darstec

Some years back Reader's Digest had an article about a jet pilot who ejected from his plane from 25000 feet without a parachute. He lived. The same article mentioned another pilot who fell from the same height and walked away. So even that is not certain.

A pot of water placed on a hot stove will boil. The energy excites the atoms. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that not every atom will become excited. Now while it is certainly possible it is almost 100% improbable that a condition might arise where all the atoms loose energy rather than gain it thus the pot of water on a hot stove would freeze.

That one principle does rather screw around with our concept of an omniscient or omnipotent god.

Did you see the latest research where there is some indication that stem cell material placed in heart tissue or brain tissue of mice regenerates that organ? It was first noticed in the lab where ear parts regenerated. It is at the beginning stages. If developed properly in time it may be possible to repair a lost arm.

In that case, how could we know for certain what influence a god might have? Sometimes certainties disappear before we realize it.

John A. Broussard

The Reader's Digest is hardly an unimpeachable font of knowledge. Can you give me some other source for that tale--a physics journal?

I'm not sure where Heisenberg fits into any of this.

Stem cells, I'll buy. But that's science not god. I want people to pray over a leg stump. That would make for good TV coverage if nothing else.

JEST2ASK

This puzzles me ... God could regenerate limbs at anytime, by miraclous methods .. but instead of acting directly .. (e.g. prayer / annointing / laying on of hands etc) ... or in an unambiguous manner ... waits until humans (many of whom are non-believers) develop technology working under the assumption that it is science ... not divine intervention that is responsible for the results ...

My question then is how do you even know there is a god behind the scenes influencing anything .... :huh:

darstec

Why would a physics jounal have a story about a jet pilot who survived a crash? :huh:

And while the story was quite some time ago so I have no way to give you any links, here are a few modern day stories: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4141096.stm. Of course they could be lying or wrong. And then there is the story around May 12 of this year of the 69 year old woman who fell from a 9 story building and survived, but then she hit a canvas awning too at the end of her downward journey. So even death is not a certainty.

The boiling pot of water was one of a few examples found in a book of science that demonstrated certain "absolutes" we hold are no longer considered absolute anymore because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Another example give was the p-n junction of semiconductors. It is well known that the p-layer will attract the negative particles and reject the positive. However because of the HUP some (a very, very few) positive particles are attracted to the p-layer. So in theory is possible but not probable that the p-layer will attract all the positive particles. But the possibility means that no matter what you might say about a god as certainty, as per your examples, can no longer be considered a certainty. A probability to within 800 decimal places, yes. But no longer absolute. You said With the HUP I do not think that can be true.


Perhaps I misread what you intended to say. It seems you were arguing that god is inherent/exemplified through gravity.

Some would answer (not me though) that god is answering the prayer using science. Besides some Middle Ages Latin manuscripts do report regrown limbs. Naturally we no longer believe such accounts, but those accounts do exist. And for some really wild stories you might read the accounts of possessions and exorcisms. Most of those I have had the opportunity to read are in locked vault rooms at monasteries owned by the Catholic Church. [NOTE: I'm not saying they are true, but only such accounts exist.]

darstec

Which is exactly why I said: I was referring to John Broussaard post which I understood to be saying that he agreed with Rutchin's theory of faith and comparing it to the finality of gravity. I gave examples that there may be no certainties at all and therefore could be no omniscient omnipotent god .

rhutchin

Maybe a new thread is in order. The basic argument requires the incorporation of the concept of "free will" which allows people to do that which they desire even if those actions cause suffering. I would not mind rehashing the issue if you start a new thread.

rhutchin

I think the experiment would be better if the couples chosen were significantly different. It would also seem advantageous to look at 4-5 generations when comparing results.

CJD

Broussard and JEST2ASK:

Consider just for a moment that many of the texts now canonized as the OT depict a god who works mostly through natural means (like stem-cell research and their application, for example). The notion (or demand) that prayer ought to bring about a visible manifestation of god is hardly tenable. Christians throughout the centuries have not believed this to be the case (There are, of course, exceptions. Modern-day pentecostal tele-evangelists might fit that bill.) The introduction to the book of Judges is a good example of my first sentence above. One opening narrative gives chariots as a reason the Israelites couldn't drive out the indigenous peoples; the other gives god's desire to test the Israelites' fidelity as the "reason behind the reason."

Keep in mind too that the canon covers a 'history' that spans millennia. In this context, the few occurrences that visible manifestations and fiat miracles amount to not a whole lot.

CJD

gregor

Why do we need 4 generations? Maybe it's because back in the OT God promised to punish children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for the sins of someone? I'll let others grappel with the equities of that rule.

