Demystifying Jesus

[Aussiescribbler]

That is called the fallacy of begging the question. If you presume the conclusion you are as unable to follow the evidence as you admitted you are above.

The problem is that we are having two seperate arguments. It's probably my fault for poorly wording my original post. I said : "Assuming that Jesus was a real man, is it possible to give a real world interpretation to his life and philosophy?" By "real world interpretation" I meant an interpretation which does not require belief in the supernatural. The real world for me is one in which there is no supernatural. The real world for you is one in which Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. So I'm not really begging the question, because I'm not trying to prove that there is no supernatural. I'm simply saying that I don't believe in the supernatural and asking whether Jesus and his teachings can have meaning for me without such a belief. So the most appropriate answer from you would probably be to simply say : "No. Unless you are willing to believe in the supernatural there is no real point in bothering with Jesus or his teachings. You won't be saving your soul, and that's the thing which really counts." That would be far less interesting than the discussion we've been having, but we would not have been arguing at cross purposes.

The truth only needs to be discovered and never ever decoded. The truth is a set of objective facts concerning reality and requires only agreement.

You're right. I misspoke. The truth does not need to be decoded. Symbols sometimes need to be decoded to see if they represent truths.

Well lets concentrate on your first statement. All the evidence we have is consistent with the absolute fact that space, time, and matter (the universe) began to exist around 15 billions years ago. Since you do not have a God which exists independently of the universe then you must believe that the universe (your God) caused the universe (your God) to come into being by nothing and from nothing. Even atheists will balk at that arrangement. Ideas do not get any more self contradictory than that. Where as if you believe in an eternal God who is independent of the universe then everything is accounted for without having to commit intellectual suicide.

Did I ever say I could explain the origin of the universe? What I can see in evolution is a process of self-creation which doesn't require outside guidance, but the fact that a process doesn't need outside guidance doesn't explain how it started. I don't know. Maybe it had no beginning. Maybe the big bang was the outward pulse of a previous big collapse, the universe pulsing in and out like a heart with no end and no beginning. Maybe it just began out of nothing. What I think we have to be careful about is assessing possibility by our own limited human view. Because we had a beginning we assume the universe did. The origin of the universe may be something our brains are not yet able to comprehend even if we had the necessary information. Look at how God has been portrayed - as a father, as an old man with a long white beard, as a creator making people out of clay. All human concepts, because this is what we do. Unable to comprehend the ineffable we fall back on what we know - ourselves. Even if there was an entity which started the universe : Who says it is still in existence? Who says it didn't become the universe? Who says it is the entity described as "God" in the Bible? I'm very comfortable with this kind of uncertainty. Do any atheists actually start believing in the God of the Bible simply because they can't explain the Big Bang? Seems a strange reason to start believing in the supernatural.

You have the order out of whack. Selfishness produces sin, which once realized results in guilt. That order makes perfect sense and corresponds to reality, your order contradicts reality and even logic.

I would say that it is circular. I concentrate on the connection which usually goes unrecognised. Let's start where you start, recognising that we haven't explained why there is selfishness in the first place. A selfish desire leads to a selfish act (i.e. "sin"). This leads to a feeling of guilt. Guilt is a painful feeling which turns our attention inward, toward it and away from other people. This state of self-directedness is selfishness - is concentration on one's own condition to the exclusion of the needs of others. This leads us to seek some form of comfort for ourselves at the expense of others, to commit a selfish act, which leads to more guilt and more selfishness. Of course there can be other factors, but understanding this negative feedback loop is one of the keys to freeing humanity from it's dark side.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

Your making very well understood and acknowledged mistakes. You beg the question by presuming the conclusion, then you simply declare that your presumptions are true. This is to get everything out of order. You simply declare that the conclusion you prefer is true, then demand reality adapt accordingly. You have no idea (because you have no way to know) who Satan actually is, yet you begin an argument by assuming that not only can you know, but that you do know who Satan is, then you simply overwrite reality with your preference. That is not to make arguments, it is to yell at traffic.

