!
WE HAVE DESIGN, WE HAVE
FORM, WE HAVE FUNCTION. WE
ARE GOVERNED BY LAWS.
Fred, design demands a
designer and laws demand
a lawgiver. God.
Yours in
Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't have time to delve into the
science here. Just do that single mouse click on that site
above and you'll have a wealth of information at your fingertips.
I sometimes wonder why I and many other engineers slaved so
hard to bring the power of the Internet to the common man,
with all the benefits and access to unimaginable levels of
information, only to have so many like you totally ignore it
all and not even bother to educate yourselves.
Enlightenment is just a mouse click or two away. I can't
make you go there, no one can. Now I did pull up information
on McDowell's book, and will even order his book eventually
-- in spite of the fact I already know what to expect. Now,
if you can do me the kind courtesy to spend an hour or two
at the talkorigins.org site, you may actually learn a thing
or two, and understand better where I'm coming from.
Sometimes, I really must wonder why I even bother. Some of
my friends think I'm crazy. Perhaps I am. Oh well, I'll keeptrying...-Fred
==========================================
Mark wrote: (12/27)Everyone has some faith, it is what one puts their
faith
in that makes the difference in how it works. Einstein was on his deathbed
saying there is a God, some of the greatest scientists like him and
Newton
had faith.
Fred wrote: Einstien's God is not the God you
think it is. He saw God as a
metaphor for the whole of the universe, not so
much as the separate being
that Christians believe in. Also recall that
Einstein was Jewish.
Mark writes: (1/1) Yes, Einstein was Jewish but expressed his belief
in God
on his deathbed, also he was quoted as saying that when scientists
discover
the secrets of the universe that they will see the theologians beat
him to
it. Also, Sir Isaac Newton was unquestionably a man of faith, and not
mindless, and had depth in christianity far exceeding the modern
fundamentalist.
Mark wrote: (12/28)If you wish to be your own Lord enough, you won't
see the
true Lord of all as worthy in your life. This is a choice you're allowed
to
make based on a "freed" will, no one with a sinful nature has a truly
free
will.
Fred wrote: Huh? This makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever. What is a
"sinful nature", how do you define that? In terms
of your own chosen set of
precepts and religious writings? How do you know
YOU have the right set, as
opposed to the others? And just what is "free
will", anyway? "Free will" is
what I term a "mirage concept" -- when you actually
try to analyze what
"free will" is, the whole concept quickly falls
apart. "Free will" has no
practical meaning. Nothing to pin it on.
Mark writes: (1/1) Free will, basically, is this idea that we are making
all
these choices, that nothing works through us, that no forces are affecting
us. My point actually was that we may think we are making all
these great
determinations, but there is nothing new, and we are following something,
whether it is inward or outward. So I was not expressing a great belief
in
free will. So maybe with respect to free will we aren't that far apart,
as
far as "sinful nature" we definitely disagree. The standard was
placed
within us, you really don't need writings for that, and you seem to
recognize right and wrong.
Fred wrote: For instance, If I were to walk up
to you and slap you in the
face, did I do that out of my own "free will"?
Or did "something" make me do
it? How would you answer the question? How would
you verify your answer? Or
would you fall into circular reasoning? And if
you were to slap me back, did
you act on your own free will? Was it an impulse?
If you act on impulse (and
we all do from time to time), is that "free will"?
Or did "something" make
you do it? And what is the nature and basis of
that "something"?
Mark writes: (1/1) Yes, I would think there must be a cause, and a spirit
and attitude behind it. I wouldn't see much free will in such an incident.
Verification would depend on the honesty of the people involved, otherwise
it would be speculation.
The only incident I would see true freedom in is how Jesus handled
himself
when he was being tortured by the Romans, a victim of injustice by
the Jews,
but showed neither resistance or resentment, that's true freedom. Few
have
the power to not resent such evil. Once you resent, you lose objectivity.
Mark wrote: (12/28) I still don't see faith and trust as being much
different. Trust and confidence is right in the Webster's dictionary
definition of faith. Anyways you show great faith in your sources
that say
patriarchy is evil and same sex marriages are good.
Fred wrote:I do not go by other sources to make
that determination. That is
a matter of personal determination, based on
logic and reason and my own
understanding of the human condition. Furthermore,
I do not place value
judgments on either patriarchy or gay/lesbian
marriages, anymore than I
place value judgments one way or another on "traditional"
marriages. Each
person must determine for oneself what is "right"
and "wrong" for oneself,
and not try to push that determination on other
individuals, who may think differently or have made
different determinations for themselves. Where
there is consent, as far as
I'm concerned, there is no "evil."
Mark wrote: You have more faith in these sources than I do... Fred,
your
writings on those subjects show you still have the notion of a conscience,
even if it is reversed, the concept of right and wrong is still there.
Mark writes: (1/1)When I read a couple of posts of yours on evils of
patriarchies and problems with our western civilization, I could be
wrong,
but I at least assumed you were coming from historical events you are
not
old enough to witness, so you must have had sources, I will try to
find
those posts.
Fred wrote: What are you trying to say here? My
"source" is myself, period.
I think for myself, I make my own determinations,
I establish my own bases
for determination. My goal is to maximize liberty
for all, and to encourage
all to practice self-determination, rather than
be a "follower" of someone
else's determinations. Only in this fashion can
we be assured of avoiding
the "cult effect" -- or becoming yet another
Mindless Vessel of Belief.
Certainly you are not the first atheist.
Mark writes: (1/1)Fred, do you know where your next thought is coming
from?
Many religions are cults, etc. Does not that same thing hold true with
atheists where many think alike and follow some wise and intellectual
philosopher and leader? How do you know you are truly free?? What about
inner freedom?
I do agree that we should try to avoid the cult effect, where people
are
like cookie cutters who act alike and think alike. I admit you see
that in
christian circles, but that effect is not limited to christian circles
and
religions. I also agree that critical thinking is good, taking spiritual
inventory about why I believe what I believe as objectively as I can.
I do
believe that there is something in my soul that attracts thoughts of
God and
inclines me toward such belief, science can't cause such a choice.
