tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7653630900603345341..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On miraclesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84699714707042292452013-10-03T20:25:16.166-04:002013-10-03T20:25:16.166-04:00I'm jumping in now, only just scanning the thr...I'm jumping in now, only just scanning the threads today. Sorry for not following everyone's comments more closely over time. Science, I think, is simply making inferences from repeated observations. You observe a pattern that repeats with every observation and begin to make predictions based on that inference. It seems a little arrogant to me, not to mention illogical, to then infer that no exceptions to the pattern are possible. The whole point of a miracle is that it defies probability as a proof that God or Jesus is God. @ Jackie - freedom has real consequences for good or evil. I would rephrase your mother's statement to say, "No evil can be greater than the goodness of good, and in the end will be turned to serve His purposes."Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10518360985137245598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29751361506691242462009-06-16T11:54:02.687-04:002009-06-16T11:54:02.687-04:00I may be sort of a socialist on a, b and c(I like ...I may be sort of a socialist on a, b and c(I like people to work together and cooperate and blah, blah, blah)...and a capitalist on d, e and f. <br /><br />But if one doesn't choose to save lives before their born, whats the actual point of being "conservative" and cooperative on the expendature of resources from that point forward? More resources for fewer people? That is the epitome of being selfish. In the past, children have always been our future. But foolishly we have systematically exterminated 1/3 of our current graduating class. <br /><br />When you sit down and think about it, isn't that just ABSOLUTELY THE MOST Self CENTERED THING YOU CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF? <br /><br />If that's what socialism and progressivism truly represents, "more for me", what a total waste of time and resources.<br /><br />AND THAT is exactly why the US is in economic chaos. We thoroughly deserve it.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54421845179797653182009-06-16T00:28:09.163-04:002009-06-16T00:28:09.163-04:00Evolution inevitably favors 'the selfish'....<b>Evolution inevitably favors 'the selfish'.</b><br /><br />Hey, you could say the exact same about "capitalism". I didn't know you were a socialist, Cal! Wonders never cease, but maybe it should be expected, since Jesus was quite a socialist himself, it sometimes seems.J. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52683208312942584102009-06-13T21:06:49.166-04:002009-06-13T21:06:49.166-04:00Dear UnBeguiled,
Upon re-examining the Dawkins qu...Dear UnBeguiled,<br /><br />Upon re-examining the Dawkins quote, I now see that I took it further than I should have. Although Dawkins and others attribute creative, almost God-like powers to natural selection, Dawkins wasn’t explicitly ascribing intelligence to it. You were indeed UnBeguiled!Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704739030059289842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84057854837743827682009-06-13T18:20:11.990-04:002009-06-13T18:20:11.990-04:00"By claiming that Darwinism requires more tha..."By claiming that Darwinism requires more than chance, Dawkins is secretly smuggling in intelligence and design."<br /><br />No he's not. He's introducing natural selection, you silly creduloid.<br /><br />So typical. Creationist quote mining.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21716288597697803322009-06-13T18:14:50.437-04:002009-06-13T18:14:50.437-04:00Massimo,
I don’t think you answered my challenge:...Massimo,<br /><br />I don’t think you answered my challenge: “How can people devoted to such irrational ‘myths and legends’ be living such productive and beneficent lives?”<br /><br />While you maintain that believing in the super-natural is irrational, there are many scientists who are despairing of ever finding natural answers. Paul Davies, for example, staggers at the possibility of life’s building blocks naturalistically self-assembling:<br /><br />“Can specific randomness be the guaranteed product of a deterministic, mechanical, law-like process, like a primordial soup left to the mercy of familiar laws of physics and chemistry? No it couldn’t. No known law of nature could achieve this.” (“The Fifth Miracle”, 88)<br /><br />“We conclude that biologically relevant macromolecules simultaneously possess two vital properties: randomness and extreme specificity. A chaotic process could possibly achieve the former property but would have a negligible probability of achieving the latter. At first sight this appears to make the genome an impossible object, unattainable by either known laws of chance.”