Muad'Dib

Hi Radorth,

Thanks for your reply. I mentioned in my second paragraph the after-death experiences you cited earlier, but I should have made it clear in the first that that's what I meant.

I've never really looked much into NDEs. Even when I was a Christian (or when I believed I was a Christian, if you prefer) they weren't all that relevant to me--they were frowned on, actually, because the sparsely-documented anecdotes put too little explicit emphasis on Jesus. Until your recent post, I had little reason to examine them. But if you have documentation of such experiences, I would be interested in considering them--as would the mute readers (or "lurkers"), I'm sure, who usually outnumber our registered members by a considerable margin.

Even if the regulars intend only to mock, as you predict (I personally don't plan to do that, by the way), the lurkers surely will see through such a transparent dismissal of valuable evidence.

Regards,
Muad'Dib

Christian

Mageth,

This is a long one, but I’m posting our immediately previous exchange so we can start again.

Can’t even bring yourself to spell it correctly?

I find the 2000-year-old religious text rather compelling.

But since you don’t, I’ll offer a sample of the evidence that Jesus is still alive. What about the fact that His disciples were willing to suffer horrible deaths for their belief that He was resurrected.

The common counter I’ve seen on this board is “yeah, but just about any religion can claim martyrs.” This is true, but it ignores the fact that His original disciples were with Him in His ministry, heard first hand accounts of His death if they did not witness it themselves, and then claimed to have seen Him up and walking around after He was buried.

It is not all that uncommon for someone to be willing to die for something that they believe to be true. But it is unheard of for someone to be willing to die for something they know to be a bald faced lie.

If Jesus’ resurrection did not really happen, the 12 disciples would have known that it did not happen. If they were lying about having seen Him, they would have known that they were lying.

People don’t lay down their lives for the sake of a falsehood. Not when they know for a fact it is a falsehood. Not when they could save their lives by admitting it was a lie. Human nature just doesn’t operate that way.

Even with perfect knowledge, personal experience is different than examining the data of someone else’s experience. The difference between knowledge and experience is more than simply the number of details you have access to. There is also the matter of perspective. Doing something is personal. Having full knowledge of someone else’s personal experience is still not the same as having that personal experience yourself. Just ask a pilot whether he would rather fly a simulator or a real aircraft. There are some awfully good flight simulators these days. But I have worked with aviators before and in my experience they all view simulators as a distant second to flying.

Ever seen the movie “The Matrix?” Even though everything seemed real in the matrix, once people realized it was all in their mind they were willing to sacrifice a lot for a chance at experiencing reality (some people anyway). Why is that? Because a part of us instinctively desires reality over a simulation.

With perfect knowledge God could basically enjoy any simulation He cared to. But it would not be the same thing on a personal level as becoming a real person.

The difference in getting personal can also be seen in the result. God is able to relate to us as a fellow human now, something that would have been impossible before precisely because of His omnipotence. To identify with another person’s weakness requires having experienced weakness yourself. Because He is all powerful God does not experience weakness from a personal perspective. But by incorporating a fully human nature into the divine nature God increased His ability to sympathize and comfort us in that specific way we know as “relating.”

Similarly, because of the incarnation God has demonstrated the positive character trait of courage. Courage requires facing danger. An all-powerful God is not threatened by anyone; He never faces danger. But the God-man was threatened, and did demonstrate courage. This is an advantage of experience over knowledge.

Perhaps the difference I’m trying to describe – “perspective” for lack of a better term - qualifies as a type of “knowledge.” If so then yes, there is a specific sense in which God’s “knowledge” is limited by His experience. The personal sense. And this is not because of any lack of power or lack of might on His part … it is because He cannot self contradict.

Ah, but He would like to. And He has enabled such a thing. One day you will meet Him. That will either be a very good day or a very bad day for you.

Some of Christ’s enemies will not be saved.

