rhutchin

I see no reason to believe in the FSM based on what I know about it. This includes the wikipedia article that says:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism. Created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson, it was originally intended as a satirical protest...

I don't see how it would topple my theology. I do see how people can say that they do not believe the theology that I hold to.

spamandham

P52 is dated via paleography, and although it is generally said to range from 125-150, there are nonetheless a few paleographical matches from the very late 2nd/early 3rd century as well IIRC, so the real range extends at least out to the end of the 2nd century.

spamandham

This is the second time you've dodged the question. Obviously the FSM is not real. We both know that - everyone knows that. I'm not asking you if the FSM is real, or if it is reasonable to accept the FSM, or if you believe in the FSM, or even if you want to believe - I assume you don't. The question involves your capacity to choose your beliefs and nothing else.

So here it is again reworded one more time:

At this moment in time, with what you know about the FSM, and with no further knowledge or revelations regarding the FSM, could you choose to believe that the FSM is real? Could you will yourself into belief in spite of your knowledge that the FSM is not real and is instead a parody?

Part of your theology involves the idea that salvation is granted to those who accept it? If you're like the typical Christian, then you'll declare that as only requirement for salvation.

If it turns out that we really can't choose our beliefs, but that instead our beliefs are formed independent of our will based solely on our experiences, a point you tacitly agree to when you dodge the FSM question repeatedly, then justification by faith is arbitrary and unjust, since faith is not something we have control over.

rhutchin

OK. The real issue here is whether we choose to believe the things that we believe. So, when you ask, "Could you will yourself into belief in spite of your knowledge that the FSM is not real and is instead a parody?" the answer is no. I cannot will myself to believe that the FSM is real when I am being told that it is not real and a parody. Could I choose to believe that the FSM is real? No - but this is still based on what a decision I make based on what I know. The end result is that I choose what i will believe. I maintain that you and everyone else also chooses what they will believe based on what they know and have experienced.

For the purpose of this argument, I'll agree that this is true. It's a very simplistic rendering of the situation, but let's go with this.

OK. What I think you are saying is that it takes faith to believe and faith is something given to a person by God which results in them believing while those people not given this faith choose not to believe. Since faith is not something you learn from reading books or gain from experience (the position I think you actually want to take), then people who end up believing do not really choose to believe. If so, then there is only one issue in this world for which we might consider that people do not choose to believe but are enabled to believe. On all other issues, people actually choose whether to believe based on their knowledge and experiences. Is that where you are coming from?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: If we may get back on topic, the title of this thread is "Inauthentic sayings of Jesus." In your opinion, how should historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

spamandham

Thank you. That's the whole point.

Either you have the capacity to will yourself into belief or you do not. This isn't complicated. You state twice that you do not have that capacity but then turn right around and say it has something to do with a decision you make. How can you make a decision to believe if you do not have the capacity to make a decision to believe?

This is a contradictionf. On the one hand you say you couldn't choose to believe in the FSM with what you know, but then you continue on insisting that we nonetheless choose our beliefs. No, we don't. Our beliefs are molded by our experiences (aka, our knowledge), and we do not have the capacity to simply will ourselves into belief.


Well, no, I'm not saying anything even remotely similar to that. I'm saying that the idea that you can choose to believe something is a false idea, since beliefs are formed by our knowledge/experiences independent of our will.

We do not choose what we believe, but instead, our beliefs are formed subconsciously based on our experiences. When you (Christians in general not just you) condemn others for failing to choose belief, it's an unjust condemnation, since neither you nor I are capable of simply willing our beliefs.

Let's try a simple experiment if you're game. Just answer the following question in a concise but honest way. Why do you believe in the god of the Bible?

rhutchin

You have lost me. I say that people have the capacity to believe and they decide what to believe based on what they know or experience.

How did I state that people do not have the capacity to believe? Earlier I said, "I think you, and everyone else, has a brain that allows you to sift through everything you experience and choose what you will believe." to which you responded, "Well, you're just flat wrong,..." Isn't it your position that people do not have the capacity to believe and not mine?

I have been saying that I can choose to believe in the FSM but choose not to do based on what I know about the FSM. My position is that people choose what to believe based on what they know or experience.

