James Still: rodahi, lance, and others,
When I said that a creed was a confession of faith I meant that its truths are understood quite differently from those truths in science and history.

Maybe so, but just how does one go about demonstrating the "truth" of your statement?

rodahi

Toto

Isn't that the thesis of Josh McDowell's apologetics - that there is historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, therefore all rational people should be Christians? I keep hearing echos of that fallacious argument in Nomad's postings.

Nomad and friends accuse skeptics who don't believe that Jesus was a historical personage of being the equivalent of Flat-Earthers, or Young Creationists. Although as far as I can tell, their only motive for insisting that we concede that Jesus was historical is to allow them to move on and take the next step and argue that the empty tomb proves that Jesus rose from the dead.

Is that "ornery" and "feisty"? Are you saying your faith is just a way of getting back at the secular world you have to live in?

Sounds a lot like Rodahi...

Ish

James Still

I'm afraid we part company here meta. I said that I don't consider a believer wrong for believing provided that he does not make belief a matter of reason. Seen metaphorically and as a matter of faith I do not want to say the Christian worldview is wrong. But now you seem to want to make it a matter of reason. You say that you can "give good reasons for belief" but that we would find those reasons inadequate because of our prejudice against them. Of course, through the lens of reason, science, and philosophy the Christian worldview is antiquated and superstitious. From my point-of-view it is riddled with error and lacks the sheer elegance and beauty of metaphysical naturalism. But that's just me.

Four questions:
(1) Where can I get a copy of their Gospel?
(2) Are there any historical documents (Roman OR greek) evidencing that Herpekles actually lived?
(3) Will I get a couple of paid holidays for belief in and celebration of them as well?
(4) Do they charge 10%, too??

Thanks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
He just probably formulated a philosophy to justify any belief that happened to coincide with those he had.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Sounds a lot like Rodahi...

No, Ish, it sounds a lot like you, Tercel, Bede, Nomad, et al.

Do you have something substantial to add to this thread, or are you just attempting to be cute? If it is the former, you failed; if it is the latter, keep your day job.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
ILLUSTRATION
Creed
1. I believe in the Heavenly Father Zeus, God Almighty and the Creator of Heaven and Earth
2. I believe in Herakles, His son, the Savior
3. I believe Herakles was miraculously conceived by the Virgin Alcmene
4. I believe Herakles, the Savior, suffered and died
5. I believe Herakles survived his death as the Holy Spirit
6. I believe Herakles ascended to Heaven and is sitting at the right hand of Zeus
7. I believe Herakles will return to Earth some day to judge humanity
8. I believe these things are true with all my heart

This creed is my understanding of who I am. I don't have to prove any of it to anyone. It isn't necessary. It's not science, or history, or philosophy--it doesn't have to be. It just makes me feel good to believe these things. Anyone who has felt the Spirit of Herakles in his heart knows what I mean.

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mo: Four questions:
(1) Where can I get a copy of their Gospel?

The narratives are readily available at most bookstores. There are millions of copies.

Mo: (2) Are there any historical documents (Roman OR greek) evidencing that Herpekles actually lived?

I never heard of "Herpekles," so I can't speak to the evidence for his existence. With respect to Herakles, the Greek Savior hero, Encyclopedia Britannica 2001 states the following: "Behind his very complicated mythology there was probably a real man, perhaps a chieftan-vassal of the kingdom of Argos." The independent clause correlates well with what critical scholars say of Jesus.

Mo: (3) Will I get a couple of paid holidays for belief in and celebration of them as well?

I don't think so, but the "holidays for belief in and celebration of them" were holidays for belief in and celebration of them BEFORE Jesus came along.

Mo: (4) Do they charge 10%, too??

Thankfully, no.

rodahi

D'oh! Did I say that out loud?!

Do you realize how bitter and self-righteous your posts come across to others (even toward your fellow atheists), Rodahi?

Anyway, as an atheist you believe that death is the end, right? Do you have any evidence that this is what really happens when we die, or do you just believe this is what happens when we die? You seem very confident in your world-view, so let's see your evidence...

Ish

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Still:
[b] I'm afraid we part company here meta. I said that I don't consider a believer wrong for believing provided that he does not make belief a matter of reason.

Meta =>I didn't say I made belief a matter of reasonI said I could give good reasons. I also said you would not except them because of your biases. That has just been borne out.

Seen metaphorically and as a matter of faith I do not want to say the Christian worldview is wrong. But now you seem to want to make it a matter of reason. You say that you can "give good reasons for belief" but that we would find those reasons inadequate because of our prejudice against them. Of course, through the lens of reason, science, and philosophy the Christian worldview is antiquated and superstitious.

Meta =>No that's just an idiological camp follower kind of statment. It's absurd to calim that science or philosophy, niether of which would even exist in a modern since without Christianity, somehow privelege atheism. Of course they wouldn't find it to be superstition becasue its not, if one understsood it. I wonder if you even know what supersition is. And again, I did not say belief is predicated upon reason i said I can give good reasons. You haven't even heard them but have decided that can't be good. That just proves what I'm saying; your bar of reason is a kangaroo court.

From my point-of-view it is riddled with error and lacks the sheer elegance and beauty of metaphysical naturalism. But that's just me.

Meta =>ahahahaah, Metaphysical naturalism? O you mean the suicide of humanity. Gee can I be a robot too?

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited June 20, 2001).]

Hey whatever floats your boat man. But I know you haven't read SK and doubt that you would understand him.

Not to worry, I'm not just trolling you, I'm moving the thread to the Philosophy board. I'll be over soon, need to formulate my attack.

It's really getting off topic here in a major way.