<br /><br />And this is just in consideration of building blocks, and not the cellular machines or even life. Anticipating your objection, let me cite John C. Lennox from his masterful “God’s Undertaken” (148):<br /><br />“This suggestion will be met by a chorus of protest that…[this] is a ‘God of the gaps type – solution…’I can’t explain it therefore God did it’…it is also very easy to say ‘evolution did it’ when one has not got the faintest idea how, or has simply cobbled up a speculative just-so story with no evidential basis…it is just as easy to end up with an ‘evolution of the gaps’ as with a ‘God of the gaps. One might even say that it is easier to end up with an ‘evolution of the gaps’ than a ‘God of the gaps’ since the former suggestion is likely to attract far less criticism than the former.”<br /><br />Even the militant Richard Dawkins has written, “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it wouldn’t work. You don’t need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck.” (Lennox, 103)<br /><br />By claiming that Darwinism requires more than chance, Dawkins is secretly smuggling in intelligence and design. Isn’t he then playing the hypocrite when he mocks and disdains theism and the super-natural! <br /><br />The only reference I have on the Russell quote is from Os Guinness’ book, which I’ve already referenced.Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704739030059289842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7787166289460213062009-06-13T13:10:01.437-04:002009-06-13T13:10:01.437-04:00Daniel,
sorry to seem/be flippant, but no I simpl...Daniel,<br /><br />sorry to seem/be flippant, but no I simply cannot take your suggestions seriously. It really amazes me that so many grownups take fables and myths at face value because they wish to feel like someone with great powers somewhere in the universe directly cares for them.<br /><br />> How is it possible that a belief system that is merely a collection of “fables and legends” can consistently confer such rich benefits upon those who embrace it? <<br /><br />Easily. We know that people can be fooled into all sorts of ideologies and beliefs, and that they have very real consequences -- sometime positive, as in the case you mention, sometimes horrible, as with the Nazi and the Holocaust. This says precisely *nothing* about whether those beliefs are true or not.<br /><br />btw, I seriously doubt the quote from Russell is real and not taken out of context. I read several books by him, and I don't recall anything of the kind. Do you have a reference from one of his writings?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53822613938262693732009-06-13T12:10:37.072-04:002009-06-13T12:10:37.072-04:00Anecdotes.
Now there's a solid epistemic foun...Anecdotes.<br /><br />Now there's a solid epistemic foundation.<br /><br />Not.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43105686903454292712009-06-13T11:54:07.973-04:002009-06-13T11:54:07.973-04:00Massimo,
I have given you evidences that professi...Massimo,<br /><br />I have given you evidences that professional historians regard as highly significant and you flippantly push them aside as “fables and legends.” I mention scholars and you dismiss them as “fools.” You claim that you “can’t take seriously” the evidence that I’ve presented. However, based upon your previously stated bias against miracles, it seems clear that you WON’T take them seriously. So allow me to open another line of consideration.<br /><br />I had been a severely maladjusted youth who saw five highly recommended psychotherapists in hope of finding some mental peace. However, each of these pillars of modern secular wisdom left me worse than before. Instead, it was only in Christ that I found what I needed, and so many other people can attest to the fact that He gave them the peace, hope, assurance, moral certitude, meaning/direction/purpose, joy, wisdom for life and getting along with others, ability to cope with hardships, and joy. How is it possible that a belief system that is merely a collection of “fables and legends” can consistently confer such rich benefits upon those who embrace it?<br /><br />Look at it from a grander perspective. Christianity was the engine that propelled the West’s ascendency. It is a clear lesson from history that those who believe in delusions live their lives based on those delusions. Their lives are consequently out of step with reality and therefore reap negative consequences. Wisdom should tell us that perhaps Christians know something worth knowing. In contrast, at the end of his life, the famous British mathematician and atheist, Bertrand Russell, confessed:<br /><br />“I wrote with passion and force, because I really thought I had a gospel [good news]. Now I am cynical about the gospel because it won’t stand the test of life.” (Os Guinness, “The Journey,” 106)Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704739030059289842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32018152735974630412009-06-13T11:11:54.894-04:002009-06-13T11:11:54.894-04:00And further, the earth and everything on it is qui...And further, the earth and everything on it is quite a miracle whether it is ten thousand or ten million years old. Gradualism also does absolutely nothing to erase everyday miracles that we totally take for granted. <br /><br />Blink your eyes for instance. <br />Shut them and keep them closed for awhile. <br /><br />How long would you want to go about your day, intentionally walking around in darkness?<br /><br />Not too long I would imagine. <br /><br />So being able to blink ones eyes is an amazing thing, isn't it?