At one time, is it almost 20 years ago, you accepted Jesus into your
life,
and I assumed you wouldn't allow yourself to be pushed into it.
Does that not show faith? I hesitate to ask this because you may have
already answered this question several times before I was on the list,
but
what convinced you to be an atheist? Were you given proof that the
resurrection or that "all" miracles in the name of Jesus are frauds?
What
happened? Did you investigate these things?
It's getting late so I will answer some of your other posts during
the week.
Mark
===================================================
http://thebiblecodes.com/home.htm
Why God Put Codes in His Word
Only God knows why He did it, but let us offer our opinion. First of
all, it's interesting that He waited until this century to reveal these
codes on a mass scale. That always brings up the question, If the Bible
Codes are so important, why did God wait until now to reveal them? Basically,
we believe God purposely put the codes in the Bible for this generation
to see them. This generation has been the most skeptical of God's word.
This is the generation that says, "until it's proven to be true by science,
I won't believe it." All other generations have said, "I'm going to believe
it until it's proven false." So proof is what they want, and proof is what
God has given them. Because of today's technology, society has pushed Science
to the level of "the ultimate authority" in the intellectual world. In
other words, nobody will believe anything, until science confirms it. This
is the only generation that has thought that way. Somebody once said, "Science
is the orderly arrangement of what at the moment appears to be fact." Science
has been elevated to the level of the ultimate authority, yet it has brought
us into a loop as far as the creation of the universe is concerned. See
Out with the Big Bang Theory and in with "Religious Evolution". Man has
pushed science to that level, and as our God always does - He has once
again mercifully reached out to man. God has used that same technology
and science to prove the Bible's authority, as the codes could only be
searched for with high tech computers. (Now, any PC or Mac practically
can do it, but from the late 80's to early 90's it was all done by super
computers.) When science becomes the ultimate authority, God uses that
authority to show the Bible's supreme authority. People want high tech
computers and science to prove it, that's what God has mercifully given
them.
Best regards de Raynard Merritt N8VZL
I learn from the mistakes of others. I won't
live long enough to make them all myself.
======================================
From: "John Schultz" <aristobulus56@hotmail.com>
Fred Writes:
It's sort of like finally
reading the label of some tasty
favorite food of yours, only to find out one
of the
ingredients is unsavory. Could you ever eat that
favorite
food again?
That's about as simple as I can put it. My goal
is to let
you know about that unsavory ingredient; it is
up to you
whether or not you wish to still eat.
Bon appétit! :-)
-Fred
Fred:
You speak of the eating of unsavory food while you "eat" sodomy.
If this is what you bring to the light, what lies in your shadows?
John
==================================================================================================
Raynard wrote:> Out with the Big Bang Theory
and in with "Religious
> Evolution". Man has pushed science to that
level, and as
> our God always does - He has once again mercifully
reached
> out to man. God has used that same technology
and science
> to prove the Bible's authority, as the codes
could only be
> searched for with high tech computers. (Now,
any PC or Mac
> practically can do it, but from the late 80's
to early
> 90's it was all done by super computers.) When
science
> becomes the ultimate authority, God uses that
authority to
> show the Bible's supreme authority. People
want high tech
> computers and science to prove it, that's what
God has> mercifully given them.
Be wary of this. Anyone who looks hard enough can "see" a
pattern where no pattern really existed before. If you have
a fixed set of data, you can keep looking at it this way and
that until you find SOMETHING that SEEMS to fit.
This is another example of why critical thinking is so very
important, and I will use this example to illustrate my
point. Also, if I get a chance, I'll check these claims out
myself, but I don't have the time to check out every claim
of every crackpot out there.Here's the danger of the so-called "Bible
Codes"
a) Many, if not most of you do not have a background in
cryptography or linguistics. So already you are at a
disadvantage to truly understand what is meant by "BibleCodes"
b) In this age of science and technology and social
advancement that only makes the Bible more and more
irrelevant, you crave for something, ANYTHING that can make
you feel better about it.c) A crackpot comes along and claims "Bible
Codes! Your
faith is validated through Science!"d) Your interest is immediately
piqued.
e) The crackpot goes on to babble about "science" which may
sound OK, but because you lack the proper backgrounds to
really understand what's being said, you miss out on the
fact that the crackpot is uttering gibberish.
f) You decided that maybe there is something to "Bible
Codes", and so become even more interested.
g) Now the crackpot "interprets" these "Bible Codes" for
you, since you cannot do it yourself. The crackpot now has
free reign to "interpret" them anyway he likes and thinks he can get
away with.
h) Now, if the crackpot is really good and charismatic
enough, he'll win your trust over completely.
i) And now the crackpot has you. For he can make those
"Bible Codes" say anything he wants. You, thinking that all
this is directly from God Himself, will drop your guard and
do nearly anything that these "Hidden Commandments" tells you.
j) To ward off criticism from skeptics like myself, the
crackpot can easily mutter stuff like "He's a non-believer"
and "God did not choose to reveal this to him, but to you"
or an endless assortment of "feel good" excuses why you
should close your ears to the skeptics.
Now, since I don't have time to check out every crackpot
that comes along, here's some pointers on how you can sniff
out the crackpots on these "Bible Codes":
1) Look CAREFULLY at each and every claim made. Ask
yourself, "how does the crackpot know this?" Then ask the
crackpot this and listen carefully to his reply. Does he go
to something specific and concrete? Or does he try to snow
you with more flowery words? Or does he simply criticize you
for asking? If he does not pass this, you can stop right
there; you know he's a crackpot.
2) If the crackpot is slippery enough to get by (1), then
start getting into the details of the "Bible Codes" Ask him
about his cryptographic and linguistic techniques -- don't
worry if you don't understand everything -- just take notes.
Also see if he starts to loose his nerve -- you'll now look
and appear more knowledgeable, and he'll be less inclined to
pull the wool over your eyes. Also, you can always check out your notes
later.
3) Ask the crackpot what the message in the code is, and how
did he derive that? Make him get into the details, and take
notes. Keep an eye on his brow and see if he's starting to
sweat. Again, you don't have to understand everything -- but
make him think you do.