I can explain my reasoning, but it probably doesn't fall within your concept of acceptable reasoning. Since I don't believe in the supernatural, if Satan is going to mean something to me it is going to be as a symbol for something. Since I believe that idealism is the root of all evil because it robs us of unconditional self-acceptance and unconditional self-acceptance is needed for us to be able to act on our original unconditionally loving nature, then, if Satan is supposed to be the force behind evil it make sense that Satan is the symbol for idealism. Since he is also called The Accuser, this makes sense that he would be the idealism that accuses us of being unworthy. And he is also called The Father of Lies. Idealism encourages us to lie to try to avoid being judged for our imperfections. The problem with this, from your perspective, will be that it is a pile of cards built out of declarations. To me it makes sense. I look for a pattern where all the pieces seem to fit into place.

The overwhelming consensus as to Jesus among NT historians (those most qualified to know) was that Jesus existed historically and was very likely exactly who he claimed to be.

No, facts speak to us far better than symbols. Jesus spoke in analogies, parables, apocalyptic literary styles, prophecy, symbolically, and plainly, etc...... any Christian will tell you that his plain statements require far less investigation to understand that any of the rest. In fact the most confusing passage in the bible is the one that contained the symbols translated as "666".

I'm not saying that things which can be plainly stated don't communicate a message to our minds. But clearly the reason Jesus used parables was because there were some things he didn't know how to get across as well to those he addressed in direct speech. "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. n them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." Matthew 13:13-13:14 This is particularly true when he was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. He had to say what the Kingdom of Heaven is like in symbols or parables because it is an abstract concept. It's not the same as giving direct advice, like telling people to settle arguments before the end of the day. The Book of Revelations is full of wild symbolism, unless you think there will literally be dragons and horsemen with swords for tongues, etc.

The various evils endemic to human nature would have been far worse than those committed in spite of his existence. You want to see truly rampant evil then look to the great atheist utopias of just recent times. There have never been any Christian Stalin's. I will post two great scholars way of putting this:

I don't know if we can know for sure because of the interconnectedness of all things. People do evil as a reaction to other people's good. And someone inspired by Jesus may show charity that saves the next Hitler from what would have been a mercifully early grave. As Oscar Wilde said : "It is well for our vanity that we slay the criminal, for if we suffered him to live he might show us what we had gained by his crime. It is well for his peace that the saint goes to his martyrdom. He is spared the sight of the horror of his harvest." I'm willing to concede the possibility that Jesus' influence has been a net good, but it is an unprovable proposition unless we can create an exact duplicate world and history with nothing changed but his absence.

But what I think is very important is to think about why some people committed terrible atrocities in Jesus' name and it is the same reason, essentially, that Stalin and other's like him did such evil. There is nothing so dangerous as a group of people whose dark side aligns with their conscience. Most of us have a deep repository of hostile feelings which we hold in check, which we try to rise above. For most of us our conscience tells us not to let our dark side out. But sometimes someone comes to the conclusion that justice or righteousness calls for violence. Then there is nothing to stop them from giving themselves over to terrible bloodshed and cruelty, because they feel that right or God is on their side. They get the best of both worlds, an outlet for their sadistic impulses and the ability to feel saintly at the same time. The "witch" burnings are always what come back for me. These men who truly believed themselves to be Christians burned women alive because they thought that was what God wanted them to do. We need to remember just how badly people can get it wrong, regardless of which holy book they read each night before they go to bed.

You most certainly have, you stated exactly what was true concerning Satan.

I gave my interpretation of the myth of Satan. It's an opinion. I state my opinions without any qualification.

The most logical foundation for a debate would be the common ground of science because you do not share my understanding of biblical scripture. So lets start with science and then see who faith and understanding of scripture best lines up with reality, and the best place to start is at the beginning.

So you and I ought to be able to agree that all the evidence we have suggests that:

About 15 billions years ago time, space, and matter came into being from non-being.

So if we can agree to that then we can see who's faith and understanding of revelation best accounts for and explains this initial event. You can go first.

I'm willing to accept that that is the scientific consensus if you say that it is. I really haven't read much about the Big Bang. I've dealt with this above. I'm really more interested in things which have some relevance to how we live our lives here on earth in the present day.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

So your basic positions always rule out the simple understanding a reading of a sentence supplies and instead what the sentence plainly states is always wrong if it does not line up with your preferred conclusion? The entire purpose of that event and countless others is to provide the reader with examples of the supernatural authority and power which make Christ relevant and meaningful. There are procedures that have been perfected over 2000 years or longer to accurately and consistently interpret biblical scripture, I can assure you they result in my understanding and not yours but if you want to pick a certain verse as an example we can properly investigate it to see whether I or you are being consistent with well established scholarship.

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Matthew 11:25

Jesus didn't seem to think that the wise and learned had any great advantage when it came to seeing the truths he was trying to express. Most of those people over those 2000 years believed in the supernatural. I don't believe that little children believe in the supernatural until the belief is instilled in them by adults.

From what I can see you instead decide what conclusion it is you prefer or lines up with a previous conclusion and then you simply interpret reality in such a way (even if it almost always contradicts accepted scholarship and other evidence) that it lines up accordingly. I find plenty of declarations as to what things are in your posts but I find few arguments and even less evidence as to why your conclusions are actually true. That is not to say your are not intelligent or well spoken. I am saying that there are very well thought out and established ways of getting to the truth of various types of arguments and you simply do not seem to be very experienced in those practices. They are not intuitive things that any smart person can quickly figure out, many of them are things no one will know unless a person is as weird and obsessed as I am about these issues.

I am sure you have spent a long time studying this stuff.

I am very well aware of Mr. Ehrman, you should become equally aware of Dr. James White. He eats Ehrman alive in debates, and so does Dr. Craig. The bible emphatically states that some of the NT writers witnessed supernatural events, and even if it didn't the bible also claims the Holy Spirit (since he has observed all events) is the ultimate author of the entire bible. However all of this is out of order. Any textual debate must begin with the accuracy of modern translations of the bible. Who cares what the originals said if our modern bible's did not accurately translate it? If we are going to do this lets do so in the proper order.

If there is a YouTube debate between them I might check it out. I always have way more books to read than I can get around to, and I don't read much about religion at all. I am hoping to get around to reading the Bible though.

Let me clarify.

1. Pantheism as more of a philosophical word view as opposed to a religious relationship with a deity is not a proposition which is either directly deduced from mountains of evidence or validated to a certainty by personal experience. It seems to be merely a preference which cannot be confirmed or denied until it is too late to change your mind.

I feel it is the most honest way to describe my way of seeing the universe. It allows for speculation, and science can fit comfortably within its framework.

2. Christianity is religion of the type which is deduced directly from mountains of evidence and which also offers a self veridical (properly basic belief) experience by which the intellectual proposition is confirmed.

So if you adopt position 1 you are making a wager which if false will not be known until it is too late to change your mind. As a Christian the same is not true of my own faith. I did gain confirmation even long before it was too late for me to change my mind. So I am wagering nothing.

What kind of confirmation are we talking about? I already feel guided by Jesus. The path that was clouded at first gets clearer every day. So why would I depart from it if it brings me comfort and inspiration and a sense of being in contact with Jesus?

Christ said that when he comes to judge between believers and non-believers it will be the same as it the days of Noah. As in those who were killed by the flood did not expect it until it happened.

I think that is very true. I think we are getting closer every day and people are oblivious to it. But I don't think it will be what you imagine. Nothing supernatural. A spreading awareness of what Jesus really meant that exposes those who thought they were wise to be fools. And many who thought they were on the side of love will find they were enemies of love. It will be end of lies and all will be seen for what they really are. But love is the sea that refuses no river. All will be welcomed into the new world.

 

[1robin]

I'll try to describe my own experience with some framework as to how I understand what was happening. We have a conscious character structure or ego which consists of our habitual ways of thinking about ourselves, of explaining ourselves to ourselves. It gives us our sense of who we are and is the basis from which we interact coherently with our environment and other people. I tried to incorporate a belief system into my character structure which was incompatible with it. It put me in a double bind. I needed the belief structure but my own perception told me that parts of it were untrustworthy and harmful for me. Because I needed it so much - as a source of relief from existential despair - when it conflicted with my sense of myself I was sucked into a whirlpool of doubt about myself which shattered the integrity of my character structure.

Scribbler I am in no way making a complaint but I usually have a dozen debates or more going with other posters and in many threads. I seem to attract the most prolific posters and I only have so much time. You are an interesting, seemingly honest, and intelligent person but I just cannot adequately discuss all the things you bring up. I feel like I am cheating you but I must do something to reduce the amount of time I spend on each debate I have going. So I will only briefly respond to your points unless I find a few that I find interesting and important.