<br /><br />That's what it's like to think about reality on real terms.<br /><br />There's wonder, beauty, love and hope all around you. When will you be able to open your eyes to see it?calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42438102721099107992009-06-13T10:49:00.722-04:002009-06-13T10:49:00.722-04:00"All sorts of people are convinced of bizarre..."All sorts of people are convinced of bizarre things that are not true, like that the earth is a few thousand years old..."<br /><br />It might be thousands or millions, but the bottom line is that neither camp knows precisely what the age of the earth is. What we do know for certain tho is that the series of adjustments that the old earth people (be they creationists or evolutionists) are much greater than the young earthers every time there is an adjustment made on time lines. <br /><br />If that kind of standard (HUGE MOVING GOAL POSTS) was set for something like a murder investigation, regular people, not influenced by ideology one way or another would find it ridiculous.<br /><br />And I do. <br /><br />The fundamental problem is not the age of the earth, it is something much more personal. Evolution inevitably favors 'the selfish'. And if that doesn't bother you, you'll likely prefer evolution no matter what the evidence looks like.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61962002809405851302009-06-13T00:08:07.324-04:002009-06-13T00:08:07.324-04:00Faithlessgod,
Fair enough, from a historical poin...Faithlessgod,<br /><br />Fair enough, from a historical point of view. But from a genetic and linguistic point of view, I suspect they were all Palestinians (and/or Israelites if you prefer) no matter what we call them. You know, Semitic brethren.J. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5889545318953547562009-06-12T17:51:47.975-04:002009-06-12T17:51:47.975-04:00Massimo,
I apologize for the overcall on being sl...Massimo,<br /><br />I apologize for the overcall on being slippery. Still - F.F. Bruce? I see your point on not disproving a miracle - although that is not a universal because if someone is claiming Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith rose from the dead, I can put a damper on that with hard evidence, which is why it is unlikely to happen for a few hundred years.<br /><br />"There were probably plenty of Christians who disavowed their faith under torture, but that isn't the point. Plenty of people believe all sorts of things, and are willing to be killed for their beliefs. So?"<br /><br />I don't believe that is the point, either. The point is that, though people may be deceived into dying for something others made up, people are rarely willing to die for something they themselves made up. <br /><br />Unless they're all crazy, which is possibility #3. <br /><br />"I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.” Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.” -Acts 26<br /><br />So there are the possibilities - liars, lunatics, legend or...?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10518360985137245598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23790550793710893702009-06-12T15:53:21.707-04:002009-06-12T15:53:21.707-04:00Well, I actually thought we went somewhere. :)
...Well, I actually thought we went somewhere. :) <br /><br />Massimo: "I haven't read any argument, only an appeal to authority..."<br /><br />I was referring not to Greenleaf himself, but to the brief treatise he wrote for which I gave a link.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10518360985137245598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4050789035106883472009-06-12T15:43:49.425-04:002009-06-12T15:43:49.425-04:00Steve,
as predictable, this is getting nowhere, a...Steve,<br /><br />as predictable, this is getting nowhere, and one of us will simply soon tire of repeating the same arguments or slight variations thereof (probably me). For now tough:<br /><br />> So your "nobody" is qualified to mean Biblical scholars? And you disqualify Lewis, an expert in ancient history and Greek literature, from that category? <<br /><br />I thought it was clear from the original context that I was talking about Biblical scholars, and no, Lewis wasn't one of 'em.<br /><br />> Certainly I agree the burden of proof is on those who claim miracles, but then are you saying that their claim cannot be disproved? Is this nonsense, or am I misreading? <<br /><br />You are misreading. I meant to say that one cannot disprof miracles just like you cannot disprove the existence of Zeus, or of unicorns. If I believe in Zeus (or unicorns) the burden of evidence is on me.<br /><br />> The time period for a legend to accrue - for example, Buddha a philosopher, to be transformed by legend into a deity, requires hundreds of years after the death of the person <<br /><br />Really, so I take it that you are also a Mormon and a Scientologist?<br /><br />> This definition is from Greenleaf's Treatise on the Law of Evidence, a classic of American jurisprudence and a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century. <<br /><br />So much the worse for American jurisprudence. As I said, it is vacuous and not useful. What kind of things would not count as "evidence" under that definition?