Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jess · 02-09-2002, 11:42 AM

Quote:

RvdS:
Again, no real evidence so far, except that in DNA research, there is evidence that all WOMEN, came from one common WOMAN.

Just the genomes of certain cell organelles called mitochondria, which are inherited along the female line the large majority of the time.

Last I heard, there were six (6) mitochondrial Eves floating about in our history...

diana · 02-09-2002, 12:27 PM

I'm a bit disappointed that he hasn't shown, yet. I gave him the link--to the thread in RR&P, where I originally posted it--and linked from there to here. Damn. Maybe I should send him an e-mail with the link to the serious discussion on it....

Personally, I see so many ways to rip everything he says to shreds that there's no challenge at all. I'm still wondering what Koy would do with it; whatever he did, it would make damn fine reading.

d

lpetrich · 02-09-2002, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jess:

Last I heard, there were six (6) mitochondrial Eves floating about in our history...

Any details? Where was this reported? I can't evaluate this claim until I learn more about it.

isaac42 · 02-10-2002, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:
Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny all mention Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christians (indisputably in one passage, possibly in the disputed Chrestus passage). Lucian does not mention Jesus by name, but gives a description that can apply to no one else.

(snip)

Michael

Michael, surely you don't accept the Testimonium Flavianum as genuine!

the Tacitus and Pliny references are questionable (see <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html" target="_blank">Scott Oser's article</a>).

Suetonius does mention Christians, but that's hardly the same as mentioning Jesus. I have no knowledge concerning Lucian.

Isaac

Pantera · 02-10-2002, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by isaac42:
Michael, surely you don't accept the Testimonium Flavianum as genuine!

A majority of scholars accept it as at least partly genuine. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:zuKWIhNj7xIC:www.earlychristianwrit ings.com/testimonium.html+earlychristianwritings+testimoniu m&hl=en" target="_blank">Peter Kirby notes</a>

Quote:

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed.

Additionally, Josephus makes a second reference to Jesus elsewhere in his history, where he refers to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" just before the Jewish War. This passage is far less controversial than the Testimonium.

Including Josephus on a list of ancient writers who made no mention of Jesus is therefore somewhat misleading.

Quote:

the Tacitus and Pliny references are questionable (see <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html" target="_blank">Scott Oser's article</a>).

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:94pKwTyR-aoC:www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html+earlychristianwritings+tacitus+pilate &hl=en" target="_blank">Debate on the Tacitus passage</a> centers on whether he was using independent sources or simply repeating what Christians had told him. He did unquestionably refer to Jesus though, so including him on a list of ancient writers who made no mention of Jesus is simply dishonest.

As Oser notes, Pliny mainly talks about the practices of Christians, but does mention that they "sing hymns to Christ as to a God". Admittedly this is not a particularly informative reference.

Quote:

Suetonius does mention Christians, but that's hardly the same as mentioning Jesus.

He mentions the Jews rioting at the instigation of someone called "Chrestus", which is taken by some as a reference to Jesus. This is thought by some to be a reference to disputes in the synagogues between Christians and more traditional Jews, but this is rather speculative. Chrestus is an otherwise well attested name - the passage may refer to an entirely different troublemaker. Suetonius therefore may or may not have mentioned Jesus - including him on a list of writers who didn't mention him without any comment or qualification smacks more of propaganda than a balanced presentation of the evidence.

Quote:

I have no knowledge concerning Lucian.

Wrote a satire about Christianity, which said that "the Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account" and "these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws." This is clearly a reference to Jesus, even though it doesn't mention him by name.

The strength of the evidence that there references provide is open to debate, but is not really the point. Listing 42 authors and claiming that "not one of them mentioned Jesus" when four, possibly five, of them did is very poor form indeed. Additionally there are several names which simply should not be on the list at all - <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/65/ly/Lysias.html" target="_blank">Lysias</a> for example appears to have been a Greek orator who lived from c459-c380 BC. His silence on Jesus is therefore not particularly surprising. Sadly, all that reproducing that list proves is that atheists are capable of being just as unreliable as sources as any Christian apologist.