4) There's a wealth of resources on the net with regards to
cryptography and linguistics, and you can probably quite
easily find a real expert -- some professor with a web page
-- who would be more than happy to "check your notes" and
tell you if the guy is uttering gibberish or something genuine.
5) Ask the crackpot for references with regards to his
techniques and background. And definitely check those out!!!
There you have it. This is one way you can avoid being
sucked in by the outlandish claims of many of these
crackpots. It'll save you a lot of headaches and time.
======================================================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>John Schultz wrote:
> From: "John Schultz" <aristobulus56@hotmail.com>>>
Fred:
> You speak of the eating of
unsavory food while you "eat" sodomy. If this
> is what you bring to the light, what lies in
your shadows?> John
What do you mean I "eat sodomy"? Please explain yourself, instead of
making
vague claims out of the blue. Besides, I have not said anything at
all about my
private sexual practices. So how can you possibly know what they are?-Fred
============================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>Robert San
Pascual wrote:> Fred,>
> You said in one of your posts that scientist
take a humble> approach
> towards life. I like that.>
Well, more importantly, a humble approach towards the pursuit of truth.
> And because I know you're willing to
take this
> humble approach, I'd like you to reconsider
something you> wrote. You said
> that "the issue of religion A over religion
B is> undecidable by any means
> other than personal preference and/or acculturation.">
Wouldn't a humble
> approach here insert the word "probably" or
the phrase "in> my opinion"
> somewhere in there?>Being humble does
not also mean compromising the truth. If
anything, I should've added qualifier: "in the absence of
any solid proof or evidence." This is not an opinion -- just plain
logic.
> What you said in the quotes above could be
perceived
> to be a little dogmatic, even for someone who
has been> asking good honest
> questions for 20 years.>
Yes, sometimes reality can seem a bit "dogmatic", but the
statement still stands, with the qualifier. Simple logic.
Now, the point of contention now becomes what constitutes
proper and solid proof or evidence. So far, all the
so-called "evidence" has been either specious, obscure, or
down-right deceptive -- just good enough to sway the
unschooled mind, but lacking in the substantive department.
And until someone can produce solid proof and/or evidence,
my statement still stands. I will not compromise the truth.I cannot.
> You also wrote: "There are rigorous methodologies
for> determining the
> likelihood of the existence of Julius Caesar.
You can> never be 100%
> certain of such things." I think this is a
wise> observation, and here I'm
> in agreement with you. What I've been trying
to say in my> recent posts to
> you is that the likelihood that Jesus existed
and rose> from the dead is
> very high.>What do you base this on?
1) "Rising from the dead" is an extraordinary event. It
violates every known law of physics. Something that violates
known laws of science is to be suspect right off the bat.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
2) While Jesus may have been a real person, the "miracles"
he supposed to have done also violates known principles of
science, also requiring the extraordinary evidence. But what
evidence of that do we have, if any? I already spoke about
today's so-called "miracles" and the surprising lack of
scientific validation of them.Just on these two problems alone I would
put the
Resurrection of Jesus at a very low order of probability. I
would have to see something that rules out the much more
likely scenario that these paranormal acts of Jesus is the
stuff of legend, or that Jesus himself is just a legendary figure.
> You wrote: "Go to your local police...and ask
them about> the many bodies
> that were never found." While what you say
here is true,> there is a
> difference between those bodies and the one
of Jesus.>
You miss my point. That a body is not found, in and of
itself, is nothing particularly impressive or remarkable.>
Jesus' body was
> laid in a tomb, secured by a large stone, guarded
by Roman> soldiers, and
> closely watched by the Jewish leaders who had
Jesus put to> death. Yet
> despite being under such heavy scrutiny, the
body> "disappeared.">
This is what we are told, but how do we know it really
happened exactly that way? With the way the gospels disagree
with each other, I have to question the reliability of its
writers. Also, how do we know that there was not another,
"hidden" passage out of that cave Jesus' body was placed in?
Does that cave still exists today? Magicians today routinely
place themselves inside of seemingly sealed containers only
to amaze their audience with escape. How do we know that
there was not a "Houdini" back then that slipped the body
out (or otherwise hit it) in order to create this legend?
I know how badly you want to believe in the Resurrection,
and I know it is central to everything that a Christian is.
This great need, of course, makes a dispassionate approach
very difficult for you to take on --literally, if the
Resurrection did not take place, then Christianity is
immediately rendered invalid. You are therefore VERY driven
to force - shape the facts to support your hopes, rather
than letting the facts -- or lack of the same -- speak for themselves.
And that very craving that drives you, I'm afraid, also puts
you in a very vulnerable spot with regards to those who
might want to control your life though your cravings. Very
much like being addicted to a drug. :-(
> Several weeks after that, Jesus' disciples
began preaching> that He had
> risen from the dead. You can be sure His enemies
would> love to have been
> able to say, "No, he hasn't risen from the
dead; here's> his body!" But
> they couldn't produce the body that they guarded
so> closely.>
Like I said, we have little or no verification on just how
closely that tomb was guarded; also, from what I've heard so
far with regards to the roman records is that this is all
hearsay. Are there ANY Roman records of the guarding of the
tomb? Surely you would think there would be, if it was that important
to them.
Where is this "tomb", anyway -- I mean, I want to fly there
and examine it for myself. Is there a cave thought to be
where Jesus was buried? And the rock that blocked it? Guess
I can find that out for myself on the web.
> Several theories have been advanced about what
happened.> And again, the
> question is, which theory has the greatest
likelihood of> being true?>
> You also wrote about how you're still waiting
to see some> reliable
> historical documents. Just go to your nearest
bookstore> and ask for the
> Bible. :-)>Something outside of the bible,
of course, is needed. You know that!
> In my other posts, I gave you the names
you wanted of> those
> archaeologists who believe that it is a reliable>
historical document. I'd
> suggest you start at the Gospel of Luke and
then the book> of Acts> (smile).>
No, I want to start with something outside of the Bible. I'm
very interested in any Roman documents that can corroborate
any of these claims about Jesus that the gospels makes.