<br /><br />For an in-depth discussion of the concept of evidence see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/<br /><br />> f only one of them had broken down while being torched in Nero's gardens, thrown to the lions, or crucified upside down and confessed - "OK, I admit it - we made this thing up".... but you have to grasp at what you've got, I suppose. <<br /><br />There were probably plenty of Christians who disavowed their faith under torture, but that isn't the point. Plenty of people believe all sorts of things, and are willing to be killed for their beliefs. So?<br /><br />> You haven't addressed Greenleaf's arguments, and I suspect you won't. <<br /><br />I haven't read any argument, only an appeal to authority...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54884246917754765452009-06-12T15:29:40.065-04:002009-06-12T15:29:40.065-04:00Massimo, my fried,
My, you are slippery. So your ...Massimo, my fried,<br /><br />My, you are slippery. So your "nobody" is qualified to mean Biblical scholars? And you disqualify Lewis, an expert in ancient history and Greek literature, from that category?<br /><br />Then you are stating that no serious Biblical scholar believes the resurrection happened. OK, how about F. F. Bruce? <br /><br />"...educated at the University of Aberdeen, Cambridge University and the University of Vienna. After teaching Greek for several years first at the University of Edinburgh and then at the University of Leeds he became head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947. In 1959 he moved to the University of Manchester where he became Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis." —Wikipedia<br /><br />Massimo: "First of all, bad approach: the burden of proof is on those who claim miracles. One cannot disprove an alleged miracle, nor does one need to."<br /><br />What are you saying? Certainly I agree the burden of proof is on those who claim miracles, but then are you saying that their claim cannot be disproved? Is this nonsense, or am I misreading? <br /><br />And what is wrong with the approach? The approach was not assuming miracles; there was even a predisposition against them.<br /><br />Massimo: "Second, how on earth can one conclude that eyewitnesses who have been dead for a couple of millennia, and who we know were not recounting events fresh in their minds (I'm sure you know that the Gospels were written decades after the alleged facts) are "reliable"?<br /><br />If you read Greenleaf, you would discover why he considered the manuscripts reliable and the eyewitnesses accurate in what they related. Let me try to respond briefly for myself (not Greenleaf). <br /><br />The time period for a legend to accrue - for example, Buddha a philosopher, to be transformed by legend into a deity, requires hundreds of years after the death of the person and of the contemporaries who remembered him. In Jesus's case, Daniel's point is quite relevant. The contemporary enemies of Jesus, who had a vested interest in discounting the resurrection, provide some of the strongest evidence. Paul writes of the resurrection within 20 years of the event: "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (1 Corinthians 15:6-8) He is saying at the time of his writing people are still living who saw Christ after his resurrection. The authorities would be glad to render the statement absurd. Instead, the statement (and the book of 1 Corinthians) was widely circulated and translated into many other languages (numerous ancient manuscripts) indicating their wide acceptance all within the lifetime of Jesus's contemporaries. <br /><br />But after all is said and done, I think it is the nature of what is written in the Gospels that is the most convincing, and that is part of the case made by Greenleaf.<br /><br />Massimo: "A completely vacuous and useless definition."<br /><br />This is a refutation - your opinion? This definition is from Greenleaf's Treatise on the Law of Evidence, a classic of American jurisprudence and a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century. (Wikipedia) <br /><br />Massimo: "Or they made up a fable..."<br /><br />This was Greenleaf's original assumption. If you examine the details more closely, as he did, you will discover this was an intellectual feat of which they (and anyone else) were simply incapable. <br /><br />If only one of them had broken down while being torched in Nero's gardens, thrown to the lions, or crucified upside down and confessed - "OK, I admit it - we made this thing up".... but you have to grasp at what you've got, I suppose.<br /><br />You haven't addressed Greenleaf's arguments, and I suspect you won't.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10518360985137245598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60718878230190379892009-06-12T14:18:32.082-04:002009-06-12T14:18:32.082-04:00Daniel,
I'm sorry but I can't take seriou...Daniel,<br /><br />I'm sorry but I can't take seriously the fact that you are bringing "scholars" who spend their lives dissecting a series of fables and legends as if they were historical facts (Orthodox Jews) in support of another set of fables and legends (the Christian variety).<br /><br />Again, all of this has no more nor less standing than any other "sacred" text of any other religion. I just believe in one less god than you do...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62216937613859885812009-06-12T13:41:19.348-04:002009-06-12T13:41:19.348-04:00Massimo,