FWIW, there was a discussion on the list in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000502&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

{tags}

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]

Vorkosigan · 02-10-2002, 04:45 PM

Thanks Pantera, I forgot to about that thread.

Pantera read my mind. The issue was that several of those authors DO mention Jesus, whether or not you accept the references as genuine, while others are too early, too late or uninterested in Jesus.

Michael

Vorkosigan · 02-10-2002, 04:52 PM

Lysias -- might that mean the Roman commander who saves Paul in Acts? There was another Lysias,a Seleucid regent, who ruled Judea in Maccabean days (still too early).

<a href="http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/silius-italicus.htm" target="_blank">Silius Italicus</a> is another bad choice, a poet and orater who wrote an epic on the Punic Wars. dates are 25-101, died before Xtianity got rolling.

Michael

Bait · 02-11-2002, 07:19 AM

Hello all,
I'm the "now infamous" (apparently) Ron vdS who replied to a challenge of sorts to Diane after reading a bit on her website, who in turn threw me to you "wolves" (so to speak). Fair enough, and what I expected actually. Ok, I admit, I had not read EVERYTHING she's ever written...my bad. Will try to be absolutely perfect next time.
For times sake, I'll take some of the comments I've received here a little at a time.
First off though, I'm NOT trying to ridicule anyone, that doesn't prove anything. I am trying to debate, and to have a little fun while I'm at it, I'm NOT out to belittle anyone, how they believe, or don't believe. Diane asked the challenge of "why do you believe", I started out trying to answer why I believe, ME, not necessarily why I think YOU should believe.

Diane, if it seemed that I was trying to insult or injure you (based on what you said in your private e-mail to me), my apologies to you...t'was not my intent. The questions I asked were honest ones, not intended to deride. Some of the questions were based on what you had written of your experiences growing up as a preachers daughter, in what seemed by your description, pretty strict. Sorry if I misread what you had wrote.

Ok, on to the debate
One item that I did state, and was soundly ridiculed by a few (without any proof to the contrary BTW), I do not understand why the ridicule. So my question right now is: If you are given positive proof of something, will you admit/concede it then, or will you resort to bluffing and ridiculing just because someone says they are Christian? Will you honestly look at the facts, or will you ignor fact.

Sooo, I stated that it would not take much of a strike for a stone to knock out a human...no matter the size. I asked Diane if, as a martial artist, if she had been taught pressure points. Many of you spoofed at this, without checking out the facts of human anatomy, not chi, ki, or other oriental beliefs. In the general area described in the Bible that the stone supposedly hit (forehead, some say between the eyes), there IS located the angular vein and frontal communicating branch with opthalmic vein, in addition to the termination of the supratrochlear nerve. Don't believe me, check out Henry Gray's 1918 "anatomy of the human body", still used by the medical community. Look at figures 557 and 790. It would only take a modest size stone, perhaps 2 - 3 inches diameter, thrown perhaps at a speed around 80 miles per hour, probably much less, to create an impact sufficient to knock even a giant down and stun him. This does not count if the stone struck at the spot where the bone of the nose bridge connects with the cartilege.
If the stone was of sufficient sharpness (no, not razor sharp, just coming to a point, or with somewhat of an edge, which BTW, flint, and many other types of stone do naturally), it could very easily have stuck in the forehead, bridge of the nose, or anywhere in that area, stunning poor ol' Goliath. As to the speed, some baseball player's can throw a ball at 90 MPH+, without mechanical help, David had a sling to help it along.