> This post is getting too long and I'd better
get to bed> soon, so I'll
> make this comment my last. Sorry if I don't
get to respond> to all your
> points.>No problem. I don't expect you
too. I've been spending too
much time at this myself.
> I like what you said about being a critical
thinker. I'm> with you that
> all of us should be that way. I'm sorry you
don't feel> that way about me,
> but that's alright. I'll leave you with this
personal> note:>
I don't know if you are or not. I can't tell everything from your posts!
> I have and continue to look at Christianity
from a> critical and open
> mind. I consider myself a logical and rational
thinker.> Christianity
> stands or falls on the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ. If He> didn't rise
> from the dead, then Christianity itself is
a dead> religion. If it is a
> dead religion, then I would become an atheist
like you.> But again, of the
> many theories concerning this event, the most
logical and> rational
> conclusion to me is this: the Lord has risen
indeed!>
Bob, I did not mean to insinuate that you aren't a critical
thinker. Even critical thinkers will disagree on fine
points. But I would still have to question your objectivity
in the matter, and you may question mine.
And let me venture off the deep end here:
Let us suppose you are correct. Let us suppose that there
really was a Jesus, and that he really did "Rise from the
Dead" as you claim. So what? Does that, in and of itself,
automatically validate Christianity? Absolutely not! Recall
my "infinity gods conjecture" -- that there are an infinite
(or at least very large) number of possible God scenarios.
That "resurrection" may just be a put-on by my "Kid with Ant
Farm" God. Perhaps He's just doing silly things like that to
gauge our reaction. Perhaps it's a test of our intelligence
to see how easily we'd go along with it when it violates
every known principle of science we have. How do you rule
THAT possibility out? You cannot. And hence my original
statement about it being a personal preference stands. The
Christian interpretation of the "resurrection" is much to be
preferred to my "Kid with Ant Farm" one, but there is simply
NO WAY for us to know for sure which scenario (or zillions
of other possibilities) is the real one. A being with that
much power can fool us with his eyes closed, and thus would
make me VERY nervous if such a being were to actually exist.
And the Kid with Ant Farm would simply laugh at us, so much
helpless ants, at our silly clinging to this thing called
"faith" because in actuality we simply CANNOT KNOW the true
intentions of such a being. And a god that could write
something like the "old testament" scares me even more. His
followers were charged to "Kill everything to the last man,
woman, and child." That is NOT a god I would want to
worship. Not to mention the overt sexism and gay bigotry
that is promoted by the "new testament".-Fred
============================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>> From:
Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
> Be wary of this. Anyone who looks hard enough
can "see" a
> pattern where no pattern really existed before.
If you have
> a fixed set of data, you can keep looking at
it this way and
> that until you find SOMETHING that SEEMS to
fit.page 216
"You have to understand, in some ways statisticians are professional
skep-
tics." I had asked Professor Kass about the basic attitude that
the typicalsta-
tistician would be likely to have toward the Bible Code. "We
see a very large
number of experiments with seemingly solid claims that turn out not
to be
true. This happens most typically in clinical trials of various
new medications,
or other medical treatments. Most of them achieve statistical
significance at
first, and they're published - that's how they come to our attention
- but
then after increasingly rigorous scrutiny over a long enough period
of time,
they eventually fail. So we're accustomed to taking initial trials
with a grain
of salt, no matter how successful they are - especially ones with highly
unex-
pected results."
Why does it often take so long for errors in scientific work to be
discov-
ered? Because of human nature, which is inevitably prone to "tuning"
and
"snooping.""> This is another example of why
critical thinking is so very
> important, and I will use this example to illustrate
my
> point. Also, if I get a chance, I'll check
these claims out
> myself, but I don't have the time to check
out every claim
> of every crackpot out there.>
> Here's the danger of the so-called "Bible Codes"
In Jeffrey Satinover, MD's book, he clearly maps out a lot of different
things. He's been extensively over to Israel and the whole nine
yards.
He knows the names, schools, places etc. of the rabbis, mathematicians
and whatever else goes bump in the night. He did an in depth
talk on
cryptology, the past, the recent past and how WWII facilitated the
invention of the computer to not only help make the bomb (doing the
mathematical equations) but most importantly what won the war was
cracking the enemies code via computer.
> a) Many, if not most of you do not have a background
in
> cryptography or linguistics. So already you
are at a
> disadvantage to truly understand what is meant
by "Bible> Codes">
> b) In this age of science and technology and
social
> advancement that only makes the Bible more
and more
> irrelevant, you crave for something, ANYTHING
that can make
> you feel better about it.
Perhaps. Perhaps this verification could only be figured out
through our
"knowledge increasing in the latter days" as was predicted. The
monks
and rabbis or whoever it was could not place ELS's there to that extent.
But you have to listen to the folks from the Universities and what
they
say according to Jeffrey Satinover. This book is extensive.
My first introduction to the Codes is a book by a Christian and he
claims
that all of the Apostles names are encoded in Isa 53. Whether
they are or not,
I cannot tell you. This could be the classic case of "tuning
and snooping".
In Jeffrey Satinover's book, they want to know one way or the other.
Don't lead us on with hype etc. - are the Codes there or aren't they,
and
what are the odds?
There may be many crackpot books out there, and Mr. Satinover says
that's one of his concerns.
Cracking the Bible Codes, however, is not by a crackpot.
"A readable, responsible book on a profoundly important subject."Michael
Medved
"...reads like a detective story."Publishers Weekly
============================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>Bob 1/2:
Fred, you and I have been writing back and forth about how we are logical
people, and I trust that about you. I'm sure, therefore, that
you'll
understand this response. What you wrote below appears to me
to be a
non-sequitir. I don't believe that it necessarily follows that because
we
don't have the types of writings that you want that therefore Jesus
is a
legendary figure.Bob San Pascual
=================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>Fred
wrote:,
> Well, more importantly, a humble approach towards
the> pursuit of truth.
> Being humble does not also mean compromising
the truth. If
> anything, I should've added qualifier: "in
the absence of
> any solid proof or evidence." This is not an
opinion -- just> plain logic.