JoeWallack

JW:
Proper X-Uh-Jesus here first requires a quote from a Bible:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/r...34&endverse=34

Mark 15:34 (RSV)

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?""


JW:
Note that Bible Gateway doesn't have RSV, which is probably the best Christian translation, among its minions, which speaks Volumes.

The next step is to Textual Analyze to try and figger out what was original and what subsequent ChristianiT's Reaction was to The Original:

"15.34 ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι
The reading ηλει ηλει of D Θ (059 ελει) 0192 (131 ηλι) 565 al represents the Hebrew *×?ֵלִי‬ (“my Godâ€?), and has been assimilated to the parallel in Matthew (27.46). The great majority of uncials and minuscule manuscripts read ελωι ελωι, which represents the Aramaic *×?ֱלָהִי‬ (“my Godâ€?), the ω for the a sound being due to the influence of the Hebrew *×?ֱלֹהַי‬.
The spelling λεμα (×? C L Δ Ψ 72 495 517 579 1342 1675 al) represents the Aramaic *לְמָ×?‬ (“why?â€?), which is also probably to be understood as lying behind λιμα (A K M P U X Γ �* f 13 33 106 118 131 209 543 697 700 1270 al), whereas λαμα (B D N Θ Σ 1 22 565 1295 1582 al) represents the Hebrew *לָֽמָּה‬ (“why?â€?).
All Greek manuscripts except codex Bezae read σαβαχθανι or something similar (σιβακθανει, A; ζαβαφθανει, B; σαβαχθανει, C al), which represents the Aramaic *ש×?ְבַקְתַּ�*ִי‬ (“thou hast forsaken meâ€?). The reading ζαφθανι of D (itd reads zapthani; itk zaphani; itff2 sapthani; iti* izpthani) is a scholarly correction representing the Hebrew of Ps 22.1 *עֲזַבְתַּ�*ִי‬ (“thou hast forsaken meâ€?).1
Thus, in the text preferred by the Committee the entire saying represents an Aramaic original, whereas the Matthean parallel is partly Hebrew and partly Aramaic (see the comment on Mt 27.46).

15.34 �γκατ�*λιπ�*ς με {B}
It is perhaps more likely that copyists should have altered �γκατ�*λιπ�*ς με to agree with the Matthean reading με �γκατ�*λιπες (Mt 27.46), than that they should have changed με �γκατ�*λιπες to �γκατ�*λιπ�*ς με to agree with the Septuagint of Ps 22.2.
The reading of Dgr (supported by a few other Western witnesses2) �*νείδισάς με (“[Why] hast thou reproached [or, taunted] me?�) may have been substituted for the usual reading by someone who could not understand how God would have forsaken Jesus on the cross."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
Metzger has his faults (he's a Believer) but it's the best we can do until Kirby reaches the Middle Ages.

Some interesting points from the Textual Analysis:

1) The combination of the supposed Last Words and presentation in the supposed historical language (Aramaic) means that it was extremely important to the Author's presentation.

2) "Mark" likely presented the last words entirely in Aramaic.

3) There was effort to assimilate "Mark" to "Matthew".

4) "Matthew" edited in some Hebrew. Presumably from a theological standpoint, quotes from the original Hebrew Psalm were better theology.

5) Some editors changed "Mark's" "forsaken" outright.

So, I think you have a Point to make that a historical Jesus' last words of being forsaken sounds historical (and Jesus' last sound according to "Mark" was a loud cry which is even more historical sounding). Certainly, all the Gospellers had a problem with "Mark's" Jesus' last words sounding "too Jewish":

1) "Matthew" could only accept it as a quote from Hebrew Scripture.

2) "Luke" tossed it into the Roundphile.

3) "John" never heard it even though he was right there.

4) Since later versions were Edited even "Mark" didn't like what "Mark" originally wrote.

Actually the "Forsaken" ending fits very well with the Mythicist Position. Quoting Scripture as Narrative is a Sign of Fiction. Also, the "Forsaken" ending fits "Mark's" priMary purpose as an Apology for the Failed Jesus movement. What better evidence could there be than The Leader confessing with his last words to the last witnesses that it was over.

What Rules "Mark" is Ironic Literary Style. Everyone is subject to it including Jesus. Note that in "Mark" Jesus is "Amazed/Astonished/Surprised" just like everyone else. In the Greek Tragedy Style "Mark" climaxes by showing that Everyone, including Jesus, Failed Jesus. Even Jesus stopped believing that he was the Messiah.

"Mark" skillfully foreshadowed Golgotha with Gethsemane. "The Spirit is strong but the Flesh is weak." In Gethsemane, the Spirit (praying) agrees to drink The Cup. In Golgotha the Flesh refused the Cup.



Joseph

TRUTH, n.
An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page