"Little David" would not have need of a lot of strength to pick up Goliaths sword and cut off said head, only enough to pick up the sword, and raise it over his head, gravity would do the rest. Tell me now you've never used an axe, or sledge hammer, or awl...SAME principal, and I've split logs with all of the above, much harder than a neck. If you say, for one, that the sword was THAT heavy, the weight alone would be able to cause enough damage to kill, if not cut off the head. And a sword is well capable of decapitation, even if it took several blows. So at least on this ONE point, will you concede that it is POSSIBLE, from a medical/scientific/physical standpoint, that this "biblical story" COULD have happened as described (that it's physically conceivable, not that it has positive written historical proof it happened). If you do not concede this point, then without resorting to ridicule, derision, and the like, then tell me WHY you think this is not physically possible. Remember, that the story says he was a boy, but it does not describe actually how strong, or what size David really was. Don't know about you, but I know a lot of pretty big, stong teenagers. With him being a shepard (translate farm boy), is it not possible that he had some strength to him (I would imagine it would take some strength to lift and carry a lamb over your shoulders, a common occurance with shepards)?

And could he not have been sufficiently practiced with his sling to be fairly accurate with it? Slings were common weapons back then. I've tried one, and could generate a pretty hefty impact with one (though I was not in any sense accurate with one).
More later,
Ron v.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Ron v. ]

Bait · 02-11-2002, 08:40 AM

(clipped)
>None of my churches were strict. Actually, my churches have concentrated more on how we as humans treat each other than on the bible itself. But if the god-concept doesn't make sense, how can Christianity, based on the presupposition of a god and supernaturalism, be true? Nothing against the churches, necessarily, nor the lovely people who attend them. There just simply is no evidence for any gods - biblical, new age, >specialized pagan, or any other.

The strictness I referred to was related to the way Diana described her experiences with her church, on her website. At the time, I did not know that she would put me to this forum. You state "But if the god-concept doen't make sense, etc." I would say it doesn't make sense TO YOU. It makes sense to me, partly because what I've read that "seems" to back up many of the biblical accounts, and partly of my own, personal, felt, experience. I read, for my own, things that convinced ME, then I believed. I talked to people that I trusted, and was convinced. I saw how some people lived, versus how I was living, saw their joy, compared to the lack of it I had...tried their way, and FOR ME it worked. So if it doesn't make sense to you..ok, but why is it necessary to blast me, because it makes sense to me? Some of us "Christians" knows how this belief has worked for us, has improved our lives, and try to share with those we care about, to help them. Because we are human, there are those that also go way overboard in trying to convince others, some more obnoxious than others. Not all are like that, just like not all atheists try to ridicule Christians. I wrote Diana because she seemed to be of a logical sort, willing at least a little bit, to listen and consider. I'm of the sort that will present MY view, and yes,will debate (because I like debate). I know I'll get shot down on a lot of things...best way to learn. But if you choose not to believe in anything...cool, that's your right. If you hate Christianity, for whatever reason, sorry you feel that way. We can still be friends, and debate (without anger).

(clipped)
Is it possible that you suffer from the prejudice that I must believe before I can understand? I can read english, and I own a concordance, so I can research the definitions of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words so as to avoid twisting of meanings. As to the evidence - we're all missing some, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, I do not suffer from that malady. I was convinced by what I found, you apparently were not. If you choose to look at the world without God, it's your choice. You show me what convinces you there is no God, I'll show you why I think there is. Faith is one item, to me, but I see evidence otherwise as well. Maybe not convincing to you, but maybe we can be friends anyway.

>[/b]
>This is a common problem in discussing the god-concept - every theist has his own version of god. You think yours is capable of all sorts of human-like emotions, where others will insist that he is above it all, or other combinations thereof. It's great you think he is capable of judgment of us, but obviously not during our lifetimes, or we wouldn't have an Earthly justice >system on top of it.