Bob 1/2:Thank you. I think adding that qualifier makes a big difference
and
allows us to treat one another's opinions with more respect. Fred:
> Yes, sometimes reality can seem a bit "dogmatic",
but the
> statement still stands, with the qualifier.
Simple logic.
> Now, the point of contention now becomes what
constitutes
> proper and solid proof or evidence. So far,
all the
> so-called "evidence" has been either specious,
obscure, or
> down-right deceptive -- just good enough to
sway the
> unschooled mind, but lacking in the substantive
department.
> And until someone can produce solid proof and/or
evidence,
> my statement still stands. I will not compromise
the truth.> I cannot.
Bob 1/2:
I think we're moving in the right direction if we're going to talk
about
"what constitutes proper and solid proof or evidence."
And of course, I would never ask you or anyone else to compromise
the
truth. If truth is what we're both after, and I trust it is, then we're
on the same track. Although perhaps we began from different stations,
I
hope we meet at the same destination.
Fred:> What do you base this on?
> 1) "Rising from the dead" is an extraordinary
event. It
> violates every known law of physics. Something
that violates
> known laws of science is to be suspect right
off the bat.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence!
Bob 1/2:
You and I have found common ground here that the Resurrection, if indeed
it happened, is "an extraordinary event" and "violates every known
law of
physics." No wonder His followers could not be stopped, even at risk
of
their lives, from spreading the story of this extraordinary event!
Your comment, "Something that violates known laws of science
is to be
suspect right off the bat" perhaps shows a little bit of a bias among
scientists and others. While I understand it, it shows how premises
differ.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" -- I like
this
comment, and agree with it. This is why Jesus continued for forty days
to
make appearances after His resurrection. He appeared and converted
Thomas, a skeptic; Paul, a persecutor of the faith; His brothers James
and Jude, also skeptics.
Fred:
> 2) While Jesus may have been a real person,
the "miracles"
> he supposed to have done also violates known
principles of
> science, also requiring the extraordinary evidence.
But what
> evidence of that do we have, if any? I already
spoke about
> today's so-called "miracles" and the surprising
lack of
> scientific validation of them.
Bob 1/2:
If you've noticed, I'm not using the argument of miracles today as
evidence for Christianity, so I'll let this one go. As far as the
miracles in the New Testament, I'll keep centering on the most important
one of all, Christ's Resurrection. I'm glad, however, that you're opening
up to the possibility that "Jesus may have been a real person."
Fred:
> Just on these two problems alone I would put
the
> Resurrection of Jesus at a very low order of
probability. I
> would have to see something that rules out
the much more
> likely scenario that these paranormal acts
of Jesus is the
> stuff of legend, or that Jesus himself is just
a legendary> figure.
Bob 1/2:
It seems to be the probability is very high that Jesus existed,
especially in light of the fact that the Jewish people, descendants
of
the ones who handed Him over to the Romans to be crucified, have written
about Him as a historical figure. And here I'm talking about
extra biblical evidence. I won't look up those sources now, but if
you so
request, I will in the next few days.
Fred:
> You miss my point. That a body is not found,
in and of
> itself, is nothing particularly impressive
or remarkable.
Bob:
True that by itself this is not so weighty. It has to be considered
as
one of several evidences that builds up the case towards what actually
happened to the body of Jesus.
Fred:
> This is what we are told, but how do we know
it really
> happened exactly that way? With the way the
gospels disagree
> with each other, I have to question the reliability
of its> writers.
Bob 1/2:
Please point out exactly where the Gospels disagree in the story about
the Resurrection.
Fred:Also, how do we know that there was not
another,
> "hidden" passage out of that cave Jesus' body
was placed in?
> Does that cave still exists today? Magicians
today routinely
> place themselves inside of seemingly sealed
containers only
> to amaze their audience with escape. How do
we know that
> there was not a "Houdini" back then that slipped
the body
> out (or otherwise hit it) in order to create
this legend?
Bob 1/2:
A lot of theories like this were advanced over the past century and
have
been abandoned by both liberal and evangelical scholars alike. I'm
not
sure if any one today would be willing to use an argument like this
without evidence. Here, the burden of proof lies with you to make this
a
convincing theory.
Fred:
> I know how badly you want to believe in the
Resurrection,
> and I know it is central to everything that
a Christian is.
> This great need, of course, makes a dispassionate
approach
> very difficult for you to take on --literally,
if the
> Resurrection did not take place, then Christianity
is
> immediately rendered invalid. You are therefore
VERY driven
> to force - shape the facts to support your
hopes, rather
> than letting the facts -- or lack of the same
-- speak for> themselves.>
> And that very craving that drives you, I'm
afraid, also puts
> you in a very vulnerable spot with regards
to those who
> might want to control your life though your
cravings. Very
> much like being addicted to a drug.
:-(Bob 1/2:
This is an ad hominem argument. You're attributing motives to me that
you
can't prove. If you've noticed, I've been very respectful of you the
person and of your arguments, and I will not attribute motives to you
that I cannot prove.
Fred:
> Like I said, we have little or no verification
on just how
> closely that tomb was guarded; also, from what
I've heard so
> far with regards to the roman records is that
this is all
> hearsay. Are there ANY Roman records of the
guarding of the
> tomb? Surely you would think there would be,
if it was that
> important to them.
Bob 1/2:
You begin with an incorrect premise here. No one ever claimed that
the
guarding of Jesus' tomb was important to the Romans. I don't think
it
was. The verification is in the Gospels.
Fred:
> Where is this "tomb", anyway -- I mean, I want
to fly there
> and examine it for myself. Is there a cave
thought to be
> where Jesus was buried? And the rock that blocked
it? Guess
> I can find that out for myself on the web.
Bob 1/2:
Now, there's the voice of an honest skeptic!
Fred:
> Something outside of the bible, of course,
is needed. You> know that!
Bob 1/2:
I think you're showing a bias here against the Bible without sufficient
warrant. If indeed it is historically accurate as I've claimed, why
disregard so casually the testimony of the New Testament writers?