There is a wealth of evidence for the re...Massimo,<br /><br />There is a wealth of evidence for the resurrection and the Christian faith. (Perhaps I might seem foolish to even try to offer it to someone who refuses to give the evidence a fair shake?!?) <br /><br />I find particularly impressive the evidence that comes from those who are opposed to our faith in every way—enemy testimony! In “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus,” Orthodox Jewish writer David Klinghoffer writes: <br /> <br />"The Talmud states that from forty years before the Temple's destruction [immediately after the crucifixion] and onward, there were supernatural omens of the disaster to come--that is, starting from the inception of the Christian religion following the death of Jesus. The eternal fire of the Temple altar would not stay lit. The monumental bronze Temple gates opened by themselves. Josephus confirms the Talmud's account of the inner Sanctuary's east gate and its mysterious openings. He adds other portents from these years: a bright light shinning around the altar and the Sanctuary at three in the morning, a cow brought for sacrifice giving birth to a lamb, apparitions of chariots and armies flying through the sky above the whole land of Israel." (pg. 117)<br /><br />This recalls the miraculous signs at accompanying crucifixion, documented in the NT and elsewhere -- for instance, the darkness that had covered the land for three hours. <br /><br />Professional anti-Christian apologist, Rabbi Tuvia Singer responded to the question, “Why didn’t the red ribbon on the head of the Scapegoat turn white in 30 CE (AD)?” on his website, www.outreachjudaism.org:<br /><br />“In Tractate Yoma 39b, the Talmud quotes a Baraisa that discusses numerous remarkable phenomena that occurred in the Temple during the Yom Kippur service. More specifically, the Talmud states that there was a strip of scarlet-dyed wool tied to the head of the scapegoat which would turn white in the presence of the large crowd gathered at the Temple on the Day of Atonement. The Jewish people perceived this miraculous transformation as a heavenly sign that their sins were forgiven. The Talmud relates, however, that 40 years before the destruction of the second Temple [approximately 30 AD] the scarlet colored strip of wool did not turn white. The text of the Talmud which missionaries quote states":<br /><br />“The Rabbis taught that forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple [approximately from the time of the crucifixion, 30 AD] the lot did not come up in the [high priest’s] right hand nor did the tongue of scarlet wool become white.” <br /><br />For the Christian, the miracle and its termination make perfect sense. Following the ultimate sacrifice of the crucifixion and its fulfillment of the Temple offerings, God was warning Israel that He was no longer willing to accept animal sacrifices! <br /><br />Our Lord has not remained silent. He remains willing to speak (both subjectively and objectively) to those who are willing to hear.Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704739030059289842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90636169519013268922009-06-12T13:27:37.831-04:002009-06-12T13:27:37.831-04:00DaveS,
I think it would be futile for me to try a...DaveS,<br /><br />I think it would be futile for me to try and define evidence in a way that both you and I would accept.<br /><br />In my experience, religious folk set the bar extremely low for what they consider evidence. More scientifically minded people demand that the bar be set high.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86889941564975992952009-06-12T13:23:59.881-04:002009-06-12T13:23:59.881-04:00It would be too coincidental if there were no coin...It would be too coincidental if there were no coincidences (Isaac Asimov) :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86259601761060912742009-06-12T13:03:44.600-04:002009-06-12T13:03:44.600-04:00As I was praying to my god for the return of Unbeg...As I was praying to my god for the return of Unbeguiled, lo he doth return.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63224331440898376182009-06-12T13:02:05.696-04:002009-06-12T13:02:05.696-04:00where did Unbeguiled go? I also want to know what ...where did Unbeguiled go? I also want to know what "evidence" means" and what s/he thinks Steve thinks it means.<br /><br />faithlessgod: Should he have used the term Israelite? Palestinean is cooler and takes a political stand. Here's a thought. Heard of the Islamic Republic of Iran? How about the Israelite Republic of Palestine! Can u copyright a nation's name?? <br /><br />DaveS: You are aware that a quick read of your posts reveal contradictions:<br />>Where I differ from Daniel is that I believe even if it did happen, its not that big of a deal. June 10, 2009 11:46 AM<<br /><br />and<br /><br />>My takeaway from these 3 points is that this is a very big deal. June 11, 2009 1:31 PM<<br /><br />Aside from being conflicted about the resurrection, I think you need to be more careful about your posts. Daniel among others speak for the godly, Massimo and others for the secular, and you keep pushing something else nobody pretends to understand, so slow down. <br /><br />Daniel:<br />I do not understand what you mean by >In order to attack absolute truth as you do, you need to use an absolute measure of truth< <br /><br />I believe it doesn't exist, yes & you can indeed disregard anything I say, but are you saying I'm using some absolute measure here??? Confused.