Yes, and atheists have their own versions of atheism...that's called being independant HUMANS, we're ALL different, and think different. As to the emotions, the bible says he's capable of human like emotions (or are we humans capable of God-like emotions?)..I digress, another debate altogether. How do you know he doesn't met out corrections, or punishments to us on earth? Why do you say "obviously not during our lifetimes"? Just because we humans have what we view as "correct behaviour", and make laws regulating same, how is that connected to "Gods laws", and why would we not have them (human laws) as well, especially if some of those making the human laws have choosen to ignor Gods laws, or deny the existance of God himself? People die, get sick, have troubles, etc...may or may not be God's judgments/punishments, I personally do not know that they are, or are not, and choose to think that at times they probably are. What proof do you have that they are not? I personally think the final punishment is eternal though, I have no proof, other than faith, of this... what is your proof to the contrary?

So, we just have to wait for the afterlife for him to judge us - except that no one has reported back that there actually IS an afterlife.

Welllll, actually there are many who have reported back that there is an afterlife (look into the light...), but since they have to physical proof (other than having been dead, then brought back to life, ie: eyewitness?)most do not believe them.

So, what good is that judgment? Who does he need to defend himself from? I thought he was omnipotent. Can't he just clap the little offenders out of existence? He may love and protect his children, but my own human parents did a much better job of it. Maybe he can't keep up with all of us...oops!

Ok...derision alert! Lets keept to the subject here.

Who to defend from?...according to biblical accounts an archangel named Lucifer (I know, you don't believe in the bible, but you asked the question, and the bible had (gasp) the answer). "I thought he was Omnipotent"...and your point is?
"Can't he clap his offenders out of existence?"
Probably can, and will, but he has choosen to abide by his own laws. AND he has given us all freedom of choice. If he delays doing as you said, perhaps it's because his time is not the same as ours, and/or perhaps he's giving us a chance to choose. Notice I said perhaps, I don't know everything God has planned.

No, he's omnipotent. I keep forgetting.
(derision type argument? Who's insulting whom?)

Punishment for disobedience is an interesting concept when he supposedly made us all. Are we just a game to him (let's see how many of them can follow my rules, BWA HA HA HA) >or did he just make us defective?

Or did we, as free beings, disobey and make ourselves defective, damaged ourselves? Don't know if you have kids, but are you telling me that you would never punish them? With God out of the picture, that means YOU make your kids, did YOU intentionally make them defective, so you have to punish them? What aren't they born Rhodes scholars? Same basic argument you're using. We're his children, given freedom to choose, we chose badly, and now he's blamed for it. Gooood one, real convincing. (Darn!haven't figured out how to put those rolly eyes things here like Diane does).

>[/b]
I definitely don't have all the answers, and I'm glad Mr. van de Sandt doesn't think he does either. The second part of this sentence, I could not have phrased better myself. Instead of assigning a supernatural reason to things we don't understand, why can't we just wait for the correct answer?

Or if one is convinced in the supernatural reasons, why is that so wrong? Why wait when one does not have to?

>Anything is possible. However, with the enormous - no make that limitless - powers attributed to the god of the bible, it seems that he would have been able to make his own creations do a little better job of being thorough and >accurate.

A concession? Albeit a little one? Anything is possible? Even perchance that the God of the bible could be real? Seriously, I really do not know the answer to this one. Perhaps he made us capable, and we don't use what's given to us, perhaps he gave us the answers, we just do not want to believe them, perhaps some of the "proofs" were there, and have been lost merely due to the passage of a great amount of time.

>6. Is it possible that some of the things that you (and others) use to say that the Bible is lying, is really only how primative man is trying to describe something he has had no experience with, has never seen before, and really doesn't understand. If I was from back then, I would perhaps describe a helicopter as looking like a large grasshopper, or locust...wouldn't you?
See number 5. If I was on my own - no divine intervention - then sure, I would describe a >helicopter as looking like a giant grasshopper.

My reply is also in number 5. We'll just agree to disagree here, or say we just don't know.