Fred:
> No, I want to start with something outside
of the Bible. I'm
> very interested in any Roman documents that
can corroborate
> any of these claims about Jesus that the gospels
makes.
Bob 1/2:
I sincerely hope you find something. Please let me know what your search
turns up.
Fred:> Bob, I did not mean to insinuate that
you aren't a critical
> thinker. Even critical thinkers will disagree
on fine
> points. But I would still have to question
your objectivity
> in the matter, and you may question mine.
Bob 1/2:
I appreciate the humility you display here.
Fred:
> And let me venture off the deep end here:>
> Let us suppose you are correct. Let us suppose
that there
> really was a Jesus, and that he really did
"Rise from the
> Dead" as you claim. So what? Does that, in
and of itself,
> automatically validate Christianity? Absolutely
not! Recall
> my "infinity gods conjecture" -- that there
are an infinite
> (or at least very large) number of possible
God scenarios.
> That "resurrection" may just be a put-on by
my "Kid with Ant
> Farm" God. Perhaps He's just doing silly things
like that to
> gauge our reaction. Perhaps it's a test of
our intelligence
> to see how easily we'd go along with it when
it violates
> every known principle of science we have. How
do you rule
> THAT possibility out? You cannot. And hence
my original
> statement about it being a personal preference
stands. The
> Christian interpretation of the "resurrection"
is much to be
> preferred to my "Kid with Ant Farm" one, but
there is simply
> NO WAY for us to know for sure which scenario
(or zillions
> of other possibilities) is the real one. A
being with that
> much power can fool us with his eyes closed,
and thus would
> make me VERY nervous if such a being were to
actually exist.>
> And the Kid with Ant Farm would simply laugh
at us, so much
> helpless ants, at our silly clinging to this
thing called
> "faith" because in actuality we simply CANNOT
KNOW the true
> intentions of such a being. And a god that
could write
> something like the "old testament" scares me
even more. His
> followers were charged to "Kill everything
to the last man,
> woman, and child." That is NOT a god I would
want to
> worship. Not to mention the overt sexism and
gay bigotry
> that is promoted by the "new testament".
Bob:
I like what you're doing here because you're venturing into the fields
theology and philosophy. I'm no philosopher, but I am a student of
theology. Let me point out one apparent flaw first. I respectfully
disagree with your comment that "in actuality we simply CANNOT KNOW
the
true intentions of such a being." If such a being existed, and He wanted
to reveal Himself to human beings, then His true intentions can be
known.
Now let me answer your question, "Does that [Jesus' Resurrection],
in
and of itself, automatically validate Christianity?" Let me recap what
I've been writing the last few days": 1) Jesus claimed to be the Son
of
God; 2) He validated this claim by the miracles He performed, and
especially by His own Resurrection; 3) If indeed He rose from the dead,
then the likelihood is that He is who He claimed to be: the Son of
God.
Bob San Pascual
===========================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>Fred,
I was investigating what an encyclopedia on a CD-ROM said about Jesus,
and this is what I found:
The principal sources of information concerning Jesus' life are the
Gospels, written in the latter half of the 1st century as the generation
that had known Jesus firsthand began to die. The Epistles of Saint
Paul
and the Acts of the Apostles also contain information about Jesus.
The
scantiness of additional source material and the theological nature
of
biblical records caused some 19th-century biblical scholars to doubt
his
historical existence. Others, interpreting the available sources in
a
variety of ways, produced biographies of Jesus in which his life was
purged of all supernatural elements. Today, scholars generally agree
that
Jesus was a historical figure whose existence is authenticated both
by
Christian writers and by several Roman and Jewish historians.
"Jesus Christ," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. ©
1993-1998
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
In one of your recent posts, you appeared willing to say that Jesus
really did exist. In light of the above article, can we hang our hat
on this?
Bob San Pascual
==============================================
From: CbHIMtg@cs.com
In a message dated 1/1/2000 3:50:39 AM Eastern
Standard Time,
fred@mitchellware.com writes:
The Old Testament prophecies
against Tyre and Egypt are excellent
examples of prophecy
failure. Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar
would completely destroy
Tyre and that it would never be rebuilt
(26:7-14, 21; 27:36;
28:19). We know from historical records, however,
that Nebuchadnezzar's
invasion destroyed only Tyre's mainland villages,
but his siege of the
island stronghold was unsuccessful. Even Ezekiel
himself acknowledged
later in his book that his prophecy against Tyre
had failed, and so Yahweh,
as compensation for his unpaid labors at
Tyre, was going to give
Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar (29:17-20).
That prophecy also failed
miserably, as we will notice later, but first
there is a matter of
contradiction between Ezekiel's prophecy against
Tyre and one that Isaiah
also made that we should look at first. As
Ezekiel did, Isaiah
uttered prophecies of destruction against the
nations around Israel,
and one of those prophecies was against Tyre. In
23:1, he said, "The
burden of Tyre. Howl you ships of Tarshish; for it
is laid waste, so that
there is no house, no entering in: from the land
of Kittim it is revealed
to them." The prophecy continues in typical
fashion through the
chapter, predicting waste and devastation, and
beginning in verse 13,
Isaiah clearly indicated that the destruction of
Tyre would be only temporary,
not permanent:
Well, you can peruse the site yourself at your
leisure. Perhaps you have other
books to suggest, but it would seem that McDowell's
book is worthless.-Fred >>
Hi Fred, All you did in your post was to accept the reviewer's conclusions
about McDowell's book, research them for yourself without their filter.
As for the account in Josephus, the critics might
dispute the passage
about Jesus Christ, but then they also should have included the passage
in Antiquities
XX, 9:1, where another reference is made about James, the brother of
Jesus, The Christ, a
historical witness to the reliability of the Book of Acts.
As for your critic's conclusion about the prophecy
concerning Tyre's
destruction, he left out Alexander's the Great destruction of the island
to which the
inhabitants fled to from Nebuchadnezzar's invasion. He concluded that
the entire prophecy was
what Nebuchadnezzar would do. However he failed to take in EZEK 26:3&4
which
states that the fulfillment of destruction of Tyre would be accomplished
by many nations.