<br /><br />Steve: you are absolutely leaving open the issue of whether the apostles were or were not deceivers. A perceived con-artist paying with his/her life for a belief does not become less of a con-artist. They could have been on the run from a similar fate<br /><br />J:<br />Lots of spiritual factors are in play at the car shop, esp when it comes to the relationship you have with your car<br /><br />I try not to pray (which I define as talking to a particular god, very 1-way if u ask me) in times of physical or mental adversity as I feel it is a sign of weakness. Sometimes it just comes out. Sure I know, I'm talking to a parent, or replaying an earlier cry for help, but it is still an attempt at a spiritual communication, and explaining only the psycho-social mechanisms and ignoring other implications just does not cut it<br />....<br />....<br />for me.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47136278263159738932009-06-12T12:39:24.867-04:002009-06-12T12:39:24.867-04:00Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignor...Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled.<br /><br />Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. <br /><br />The resultant text, Steve believes, is an accurate record of historical events.<br /><br />Steve is mistaken.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55500299898648304912009-06-12T12:18:41.789-04:002009-06-12T12:18:41.789-04:00Steve,
> ou then acknowledge that there is at ...Steve,<br /><br />> ou then acknowledge that there is at least one scholar (C.S. Lewis) who holds to the resurrection. I will take this as a retraction of your earlier statement. <<br /><br />Nope, Lewis was no Bible scholar, my friend.<br /><br />> He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. <<br /><br />First of all, bad approach: the burden of proof is on those who claims miracles. One cannot disprove an alleged miracle, nor does one need to.<br /><br />Second, how on earth can one conclude that eyewitnesses who have been dead for a couple of millennia, and who we know were not recounting events fresh in their minds (I'm sure you know that the Gospels were written decades after the alleged facts) are "reliable"?<br /><br />> By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt <<br /><br />A completely vacuous and useless definition.<br /><br />> Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard. <<br /><br />Or they made up a fable, like the ancient Greeks (or do you believe in the Olympian gods too?); or they elaborated on a grain of historical events in a fanciful manner (the latter is most likely, especially considering that the more recent Gospels sport a suspiciously increasing number of "miracles" compared to those that were written earleir).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11813045620101203182009-06-12T11:56:44.075-04:002009-06-12T11:56:44.075-04:00Massimo,
You then acknowledge that there is at le...Massimo,<br /><br />You then acknowledge that there is at least one scholar (C.S. Lewis) who holds to the resurrection. I will take this as a retraction of your earlier statement. You may consider them "complete fools", but that is a different matter.<br /><br />"Again, I maintain that there is no evidence *whatsoever* for the resurrection. Please provide any piece of evidence you think counts, and I'll show you why you are not talking evidence at all...not even in the much weaker juridical sense."<br /><br />Fair enough. Another "fool" for a scholar Simon Greenleaf wrote "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence", a foundational document in the American legal system. While a Harvard law professor he also wrote "An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice".<br /><br />Quoting the Univ. of Missouri entry:<br /><br />"Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen." <br /><br />Greenleaf defines evidence such: "By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt."<br /><br />He sets a condition: "In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction."<br /><br />Unless you are agreeable to these two propositions, then we should stop here and not waste blog space.<br /><br />Greenleaf's short presentation may be read at: <br />http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html<br /><br />Greenleaf's conclusion: "Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard."<br /><br />In presenting his legal case for this conclusion, where would you fault Greenleaf? Remember, you have claimed there is no evidence whatsoever for the resurrection even in the juridicial sense.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10518360985137245598noreply@blogger.com