Yes, He would have known. But before we are His friends we are His enemies. Christ takes the initiative, not us. Christ died for His enemies, and some of those enemies become friends as a result. (Rom 5:6-8)

I return to my statement in bold above. I was not arguing value from how many times the incarnation occurred. I was arguing value from who He was. The infinite became finite. That is more intrinsically valuable than the finite being finite.

Answered this earlier in this post, I think.

Poor analogy, I now think. Best not to try to illustrate intrinsic value with commerce.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Maud’Dib,
Those sorts of things could be done. And it might be pragmatic from our perspective. For example Jesus reduced all morality in the Bible to two simple laws. When I find myself in a moral dilemma I usually analyze the situation in light of those two laws. Given sufficient time and my average yet persistent mind that can get fairly complex (integrals?). But useful.

I also refer to those two laws when considering what scripture teaches on morals. Especially when there is a diversity of opinion on how to interpret a verse. If it becomes clear that an interpretation contradicts one of the two greatest commandments, then my conclusion is that interpretation is false. (Somewhere in the equation we must have divided by zero or something.)

But my point is also that if you crank up the intellect sufficiently it would be possible to solve a problem instinctively that someone with a lesser mind would have to resort to calculus to solve. My contention is that God’s intellect is so much greater than ours that the most complex moral situation (in our eyes) is just as obvious as a square having 4 corners in God’s eyes. He understands the fundamental moral truth of the situation at a glace.


You and I would have to go through a process. It is self evident to God. It’s a matter of intellect and raw knowledge about the problem.

And the difference in intellect between us and God is much greater than the difference in intellect between a child and an adult.

But behind the axioms of number theory is the self evident concept of “quantity.” “This many” when considered as a group with “this many” will always be “that many.” No matter what you call it. You may redefine the terms or not even have a term for the concept of “combined.” Still when you look “this” sitting by “this” will still be “that.” If I place a banana on my left and another one on my right, it is simply inherently true that two (no matter how you go about defining the concept of “two”) bananas are sitting there. Changing my axioms will not give me any more bananas to eat.

I have no doubt that there are many ways to logically assess the “number” of bananas I have. But none of those ways will make me any less hungry after I have eaten them. In truth, it is still “that many” bananas sitting in front of me.

If I am making some error here, by all means point it out. I don’t even know enough about theoretical math to be dangerous. But it seems to me that the concept of quantity is inherently true no matter what you call it or what systems you design to describe it.

Matt 22:34-40 is as far as you can break it down that I am aware of. But I’m not God either. I still maintain that justice transcends what you call axioms (although axioms combined to make “fractions” and such can help make sense of justice for us.)

How about geometry. Given God’s intellect, the correct moral choice in a situation is just as self apparent as squares having four corners. (And I’m talking about the fact that “that thing” has four of “those things”. It doesn’t matter what you call it or what system you design to describe and elaborate off of it. “That thing” still has four of “those things.”

Peano’s Axioms are examples of “undecidable statements.” Right?

All of Peano’s Axioms seem to be principles for describing how many bananas are sitting in front of me, and then being able to manipulate the answer. None of them change the quantity of banana (however described) that is physically sitting in front of me. The inherent truth that it is “this many” won’t change no matter what axioms I use to describe those bananas.

The physical truth of how much banana awaits does not depend on any axioms. It is simply what is.

I imagine that a moral algebra could be described (I’ve basically done so above using the 2 greatest commandments), but it would be limited by whatever assumptions underlie it. But moral axioms seem to be simply ways of considering the inherently true things which they attempt to describe.

Respectfully,

Christian

Yellum Notnef

I agree. Perhaps Radorth would like to share his info about the ex-athiest who had "risen" in a morgue after being dead for 3 days with the "lurkers" on this board.
He's done everything he can to avoid sharing any of the details with me since he believes I'm too cynical to be partial,but I bet all those unseen "perceptive readers" he's always talking about would really like to hear the details and thoughtfully evaluate the evidence.