I don't understand your argument here. When you say that, "Our beliefs [in X] are molded by our experiences" then those experiences are the bases for believing in X.

What do you mean when you say, "we do not have the capacity to simply will ourselves into belief"? Do you mean willing yourself to believe something that is not supported by your knowledge and experience? I don't think anyone does that.

I don't see a difference between the will and what the will believes. What do you mean by the will?

I don't buy into the subconscious hypothesis.

These things make my belief rational.
1. The testimony of the many people whose writings are included in the Bible.
2. The universe cannot be eternal according to the laws of thermodynamics and it had to have a specific beginning point.
3. Matter cannot arise out of nothing.
4. Life cannot arise out of non-life.

There can only be a supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe and life and the Bible provides a supernatural explanation that I find believable.

rhutchin

Read the Bible and see what people wrote that He said.

Deus Ex

How do you know which parts that he actually said and which parts are legendary embellishment?

avi

I endeavored to follow this prescription:
Then, is it generally acceptable to employ one's own customs and habits, in attempting to interpret the original meaning of those who wrote the new testament?
I do not accept the Byzantine version as authentic, maybe that is a character flaw on my part, but I am singularly disinclined to accept anything written by, or dated post, Eusebius.

To my way of thinking, the Hort Westcott version is the correct version, until proven wrong, by an EARLIER manuscript, i.e. one dated from third century or before.

I am troubled by your casual reply to my query about the distinction between the two texts, since, in my view, perhaps incorrect, there is a significant theological distinction between Jesus uttering "my father", and saying "the father". I appreciate, and smiled, with your casual, and friendly response, invoking your own children's behaviour, but, I doubt that this sort of analysis is productive in the long run.

In other words, I think we ought to attempt to dispassionately analyze the Greek writings, attributed to Jesus, in order to clarify not only which version is correct, but, more importantly, to ascertain, to the best of our ability, the message that Jesus was attempting to convey to his listeners...

I was also dissatisfied with your explanation of why Jesus apparently refutes himself, having claimed in John 10:30, to be "one" with God, then, explicitly denying such a relationship in John 14:28. In my uninformed opinion, this is a remarkable contradiction, worthy of a detailed explanation.

I can think of two reasons for this disparity.

I guess both are incorrect, but that's why I am posting this, to gain a better explanation for what seems to me to be an enormous hurdle.

1.
Jesus says he is subservient to "the" father (not "my" father, if the HortWestcott version accurately portrays the ink drying from John's quill)
AFTER having insisted that he and the father are one, i.e. identical.

The Greeks (perhaps not the Hebrews) were nothing if not mathematically precise. They constructed enormous cities, conquered huge empires, and constructed entire cities from the desert sands, in a brief minute of time. They accomplished these incredible feats of engineering wizardry because of a rock solid foundation in mathematics. So, to my way of thinking, coming not from a biblical background, the notion that

X = Y

and

X < Y

are both true, is a falsehood.

I believe, obviously without proof, that no educated Greek citizen would have accepted this dichotomy either.

Therefore, I conclude, as the first possible explanation, that this bizarre situation represents an anomaly, i.e. that "John" did not intend to make this distinction. Whether the error represents a casual blunder by him, or by one of the scribes copying his work, is irrelevant to me, it is, in the first instance, a simple blunder, an unintended mistake by someone.

2. Alternatively, it is not a blunder, but rather, a deliberate attempt to represent Jesus as a person of dual personality. This could be some sort of "gnostic" influence, or some kind of clue, or wink, some notion that someone is pulling our leg....

I hope you can address these two points with a more elaborate explanation: do you consider that the distinction between 10:30 and 14:28 is a mere error, or do you see it as something more distinct? Can Jesus really be so intellectually deficient that he could not perceive the dichotomy between the two phrases? In your view, rhutchin, was it not evident to Jesus, that he was contradicting himself, in a serious way, a contradiction which no intelligent, educated, Greek citizen would have committed, save in jest?

If you cannot accept the validity of the Hort Westcott text, can you explain why you prefer the Byzantine version?

If you believe that the proper text is "my" father, instead of "the" father, as I assert represents the original text from John, can you explain the theological consequences of that derivative?


avi