Mageth

OK, so you proceed from there to something along the lines of "some non-natural solutions include the notion that we'll be punished by God if we're bad." Fear of the possibility of this punishment appears to be your primary motivation.

Your post is not much more than a resurrection of Pascal's Wager.

Note that you start from a "So what?", proceed to "The Bible says that people are accountable to God for their actions and face judgment" to reach the conclusion "Therefore, I ought to give attention to what the Bible says."

Do you see the circularity in the above? You'd have to first "give attention to what the Bible says" for "The Bible says that people are accountable to God for their actions and face judgment" to have any impact on you. If you didn't first "give attention" to the Bible, you wouldn't be concerned with the Bible's threat of judgement.

Why fear the Bible's threat of punishment if your original position on supernatural explanations was "So what?", and according to the form of your argument there was no need to give attention to what the Bible says until you, well, gave attention to what the Bible says?

Your answer to your question "How do we determine what to "believe" or what to respect enough to think about believing?" appears to be nothing more compelling than "We should believe what scares us the most." And that's not compelling at all to me.

I seem to recall that earlier in the thread you made the point that Jesus's alleged miraculous actions were credible in the context of the Bible, or something along those lines. This appears to me to be a not-so-subtle upward shift of position on the notion of credibility.

Here's the quote:

rhutchin

OK. So if you read the Bible (or any other book) and understand what it says, then you argue in a circle if you state what the Bible (or book) says?

rhutchin

And Pascal's Wager is a sound logical argument. So?

Mageth

Your conclusion was "Therefore, I ought to give attention to what the Bible says."

However, this position would have to be held before one could make the assessment that "The Bible says that people are accountable to God for their actions and face judgment."

You're arguing that you "ought to give attention to what the Bible says" because (or if) you first give attention to what the Bible says. That's obviously a bit of an absurd way to argue that one ought to give attention to something.

I have no initial reason to "give attention" to what the Bible says. Therefore, if the Bible says that "people are accountable to God for their actions and face judgment", so what? (Note that [i]this is where YOU started from in your post). Thus, I never reach your "ought to give attention to what the Bible says."

Clearly, your argument for why we "ought to give attention to what the Bible says" is sorely lacking. There's something missing between your "So what?" and your conclusion. Well, there's something there, but it's nothing more than a circular argument, that begins with the (unstated) conclusion.

Deus Ex

No it is not. It sets up a false dichotomy between one religious viewpoint and atheism. It also does not take into account that you cannot make yourself believe something that goes against everything that you have learned.

Mageth

Pascal's Wager has more holes than swiss cheese and is not in the least compelling, but I suppose that's a discussion for another thread. In fact, it's been discussed to death in other threads in the past.

spamandham

In regards to miracle claims in texts in general, there are natural explanations that are not only plausible, but also match our modern experiences. We experience modern writers writing about miracles where none have happened, and we experience our own selves exaggerating stories as we retell them. We also experience outright miracle deceptions of the Benny Hinn type.

We have at least one ancient writer, Lucian, who flat out tells us that writers of his day were inventing all kinds of fanciful stories told in the first person. He refers to these writers as liars in his introduction to "The True History", and proceeds to mock the practice by writing what many people consider to be the first science fiction novel.

So given that we have multiple plausible natural explanations for miracle claims, and given that these align with our own direct experience, and given that we have an admission from an ancient source that writers of his day were writing all kinds of nonsense in the first person as if it were true, what reason is there for seriously considering that ancient times really were filled with miracles and magic?

storytime

Well, my ancestors claimed relationship via word of mouth. No birth certificates in those past centuries. No written records. One would say "yeah, I remember ol Jim who was cousin to ol Fred the barber" type thing. And most everyone knows that we're all 1/4 Cherokee. Some say the cheekbones prove it while others rely on unmarked grave sites, just a lump of ground.

Now, if one wants to claim Jesus as their Lord, then they must, imo, and from the way I read his instructions, prove their claim by actually following his way, truth and life in Judaism, which means a conversion to that tradition of circumcision and observance of Jewish laws. Jesus didn't teach a Gentile religion as his way to life in Judaism. He was a Jew after all and his God a Hebrew construct. Gentile converts would naturally take on a new name of "Jew" in Judah tribe ancestry and become a son of Jacob-Israel. Adopted sons are supposedly equal to those born in the house name.

I hope rhutchin seriously considers what the bible says.

storytime

You bought into this Hebrew/Jewish bullshit hook, line and sinker, didn't you?

Ok, you haven't proven yourself "a son of God" or a disciple of Jesus. What must you do to be saved? And why would you need to be saved and from what?

Blasphemy! "Those who take the name of the Lord God in vain shall not be found guiltless". The penalty for your speaking against the protocol of God, is death. Can Jesus save you? No. "All manner of sin shall be forgiven except the sin agains the Holy Ghost[God]. You can speak against Jesus, the Jews, whatever, that doesn't count as judgment against you. But, your speaking where God has NOT spoken condemns you.

You are therefore required to repent of your ignorance in this matter of claiming to be a child of the Hebrew god or else suffer the consequence. The consequence is that IF you had lived 2000 years ago and made your silly claims to be an inheritor of the promise to the Jews, without having converted to their tradition of Judaism, they would have killed you as per their commandment, and without blood on their hands. But lucky for you, you now live in this modern age where Jewish law cannot judge you and condemn you to be stoned to death. However, you still want to claim what you cannot, by Law, have. You are in fact an illegitimate "bastard" and not a son. Although you're still condemned as a liar, you probably won't be killed by some Jewish religious nutcase who takes the bible seriously.

rhutchin

I understand what it says as you seem to. I also know that you cannot show that it is not true and this appears to upset you.

As it turns out, you are accountable to God for your actions. When you die (your physical body stops working) your desire will be to enter heaven (although you will likely claim otherwise now) and your actions will determine whether you are allowed to enter. A person does not have to do anything to be saved except seek God's mercy.

I don't think you understand the situation. At least, your comment doesn't indicate that you do.

:huh: