Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-25-2003, 04:05 PM | #161 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 151
|
Quote:
Well, if God changed me into a newt, I might accept that he exists, illogical or not (of course, I'd have to remember being changed into a newt, and be convinced it wasn't a hallucination). Probably wouldn't worship him, though. He's psychotic, schizophrenic, paranoid, murderous, and completely untrustworthy. Gregg |
|
02-25-2003, 04:15 PM | #162 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Not in Kansas.
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
It's not a presupposition. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to the events in the gospels. There are extremely good reasons to think that the author of Matthew was not either since he depends on Mark and probably "Q" for most of his gospel. Scholarly opinion is more divided on John, some seeing his source as going back to an eyewitness, but even if this is the case his gospel has been heavily redacted. So who are you suggesting saw something? |
|
02-25-2003, 04:15 PM | #163 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
|
Shrug, not surprised - Biblical prophecy - Satan would lead the multitude of the world to lies and deception. That being Islam since most of the countries opposed to Israel and in Biblical prophecy are Islamic.
Umm, Islam didn't even exist when the Bible was written. So at best, you might claim that you interpret the prophecies as referring to Islam countries. That and i don't believe in having another century worth of time. I;m Christian remember? I believe Jesus will be returning within the next decade or 2. Not all Christians believe that, you know. And prepare yourself to be disappointed; I was taught back in the '60s that we had less than a decade left, and that the USSR for sure (and possibly China) were the countries indicated in the prophecies. And that's only one incident where Jesus missed his chance of the many thousand predicted returns over the last 2000 years. |
02-25-2003, 04:17 PM | #164 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 444
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2003, 04:26 PM | #165 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
|
Who says we don't see miracles today? I already today iv'e experienced a miracle in my own life that logic and science can't, and doctors talk about medical miracles all the time.
Care to divulge the "miracle" you experienced, or afraid we'll point out the flaws in your assessment? Sure, some doctors sometimes refer to a "medical miracle." But 1) if they're disposed to believe in miracles anyway, I don't put much trust in their assessment 2) not all doctors refer to "miracles"; and 3) one can call something a "miracle" without assuming it has supernatural causes; instead, you're indicating you don't know the cause. We just live in a very skeptic and sinful society who don't want miracles to be true, and if they are witnessed, skeptics just claim its coincidence. I personally would think it would be cool if miracles were possible. I'd love to see little kids miraculously healed from terminal diseases. Unfortunately, every one I've heard described ends up having a rather mundane natural explanation, and doesn't require a supernatural explanation. There have been accounts of nurses and doctors seeing angels visit ill patients, or little kids who were severly beaten and abused carried miles to safety by angels. Yeah, right, "accounts." There are people who will give you their accounts of all sorts of things; alien abductions, encounters with bigfoot, with the loch ness monster, with Elvis, with all sorts of things. Ever watch John Edward or the Pet Psychic? Where's the documentation, the proof? I've never seen anything that would remotely equal solid evidence that any such "miracle" has occurred. Miracles happen everyday - you're just blind to them. No, alleged miracles happen every day. We're just not blind enough to accept the accounts as authentic; we prefer to critically examine them. |
02-25-2003, 08:26 PM | #166 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
|
Magus55:
(Islam being run by the Devil...) ... and i don't believe in having another century worth of time. I;m Christian remember? I believe Jesus will be returning within the next decade or 2. The track record of such "prophecies" suggests that that is not worth losing sleep over. And I wonder what Magus55 would say if he lived to 2020 and Jesus Christ was still nowhere in sight. |
02-25-2003, 08:30 PM | #167 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
|
Quote:
However, present-day claimed miracles are piddling compared to those of centuries past, like those in the Bible and those of medieval saints. So why don't we see any "big" miracles anymore? |
|
02-25-2003, 08:33 PM | #168 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Well let me ask you all this. If the Bible is a legend, completely fictional - why is it the most influencial book in history,
Compare to what? The Analects of Confucious? The Yi Ching? The Yi ching is by far the most influential book ever written.... why does it have the most accurate copies with the least time span between original and first copy, Magus, as we have already seen, none of this is true. First, the accuracy of Bible copying is no higher than that of any other book in history. Second, scripture, as any scholar can tell you, and as the many books I've recommended all say, has been edited, corrupted, amended and interpolated as Christians have struggled over the meaning and direction of their religion. Mark has several endings, and some scholars argue that the current ending of John was formerly part of Mark. The famous passage in which Jesus helps the adulterous woman is a well-known later addition. Several letters attributed to Paul in the NT are not considered authentic by scholars. Additionally, any ancient document whose original we have -- for example, letters from Oxyrynchus or diaries from graves in China, is more original than anything in the Bible. why is it the most well known, popular book on earth in over 2000 languages. Don't be silly. Because Christians strive to have it translated! After all, tons of fantastic fictional stories were made up during those days - why have none of them had the overwhelming effect that the Bible has? Don't be silly. Paganism was outlawed by Christians. And other religions are not so ruthless about shoving their religion down other peoples' throats. The Bible has had an overwhelming effect because Christians have been more willing than other religions to suppress competing forms of belief. No other holy religious book has had anywhere near the influence the Bible has. So sorry, but the Yi Ching and numerous other works have had a much greater influence than the Bible in their respective civilizations. Nobody ever used the Bible to perform chemistry, but the Yi Ching was the basis of Chinese chemistry and alchemy for many centuries. On the other hand, when one views the history of religious warfare in the west, and the complete lack of it in the East, one can only wonder about the malign influence of the Bible. Oh wait, maybe i can answer myself - the billions and billions of Christians since the Bible was written were and are suffering from mass delusion? Magus, there were no Christians when the Old Testament writings were written. And Magus, what about other beliefs? Are Muslims, Buddhists and Wiccans suffering from delusions? Really, your position is weird. Christians don't suffer delusions en masse, but instead are the result of social pressure, early indoctrination, lack of competing alternatives, and other social factors. Just like other religions. Vorkosigan |
02-25-2003, 08:34 PM | #169 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
|
Because like a parent - God is always there, nurturing and teaching you when you are young ( in this case humanity) as time went on, people didn't think they needed him as much anymore and he left people with more responsibility.
|
02-25-2003, 09:14 PM | #170 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Madison WI USA
Posts: 3,508
|
Quote:
If not, then you have a double standard. As others have pointed out, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the gospel accounts are accurate eyewitness records. Considering that 3 out of 4 of them admit they aren't, and the 4th (Mark) is not even traditionally an eyewitness account, then you've got a helluva case to make! |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|