7. Is it possible that the Bible may really be true, but you would rather just dismiss it, and put it down, rather than to admit you could be wrong?
This is just an attempt to make non-believers feel guilty. Admitting I'm wrong is not one of my inadequacies. If the bible is true, then we will find PROOF that it is true via our scientific capabilities. If you can't prove something objectively, then you can't prove it at all. When there is proof, we will examine it, and we will do our human best to be honest with that proof. Until then, we have the evidence at hand, and it does not come close to being adequate to conclude that the bible is real, that Christianity is true, that any other religion has truth, or that god exists.[/QB][/QUOTE]

No, not an attempt to make you or anyone feel guilty. Merely a statement of experience, from this very list. One of my previous arguments is that a stone COULD have knocked down Goliath, and David had the capabilities to both throw the stone hard enough with a sling, and to kill Goliath with his own sword. The POSSIBLITY that this could happen can be medically proven, objectively (another post I did just previous to this one). Yet NOT ONE of you conceded that it is even possible, rather, I was ridiculed, and statements like the stone would have to be the size of a head or greater, and other such drivel was presented, as well as many attempts at humor at my expense. This is scientifically proving me wrong? Remember too, the original post was not directed to anyone other than Diane, not at you personally. Perhaps you can admit if your wrong. Then I have a worthy adversary, who will debate issues without feeling the need to try to ridicule. And judging by this post of yours, I wish to thank you for keeping this objective, and not resorting to name calling and such. It will be a pleasure to bump heads with you. :-)
Bests,
Ron v.

Kosh · 02-11-2002, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ron v.:
Hello all,
I'm the "now infamous" (apparently) Ron vdS who replied to a challenge of sorts to Diane after reading a bit on her website,

Welcome to the gauntlet Ron. First off, if you're
indeed serious about not wanting to come off as
demeaning, then I would suggest you refrain from
writing things like this:

Quote:

Again, no real evidence so far, except that in
DNA research, there is evidence that all WOMEN, came from one
common WOMAN. Hmmmmmmm.

That little "Hmmmmmm" comes across as a smug "know it all" attitude in writing.

As Diana commented on her first posting, you
have yet to say anything that isn't the same old
tired apologetics that we've heard over and over
(and over and over and over) and have been well
refuted many times here on the Sec Web.

About the David and Goliath topic. So what?
I personally, and I'm sure there are many others
here, don't hinge my disbelief in your theology
on the credibility of the David/Goliath myth.
So a Bill Gates type nerd got lucky and beat up
a large man (later mythologized (is that a word?)
as a "Giant"). I could care less. It's not so far
fetched a story, nor does it even have to be a
miracle to have been true.

There are MANY other problems with the Bible that
render it unable to stand up under scrutiny.

BTW, for your reference, I have a similar background to Diana's. Used to be "in the fold",
but couldn't helping thinking for myself,
questioning the many things that don't make sense,
and eventually did the research for myself to
understand the truth behind the formation of the
OT, NT, Christian theology, myths, etc.

Happy Hunting.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]