What was this belief structure that gave you so much doubt?

There are different degrees to the psychotic state, but I'll try to summarise. There is a great restlessness - the mind leaping from one thought to another, some blissful, some terrifying, some erotic. I thought an apocalypse was happening. There would be chaos and there would be spiritual awakening. It was all some grand unfolding plan. I thought my doctor was a famous New Age guru. I thought the nurses were going to start having sex with me. I thought the nurses were going to bite off my fingers and start eating them. There is a need for some grand magical answer which will bring meaning to it all. There is the need for something so exciting it can block out the fear. And then the fear comes anyway. And then on to something else. Strangers seemed to be people I knew. The mind is restless, but it is also open to believing anything and open to seeing special meaning. The outer world is seen in the light of what the mind needs to reconcile. A strange coincidence or something heard on television which seems to relate to the dilemma will seem to be a personal message. So it can be understood this way - there is an excruciatingly painful crisis which sends the mind shooting beyond the bounds of reason in search either of relief or a solution. I doesn't come. The anti-psychotics slow your mind down. And, in my case, what followed was weeks of terrible depression leading to shock treatment.

Let me hazard a possibility. It seems like you experienced to a much greater degree what I and those I have counseled have all experienced. While you experience seems more severe it is a type we all experience. I will use my own experience to serve as a example.

I was always some what intelligent and I spent much of my time want and needing wisdom and certainty. The gears in my brain were always grinding away but no matter what they stopped on I was never content. I was raised in the church but when my mother died of cancer after 5 years of torture I turned my back on Christianity and grew to hate the God I didn't even think existed. Many years later and after some profound experiences I decided to once and for all get to the bottom of religion. I spent years investigating religions and wound up investigating Christianity again. The moment that began it was as if a very dim light started grower brighter, until one day through a supernatural event I accepted Christ as my savior. I experienced something I did not expect and could not have imagined was possible. Since that day I have never lived in that same darkness and I experience a new found peace and contentment most of the time. All minds cast about in darkness but only those that find their appropriate foundation will ever stop drifting around in confusion.

My take on the chemical imbalance argument is that experiences lead to thoughts which lead to emotions. The body's messengers of emotions are chemical. The emotions can feed back on the thoughts. If I think lots of depressing thoughts that will make me feel depressed, i.e. it will change the chemical balance of my brain. I may then think how terrible it is to feel depressed, which causes a bigger change to the brain chemistry. I think the reason there is so much emphasis on the idea of chemical imbalance is because we have drugs which can help people to cope, whereas looking at the holistic picture opens a can of worms. Are there aspects of our broader culture which are harmful to our mental health? Is the behaviour of family members a contributory factor to someone's illness? And, when it comes to treatment, there is much disagreement on what forms of non-drug treatment are effective and the best of them are long and time-consuming.

I think the nature of emotions are so complex that they may be beyond the scope of a debate. Plus I have no certainty concerning them.

As for me verifying the details I shared of my own experience, I can't provide any evidence. This was twenty years ago. I'm not sure I've even told most of that to anyone else. The bit about being strapped to the hospital bed I mentioned in my book, but all the Jesus delusion stuff I've never had much of a reason to share. Maybe with my psychiatrist. I have to concede that my memory of the going away party may be unreliable. This is one of the problems when one has experienced a psychosis. I can remember some weird little detail from my life and I have to ask myself "Did it really happen like that, after all I experienced a psychosis? Maybe it messed with my memories." I don't think it did, to any significant degree. Actually I have a clearer memory of being psychotic than of the events which took place during the long depressions. But who knows?

Sounds like you went through Hell? For now I will trying and no go beyond my death. I am qualified to debate religion and spirituality but not psychology in any depth.

I'm not sure we can make too much headway because my approach when it comes to religion is to begin with the assumption that there is no such thing as the supernatural and that belief in the supernatural is the product of a mental disorder. I think I can do a pretty good job of explaining religion within that context. Now you can say that I'm presupposing what I'm setting out to prove, but I'm not trying to test my disbelief in the supernatural. I'm trying to redeem religious writing. I'm trying to show that it can have value for people who don't believe in the supernatural. I'm not trying to dissuade you from believing in the supernatural, but I feel you are trying to persuade me to believe in the supernatural. If that is your only purpose in engaging in the discussion then you are wasting your time. That said, I've been loving the exchange. I don't have to agree with someone to find it stimulating to have a discussion with them.