But then again,you'd think that these lurkers and "perceptive readers" would come out of the woodwork and ask Radorth themselves about this if they actually thought he had any evidence to supply. But yet again,the only person to ask for any evidence was me (and now you).

hezekiah jones

Apparently this is the fellow under consideration:

George Rodonaia - Some Were Dead For Days

Yellum Notnef

From the link:

As if this wasn't bad enough. A couple paragraphs later:

He had dinner with Jesus and his mythical apostles and went to see where Noah and Abraham lived,but he doesn't believe in any specific God.
Not only that,he's also a pastor at St. Paul United Methodist Church in Nederland, Texas.

Is it common for pastors of Methodist churches in Texas to not believe in any specific god?


Please warn me before posting anymore links like this. I had my bullshit meter turned on at the time and the damn thing blew a fuse!

Fiach

The theme is an irrational faerie tale both unjust and by its own criteria a terrible failure.

Fiach

Radorth

Re Muab'Did;

Thanks for your post. Yes I think HJ has found the one I was thinking of. I'm curious about the response, which I suspect will be full of gratuitous assertions about where these come from.

Well, I'm mystified as to what I "promised" to produce. I didn't promise to produce "proof" of anything. Here is what I said:

His testimony was anecdotal. I know that so I say you can call him a liar or declare he just made it up. My problem is this: Why should I go spend two hours finding a single story I read once, which I've already admitted is a personal testimony?

Also, one skeptic here has claimed without any back-up that these experiences can be reproduced with electrodes to the brain. I asked for a testimony comparable to Carl Jung's. He should be able to find hundreds of those. When do I get to see one?

Re HJ:

So he's exactly what I recaled, no more or less. I don't suppose this will affect any future assertions about my "failure" to provide accurate facts.

Actually the fact he is a Methodist minister is telling. Is it common for Methodist churches to accept people who don't toe the party line? No, but I suggest he was so sure and sincere (or a great actor I suppose) and had such faith that they couldn't turn him down. Also, if he didn't see Jesus as some Christians insist on, why did he become a Christian minister?

What is the point of your question HJ?

(We should probably make a new thread if we are going on with this)

Rad

Radorth

This is a great site, because it talks about how Jesus' mercy can extend to atheists even after death. This is the primary objection of legalistic "fundies" to these testimonies- they can't see how Jesus could do that. It's easy. He has the power to do it, and he has righteousness to impute if he so chooses.

http://stargazers.home.pages.at/heav.../nde-intro.htm

BTW, do forgive me if I define dead as "clinically dead" instead of "mummified." Sheesh.

Rad

Bumble Bee Tuna

I have to take a break from my grudgemeister duties and agree that Radorth did specify when he cited the ex-atheist NDE that it was worthless as far as evidence goes, so there really was no reason for all this. He admitted from the start that there was no evidence!

Of course, the lack of evidence is pretty compelling. When someone dies, everyone hears about it, he gets an obituary, yada yada...then he comes alive in the morgue? That would be a huge news story. You'd have records of when he checked into the morgue. You'd have testimony from the morgue workers. Instead, we have...a webpage. Wow. Since Radorth believes personal testimony because calling people liars is so mean, surely now he'll believe that the Second Coming is here already and Jesus walks among us, under the new name "Ted". Personal testimony on the anonymous internet always convinces me...
http://wypleader.freeservers.com/

As for the list even though you're off this subject- Your list has nothing to do with the reasons for my "vitriol". I would apologize for my vitriol if you, you know, actually responded to my points instead of dodging them. My complaints in regards to 'the list" have to do with the childish games you've been playing in regards to revealing it. The list probably exists, but the misquotes are more like "slightly misinterpretted quotes" (I agree with you that you were slightly misquoted in the "incapable of sin" affair, IIRC). Regardless since you haven't produced it the state of affairs at the moment is it doesn't exist and you're making baseless assertions and playing games. While we're talking about misquotes, though, you're being just as bad! You get angry that people misinterpretted what you said about being "incapable of sin", yet here you go acting like people claim you are 'worse than hitler' instead of "a worse witness than hitler". Of course you seem to revel in being a hypocrite so maybe that was intentional.

-B