02-11-2002, 07:19 AM	#18
Bait Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 119	Hello all, I'm the "now infamous" (apparently) Ron vdS who replied to a challenge of sorts to Diane after reading a bit on her website, who in turn threw me to you "wolves" (so to speak). Fair enough, and what I expected actually. Ok, I admit, I had not read EVERYTHING she's ever written...my bad. Will try to be absolutely perfect next time. For times sake, I'll take some of the comments I've received here a little at a time. First off though, I'm NOT trying to ridicule anyone, that doesn't prove anything. I am trying to debate, and to have a little fun while I'm at it, I'm NOT out to belittle anyone, how they believe, or don't believe. Diane asked the challenge of "why do you believe", I started out trying to answer why I believe, ME, not necessarily why I think YOU should believe. Diane, if it seemed that I was trying to insult or injure you (based on what you said in your private e-mail to me), my apologies to you...t'was not my intent. The questions I asked were honest ones, not intended to deride. Some of the questions were based on what you had written of your experiences growing up as a preachers daughter, in what seemed by your description, pretty strict. Sorry if I misread what you had wrote. Ok, on to the debate One item that I did state, and was soundly ridiculed by a few (without any proof to the contrary BTW), I do not understand why the ridicule. So my question right now is: If you are given positive proof of something, will you admit/concede it then, or will you resort to bluffing and ridiculing just because someone says they are Christian? Will you honestly look at the facts, or will you ignor fact. Sooo, I stated that it would not take much of a strike for a stone to knock out a human...no matter the size. I asked Diane if, as a martial artist, if she had been taught pressure points. Many of you spoofed at this, without checking out the facts of human anatomy, not chi, ki, or other oriental beliefs. In the general area described in the Bible that the stone supposedly hit (forehead, some say between the eyes), there IS located the angular vein and frontal communicating branch with opthalmic vein, in addition to the termination of the supratrochlear nerve. Don't believe me, check out Henry Gray's 1918 "anatomy of the human body", still used by the medical community. Look at figures 557 and 790. It would only take a modest size stone, perhaps 2 - 3 inches diameter, thrown perhaps at a speed around 80 miles per hour, probably much less, to create an impact sufficient to knock even a giant down and stun him. This does not count if the stone struck at the spot where the bone of the nose bridge connects with the cartilege. If the stone was of sufficient sharpness (no, not razor sharp, just coming to a point, or with somewhat of an edge, which BTW, flint, and many other types of stone do naturally), it could very easily have stuck in the forehead, bridge of the nose, or anywhere in that area, stunning poor ol' Goliath. As to the speed, some baseball player's can throw a ball at 90 MPH+, without mechanical help, David had a sling to help it along. "Little David" would not have need of a lot of strength to pick up Goliaths sword and cut off said head, only enough to pick up the sword, and raise it over his head, gravity would do the rest. Tell me now you've never used an axe, or sledge hammer, or awl...SAME principal, and I've split logs with all of the above, much harder than a neck. If you say, for one, that the sword was THAT heavy, the weight alone would be able to cause enough damage to kill, if not cut off the head. And a sword is well capable of decapitation, even if it took several blows. So at least on this ONE point, will you concede that it is POSSIBLE, from a medical/scientific/physical standpoint, that this "biblical story" COULD have happened as described (that it's physically conceivable, not that it has positive written historical proof it happened). If you do not concede this point, then without resorting to ridicule, derision, and the like, then tell me WHY you think this is not physically possible. Remember, that the story says he was a boy, but it does not describe actually how strong, or what size David really was. Don't know about you, but I know a lot of pretty big, stong teenagers. With him being a shepard (translate farm boy), is it not possible that he had some strength to him (I would imagine it would take some strength to lift and carry a lamb over your shoulders, a common occurance with shepards)? And could he not have been sufficiently practiced with his sling to be fairly accurate with it? Slings were common weapons back then. I've tried one, and could generate a pretty hefty impact with one (though I was not in any sense accurate with one). More later, Ron v. [ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Ron v. ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2002, 12:27 PM	#12
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	I'm a bit disappointed that he hasn't shown, yet. I gave him the link--to the thread in RR&P, where I originally posted it--and linked from there to here. Damn. Maybe I should send him an e-mail with the link to the serious discussion on it.... Personally, I see so many ways to rip everything he says to shreds that there's no challenge at all. I'm still wondering what Koy would do with it; whatever he did, it would make damn fine reading. d

02-10-2002, 04:45 PM	#16
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Thanks Pantera, I forgot to about that thread. Pantera read my mind. The issue was that several of those authors DO mention Jesus, whether or not you accept the references as genuine, while others are too early, too late or uninterested in Jesus. Michael

02-10-2002, 04:52 PM	#17
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Lysias -- might that mean the Roman commander who saves Paul in Acts? There was another Lysias,a Seleucid regent, who ruled Judea in Maccabean days (still too early). <a href="http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/silius-italicus.htm" target="_blank">Silius Italicus</a> is another bad choice, a poet and orater who wrote an epic on the Punic Wars. dates are 25-101, died before Xtianity got rolling. Michael