(vs 3) Among them being the Babylonians, Greeks, Muslims, etc. Nebuchadnezzar
had only a part in the fulfilling of this prophecy. Each specific part
of the
prophecy was fulfilled. Fred, read chapter 11 of McDowell's for yourself,
&
check the references yourself,instead of believing some critic's conclusion.
Herm Weiss
============================================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com
Fred wrote: Are those "facts" verifiable? Testable? Observable?
Mark wrote: (12/28) There are facts that are verifiable if you have
inner
vision.
Fred wrote: Verification cannot depend wholly
on subjective experiences,
which are themselves suspect.
Mark writes: (1/03) Actually, I have found that my conscience is what
keeps
me objective when I go astray or look at things subjectively.
Mark wrote: The fact that you still have a conscience should tell you
something, if you are willing to admit it.
Fred writes: What it it supposed to tell me? I
am currently giving a lot of
thought and plan to do some research in the area
of human consciousness and
artificial intelligence. Just because something
is a mystery does not
automatically imply "GOD"! Just think back a
thousand - hell, even a hundred
years ago. Many things that were complete mysteries
to those who lived in
the past, which were thought
to be due to "divine intervention" or the equivalent,
and completely known
and understood in terms of science. "Mysteriousness"
only means that there
is more to be learned and discovered, NOT that
there is a "god in the
works."
Mark writes: (1/03) Actually, I don't see where conscience is a big
mystery.
Certainly, it was no mystery to the ancient Jews or the people of 100
years ago. In fact, they understood it better. Again, having
a conscience
implies a standard and a standard maker. Nor do I think we are smarter
than
the ancient Jews today. The intellectualism of today to me isn't as
smart as
the common sense of the old timers,
our method of educating people today seems like dumbing them down to
me.
Don't get me started on progressive education, that's like cult stuff
to me.
As far as artificial intelligence, the progress is definitely happening.
Back in the 80's, I could win my share against chess playing computers,
now
they clean my clock. :)
Mark wrote: The existence of conscience shows the existence of a true
standard, which the proud intellectuals don't want to accept...
Fred wrote: Hogwash. The existence of consciousness
is obviously a response
evolution selected to enhance survival in harsh
conditions that required
some way to make sense out of what would otherwise
be a meaningless mass of
data. In short, consciousness -- as we know it
-- arose to enable our
survival in a complex and ever more challenging
world.
Mark writes: (1/03) My reference is to conscience, although that and
consciousness definitely go together. Neither of them just happened,
you
suggest they evolved... How could they have evolved from non existence.
Do
things keep arising and creating themselves out of nothing as you have
suggested a few times? Does this keep happening even in our time,
these
spontaneous creations, and even on our planet?
The view you are presenting suggests that this has gone on for all
of time,
but I don't observe that happening in my lifetime...
Certainly, man sins and his self awareness heightens, and consciousness
develops, but the conscience didn't make itself.
I see you do admit to having conscience and consciousness.
Fred wrote: And for you to deny reason speaks
volumes. This is the way the
cult mind operates -- to deny anything that might
prove the belief wrong, to
claim that those who ask probing and inconvenient
questions as "evil" or
"proud" or "just won't accept what WE want them
to accept".
Mark writes: (1/03) I'm reasoning with you now...
Fred wrote: If you wish to be of the cult mind,
that's your right. I would
only ask that you refrain from sucking others
in on it.
Mark writes: (1/03) The cult mind is in the eye of the beholder.
Mark wrote: There are other things which are evidences for those with
eyes
to see,
Fred wrote: Listen to your phraseology.
You are making sure that those who
"don't see it your way" are labeled as "the other",
on the other side -- in
short: dualism.
Mark writes: (1/03) "having eyes to see" deals with those with insight,
not
a put down of anyone intended, in fact you do see that you have a conscience
and consciousness - but you say they evolved which I could view as
an
intellectual cop out. That evolution idea is used to cover a lot of
ground.
Mark wrote: To be truly fair and objective, you have to put emotional
considerations aside and look at the facts in a dispassionate manner...
Fred wrote: And when you begin doing so, all the better!
Mark writes: (1/03) That's my intention, Fred, although I will admit
that I
don't always live up to it.
Mark wrote: How about the creation itself. Do you think the creation
created
itself?
Fred wrote: Yes. How much do you know of the nature
of space and time, and
of quantum mechanics? The nature of causality,
and the testable fact that
there are a causal events going on around us
all the time. In the best of
vacuums, you have particles popping into and
out of existence -- it's called
"Zero-point energy", and is a consequence of
Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle -- you can't even achieve zero levels
of energy with precision. I suggest you spend a little
time reading up on cosmology and quantum mechanics
-- there are many, many
books written for lay people to understand. And
it will bring your views out
of the dark ages and into the 21st century.
Mark writes: (1/03) I'm certainly no science expert, but I have an interest.
Time and space aren't seen as separate anymore, I understand, and I
see the
phrase "time-space continuum" more and more.
I have read some on quantum mechanics, but not enough to be an expert.
I read, "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters", I forget the author, and it was
a while
ago when I first left COBU. As far as these particles popping in and
out of
existence, okay but who created the process?
Mark wrote: Who caused the singularity that led to the big bang?
Fred wrote:No one. This was an acausal event.
Read "The Nature of Space and
Time" by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.
Mark writes: (1/03) At least you didn't say it evolved. I will have
to skim
through this book some time to see how they get around what seems sensible
to me. So you're saying that singularity just created itself?
Mark wrote:There must be a first cause.
Fred wrote: That is an erroneous assumption. Learn
your physics first. As I
have done since I was a kid.
Mark writes: In grade school I was taught that matter can't be created
or
destroyed, but now that seems to have changed though it was once held
to be
a scientific law.
Fred, you have to keep in mind that science
is constantly changing.
What scientists believe in the future will probably be much different
than
what they believe now, so it makes me hesitant to hang my hat on everything
they come up with. Having said that, I do think they do us a great
favor in
what they have shown us, and I do realize that evolution is not totally
false, there are fundies who would do well to learn what science can
teach.