That is a shame and I can tell you that almost any scholar on any side of any issue in any relevant academic discipline would tell you that you should never ever investigate something by first ruling out any possibility. I can give you all kinds of proper steps to take when searching for truth but the mistake you making is drastic and fundamental. I can show you how but I can't make you willing. Your choice.

 

[1robin]

I'm not sure I said anything about anyone taking away another's will to power. What I'm talking about is purely voluntary. If someone wants to be free they can be, but if they would rather remain unhappy and unfulfilled that's their choice. The way I see things happening is two-fold. Some find freedom. Others will face the dilemma of the old ways not working for them any more because their game is naked for the world to see. It isn't about anyone changing the world. It is about an evolution which nothing will be able to stop, because it is the realisation of "the Kingdom of Heaven" - the healing of the "schizophrenic" mind of "God". In humans the creative principle of the universe has an intelligent conscious mind, but it has been fractured by our conflicts with each other and with our deeper loving nature.

Maybe I misunderstood. Regardless free will does not mean free expression. Everyone can will anything they wish but that does not mean they can do what they want.

Free will is a tricky question. We certainly feel like we have it. We make choices. Or do we? Would it be more accurate to say that choices take place in us? Our output is determined by our input. Nothing is in us which didn't come from outside of us - genes, food, ideas, the influence of experiences - although all the factors mix and transmute within us. Our original ideas are the offspring of ideas from others which came together in a kind of chemical reaction in us. You would not be a Christian if someone had not introduced you to Christianity, so, no matter how much importance you find in it, you only have it because you and it collided in the unfolding net of cause and effect, feeding back upon itself, that is the universal system. But we are active agents. We don't just zip around like cosmic pinballs. We have no choice over who we are, all of us being determined by the flow of factors into the position we occupy in the universal system. Yet who we are is someone with passions and preferences and determination to realise some kind of potential. Do we chose the evil or the good though? That's a hard one. I feel that I'm motivated by self-interest. If I do something which I think will help others it is because an improvement in the world is an improvement in the world I'm living in and, even if the improvement doesn't touch me, I get a sense of meaning from the act. I like to lose myself in something creative and feel some kind of self-actualisation. And, of course, if it involves direct contact with someone, interactions in which I'm doing something to help someone are likely to be more friendly, and thus rewarding for me, than ones in which I'm just trying to get something for myself. But what about people who do evil? My view is that everybody is doing the best they can. This is implicit in the input/output concept. So I see evil doers as people lost, through no fault of their own, in a network of bad thinking. If I can do even a little bit towards the task of providing the key which will unlock them from their hell then I will feel like the luckiest person in the world.

Freewill does not mean what most people think. Freewill means the ability to chose that which we wish to choose. It takes a lot or argumentation to show exactly how and why this is but it is fact true. Freewill does not mean the ability to act out our will.

I think you may have misunderstood. I'm not talking about living for self-indulgence. A person can live a responsible life in which what is most important to them is their studies or their work or their family and still allow themselves to think freely and feel freely. It just means that, if they feel angry about something they allow themselves to feel it fully and think whatever angry thoughts come to them so that it burns out quickly and they can move on. Or if they feel sexually aroused they allow themselves to enjoy the feeling and think the thoughts that come with the feeling and then return to what they were doing. It isn't about making those things the focus of one's life, the things one turns to for sustenance. It's about not amplifying the influence of those things over one's life by fighting against them. To pick an extreme example, think of the ascetics who, because they felt that the flesh was an obstacle to their spiritual progress, would find ways to torture themselves. In fighting against something which they felt threatened their spirituality they became totally obsessed with causing themselves pain, which was just as much of a self-obsession and thus retreat from love or generosity to others as it would have been if they lost themselves in an orgy of pleasure.