02-11-2002, 08:40 AM	#19
Bait Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 119	(clipped) >None of my churches were strict. Actually, my churches have concentrated more on how we as humans treat each other than on the bible itself. But if the god-concept doesn't make sense, how can Christianity, based on the presupposition of a god and supernaturalism, be true? Nothing against the churches, necessarily, nor the lovely people who attend them. There just simply is no evidence for any gods - biblical, new age, >specialized pagan, or any other. The strictness I referred to was related to the way Diana described her experiences with her church, on her website. At the time, I did not know that she would put me to this forum. You state "But if the god-concept doen't make sense, etc." I would say it doesn't make sense TO YOU. It makes sense to me, partly because what I've read that "seems" to back up many of the biblical accounts, and partly of my own, personal, felt, experience. I read, for my own, things that convinced ME, then I believed. I talked to people that I trusted, and was convinced. I saw how some people lived, versus how I was living, saw their joy, compared to the lack of it I had...tried their way, and FOR ME it worked. So if it doesn't make sense to you..ok, but why is it necessary to blast me, because it makes sense to me? Some of us "Christians" knows how this belief has worked for us, has improved our lives, and try to share with those we care about, to help them. Because we are human, there are those that also go way overboard in trying to convince others, some more obnoxious than others. Not all are like that, just like not all atheists try to ridicule Christians. I wrote Diana because she seemed to be of a logical sort, willing at least a little bit, to listen and consider. I'm of the sort that will present MY view, and yes,will debate (because I like debate). I know I'll get shot down on a lot of things...best way to learn. But if you choose not to believe in anything...cool, that's your right. If you hate Christianity, for whatever reason, sorry you feel that way. We can still be friends, and debate (without anger). (clipped) Is it possible that you suffer from the prejudice that I must believe before I can understand? I can read english, and I own a concordance, so I can research the definitions of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words so as to avoid twisting of meanings. As to the evidence - we're all missing some, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. No, I do not suffer from that malady. I was convinced by what I found, you apparently were not. If you choose to look at the world without God, it's your choice. You show me what convinces you there is no God, I'll show you why I think there is. Faith is one item, to me, but I see evidence otherwise as well. Maybe not convincing to you, but maybe we can be friends anyway. >[/b] >This is a common problem in discussing the god-concept - every theist has his own version of god. You think yours is capable of all sorts of human-like emotions, where others will insist that he is above it all, or other combinations thereof. It's great you think he is capable of judgment of us, but obviously not during our lifetimes, or we wouldn't have an Earthly justice >system on top of it. Yes, and atheists have their own versions of atheism...that's called being independant HUMANS, we're ALL different, and think different. As to the emotions, the bible says he's capable of human like emotions (or are we humans capable of God-like emotions?)..I digress, another debate altogether. How do you know he doesn't met out corrections, or punishments to us on earth? Why do you say "obviously not during our lifetimes"? Just because we humans have what we view as "correct behaviour", and make laws regulating same, how is that connected to "Gods laws", and why would we not have them (human laws) as well, especially if some of those making the human laws have choosen to ignor Gods laws, or deny the existance of God himself? People die, get sick, have troubles, etc...may or may not be God's judgments/punishments, I personally do not know that they are, or are not, and choose to think that at times they probably are. What proof do you have that they are not? I personally think the final punishment is eternal though, I have no proof, other than faith, of this... what is your proof to the contrary? So, we just have to wait for the afterlife for him to judge us - except that no one has reported back that there actually IS an afterlife. Welllll, actually there are many who have reported back that there is an afterlife (look into the light...), but since they have to physical proof (other than having been dead, then brought back to life, ie: eyewitness?)most do not believe them. So, what good is that judgment? Who does he need to defend himself from? I thought he was omnipotent. Can't he just clap the little offenders out of existence? He may love and protect his children, but my own human parents did a much better job of it. Maybe he can't keep up with all of us...oops! Ok...derision