In a recent issue of the "Missler Reports"
Quarterly, Chuck Missler
cites a recent study by Soviet Russian scientists (early 90s before
the CIS)
that showed that the percentages for the spontaneous creation of life
were
infinitesimally small, like 1/10 to the 24th power, something like
that.
This is by non christian scientists.
Fred wrote: Other books to read:
The Quark and the Jaguar -- Gell-Mann
The First Three Minutes - A Model of the Origin
of the Universe -- Steven
Weinberg, I have this one but haven't read it
all, just skimmed through it.
A Brief History of Time -- Stephen Hawking
Chaos -- James Gleick, my co-worker had this
so I got to look thru it, some
interesting stuff.
The Blind Watchmaker -- Richard Dawkins
Thought Contagion -- Aaron Lynch
The Conscious Mind -- Chalmers
How The Mind Works-- Steven Pinker
Artificial Life -- Steven Levy
That should make for a nice, "well-rounded" selection,
covering everything
from the cosmology, evolution, and human consciousness.
If you actually read ALL of these, I'll be impressed!
I guarantee, in fact I
would place good money on it that if you DO read
and understand all of the
above, you would no longer see "God" as a explanation
for everything in the
world around you. Not to say you would become
an atheist, not at all -- but
it would certainly change the way you see the
universe and your god. Most of
the above books were written for the lay person,
with the possible exception
of The Nature of Space and Time. But even a lay
person can glean some of the ideas
expressed in that book, even if the math is a
bit much. Besides, I enjoyed
the banter between Hawking and Penrose. Two of
our greatest minds carrying
on a debate about the greatest "mystery" we know
of.
Mark writes: (1/03) If I were to read through all these, I'd really
be ding
quite good considering my slowed reading pace lately. I haven't always
agreed with Sagan or Hawking, but I have to admit they are brilliant.
I have
always liked Robert Jastrow.
Fred wrote:And I AM willing to bet. I'll put $1000
on the table. Any takers?
Or do you not believe in putting your faith where
your mouth is? :-)
-Fred
Mark writes: (1/03) I wish I had that kind of money to bet with.
But the socialists and Clinton's people say the economy is just great.
======================================================
From: CbHIMtg@cs.com
In a message dated 1/2/2000 12:16:19 PM Eastern
Standard Time,
fred@mitchellware.com writes:<<
Let us suppose you are correct. Let us
suppose that there
really was a Jesus, and that he really
did "Rise from the
Dead" as you claim. So what? Does that,
in and of itself,
automatically validate Christianity? Absolutely
not! Recall
my "infinity gods conjecture" -- that there
are an infinite
(or at least very large) number of possible
God scenarios.
That "resurrection" may just be a put-on
by my "Kid with Ant
Farm" God. Perhaps He's just doing silly
things like that to
gauge our reaction. Perhaps it's a test
of our intelligence
to see how easily we'd go along with it
when it violates
every known principle of science we have.
How do you rule
THAT possibility out? You cannot. And hence
my original
statement about it being a personal preference
stands. The
Christian interpretation of the "resurrection"
is much to be
preferred to my "Kid with Ant Farm" one,
but there is simply
NO WAY for us to know for sure which scenario
(or zillions
of other possibilities) is the real one.
A being with that
much power can fool us with his eyes closed,
and thus would
make me VERY nervous if such a being were
to actually exist. >>
Hi Fred, "My infinity gods conjecture," Conjecture indeed! Conjectures
are
defined as guesses. How convenient! Disprove the resurrection &
you won't
have to guess. I dare you to.
Herm Weiss
========================================================
From: Fred <fred@mitchellware.com>
I don't know if he did or did not exist -- not enough data for a meaningful
answer, in my book. If he did exist, in all probability he was just
a man, a
leader, who became a legend and an embodiment of the precepts the apostles
wanted to teach their minions. I remain, in any case, extremely skeptical
of
any and all supernatural claims.
It would be nice if we could exhume the grave of one of the people he
supposedly performed a miracle on for study. But there's even less
hope of
that, I would think.
-Fred
=======================================
From: "John Schultz" <aristobulus56@hotmail.com>
Fred:
Have you or have you not indicated on this list of your favorable reaction
to the Vermont ruling? That you are indeed for men marrying men? Well
then
sir, sodomy is one of the ingredients that is contained in your belief
meal,
which is by no means unsavory as far as you are concerned. You gladly
shallow it and encourage others to partake. But when it comes to Jesus,
Pass
the plate. You have your eyes on other more desirable delicacies. Let
all
decide if eating an abomination with you is something for their palette.
John
======================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Fred,
This partial timeline is from http://www.HistoryChannel.com. Notice
they
treat Jesus as much a historical figure as they do anybody else on
it.
Please realize that these sources I'm giving you are not Christian
sources. They are not, as you have said about Christians, driven to
prove
that Jesus existed. In my opinion, they're treating the evidence for
the
historicity of Jesus fairly, and that's all I'm asking.
Bob San Pascual
ROMAN PERIOD (63 BCE - 324 CE)
63
General Pompey and his Roman legions conquer Jerusalem.
63 - 37
Hasmonean rules continue but under protection of Rome.
40
Rome appoints Herod King of Judea.
40 - CE 4
Reign of Herod the Great.
37
King Herod captures Jerusalem.
18
Herod commences rebuilding of Temple.
ca. 7 BCE - ca. 31 CE
Life of Jesus of Nazareth
4 BCE
Jerusalem is governed from Caesarea by Roman procurators.
Herod dies.
New Testament Period under Roman Rule (First Century CE)
26 - 36
Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator of Judea.
27 - 31
The ministry of Jesus.
31
Crucifixion of Jesus.
63
Temple completed.
66
Jews revolt against the Romans.
70
Jerusalem is demolished by Titus; survivors are exiled or sold into slavery.
132
Bar Kochba leads a doomed revolt against Rome.
135
Emperor Hadrian rebuilds Jerusalem; builds new walls and renames the city
Aelia
Capitolina and country Palestine; bans Jews from Jerusalem.
====================================