alert! Lets keept to the subject here. Who to defend from?...according to biblical accounts an archangel named Lucifer (I know, you don't believe in the bible, but you asked the question, and the bible had (gasp) the answer). "I thought he was Omnipotent"...and your point is? "Can't he clap his offenders out of existence?" Probably can, and will, but he has choosen to abide by his own laws. AND he has given us all freedom of choice. If he delays doing as you said, perhaps it's because his time is not the same as ours, and/or perhaps he's giving us a chance to choose. Notice I said perhaps, I don't know everything God has planned. No, he's omnipotent. I keep forgetting. (derision type argument? Who's insulting whom?) Punishment for disobedience is an interesting concept when he supposedly made us all. Are we just a game to him (let's see how many of them can follow my rules, BWA HA HA HA) >or did he just make us defective? Or did we, as free beings, disobey and make ourselves defective, damaged ourselves? Don't know if you have kids, but are you telling me that you would never punish them? With God out of the picture, that means YOU make your kids, did YOU intentionally make them defective, so you have to punish them? What aren't they born Rhodes scholars? Same basic argument you're using. We're his children, given freedom to choose, we chose badly, and now he's blamed for it. Gooood one, real convincing. (Darn!haven't figured out how to put those rolly eyes things here like Diane does). >[/b] I definitely don't have all the answers, and I'm glad Mr. van de Sandt doesn't think he does either. The second part of this sentence, I could not have phrased better myself. Instead of assigning a supernatural reason to things we don't understand, why can't we just wait for the correct answer? Or if one is convinced in the supernatural reasons, why is that so wrong? Why wait when one does not have to? >Anything is possible. However, with the enormous - no make that limitless - powers attributed to the god of the bible, it seems that he would have been able to make his own creations do a little better job of being thorough and >accurate. A concession? Albeit a little one? Anything is possible? Even perchance that the God of the bible could be real? Seriously, I really do not know the answer to this one. Perhaps he made us capable, and we don't use what's given to us, perhaps he gave us the answers, we just do not want to believe them, perhaps some of the "proofs" were there, and have been lost merely due to the passage of a great amount of time. >6. Is it possible that some of the things that you (and others) use to say that the Bible is lying, is really only how primative man is trying to describe something he has had no experience with, has never seen before, and really doesn't understand. If I was from back then, I would perhaps describe a helicopter as looking like a large grasshopper, or locust...wouldn't you? See number 5. If I was on my own - no divine intervention - then sure, I would describe a >helicopter as looking like a giant grasshopper. My reply is also in number 5. We'll just agree to disagree here, or say we just don't know. 7. Is it possible that the Bible may really be true, but you would rather just dismiss it, and put it down, rather than to admit you could be wrong? This is just an attempt to make non-believers feel guilty. Admitting I'm wrong is not one of my inadequacies. If the bible is true, then we will find PROOF that it is true via our scientific capabilities. If you can't prove something objectively, then you can't prove it at all. When there is proof, we will examine it, and we will do our human best to be honest with that proof. Until then, we have the evidence at hand, and it does not come close to being adequate to conclude that the bible is real, that Christianity is true, that any other religion has truth, or that god exists.[/QB][/QUOTE] No, not an attempt to make you or anyone feel guilty. Merely a statement of experience, from this very list. One of my previous arguments is that a stone COULD have knocked down Goliath, and David had the capabilities to both throw the stone hard enough with a sling, and to kill Goliath with his own sword. The POSSIBLITY that this could happen can be medically proven, objectively (another post I did just previous to this one). Yet NOT ONE of you conceded that it is even possible, rather, I was ridiculed, and statements like the stone would have to be the size of a head or greater, and other such drivel was presented, as well as many attempts at humor at my expense. This is scientifically proving me wrong? Remember too, the original post was not directed to anyone other than Diane, not at you personally. Perhaps you can admit if your wrong. Then I have a worthy adversary, who will debate issues without feeling the need to try to ridicule. And judging by this post of yours, I wish to thank you for keeping this objective, and not resorting to name calling and such. It will be a pleasure to bump heads with you. :-) Bests, Ron v.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.