Why do physical desires increase as they are indulged? If they were nothing but physical desires, we would expect them to be satisfied and then arise again later. I think that, where they increase as they are indulged, there is a psychological factor involved. It may be that the physical pleasure is filling an emotional void. Some people eat too much because they are looking for a sense of comfort. Some look for affection and acceptance in promiscuous sexual encounters. Another factor can be that of the forbidden. Some people seek out a pleasure that they have been taught they should feel guilty about. Then when they feel guilty they need to escape from that feeling and try to blot it out with the same pleasure, which leads to a negative feedback loop. Also, if someone is taught to live a very disciplined life which they find empty and frustrating, then a desire may build up to really cut loose and use whatever was forbidden in that lifestyle as a cathartic rebellion against the oppressiveness of it all.

All I'm saying is that I think it is therapeutic to allow our mind to roam where it will (at those times when we are not focused on a task) and to allow our emotions to play themselves out to the full. Do you not do this? If not, do you really feel that something bad would happen if you did?

I was talking about the wisdom and likely outcomes as they concern the issue you brought up about indulging our whims and fleshly appetites.

 

[1robin]

The problem is that we are having two seperate arguments. It's probably my fault for poorly wording my original post. I said : "Assuming that Jesus was a real man, is it possible to give a real world interpretation to his life and philosophy?" By "real world interpretation" I meant an interpretation which does not require belief in the supernatural. The real world for me is one in which there is no supernatural. The real world for you is one in which Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. So I'm not really begging the question, because I'm not trying to prove that there is no supernatural. I'm simply saying that I don't believe in the supernatural and asking whether Jesus and his teachings can have meaning for me without such a belief. So the most appropriate answer from you would probably be to simply say : "No. Unless you are willing to believe in the supernatural there is no real point in bothering with Jesus or his teachings. You won't be saving your soul, and that's the thing which really counts." That would be far less interesting than the discussion we've been having, but we would not have been arguing at cross purposes.

Now if your interested this is one of those claims that I believe we need to dig into deeper.

It is almost a certainty that Jesus existed. If he existed then he must be defined within the primary evidence concerning his life. We know of Christ primarily through the biblical documents. Those particular documents emphatically state both that he did supernatural acts and that he was Immanuel (God with us). So you have two choices. You can deny the primary evidence by which we learn of Christ all together and treat him like a fictional character across the board or if we allow the same evidence which claims he existed to determine who he was. What we cannot intellectually justify is to presume what the truth must be and then examine the evidence and torture it until it fits in our presumption. To do so is called begging the question.

Regardless, if you really want to get into this then invest maybe 30 minutes at the most, reading a brilliant paper by one of the greatest legal minds in history as to the reliability of the NT manuscripts. Scholar do not come any better credentials than Simon Greenleaf. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

You're right. I misspoke. The truth does not need to be decoded. Symbols sometimes need to be decoded to see if they represent truths.

Agreed, but most of the bible is not symbology.

Did I ever say I could explain the origin of the universe? What I can see in evolution is a process of self-creation which doesn't require outside guidance, but the fact that a process doesn't need outside guidance doesn't explain how it started. I don't know. Maybe it had no beginning. Maybe the big bang was the outward pulse of a previous big collapse, the universe pulsing in and out like a heart with no end and no beginning. Maybe it just began out of nothing. What I think we have to be careful about is assessing possibility by our own limited human view. Because we had a beginning we assume the universe did. The origin of the universe may be something our brains are not yet able to comprehend even if we had the necessary information. Look at how God has been portrayed - as a father, as an old man with a long white beard, as a creator making people out of clay. All human concepts, because this is what we do. Unable to comprehend the ineffable we fall back on what we know - ourselves. Even if there was an entity which started the universe : Who says it is still in existence? Who says it didn't become the universe? Who says it is the entity described as "God" in the Bible? I'm very comfortable with this kind of uncertainty. Do any atheists actually start believing in the God of the Bible simply because they can't explain the Big Bang? Seems a strange reason to start believing in the supernatural.

I did not ask you to explain the origin of the universe. I gave you how the universe came to be which is supported by all the evidence we have. What I asked was for you to take the origin event as to how the universe began to exist and then we can compare how well Pantheism lines up against how Christianity lines up with the universe's coming into being. The best place to start is at the beginning unless you have another idea.



I would say that it is circular. I concentrate on the connection which usually goes unrecognised. Let's start where you start, recognising that we haven't explained why there is selfishness in the first place. A selfish desire leads to a selfish act (i.e. "sin"). This leads to a feeling of guilt. Guilt is a painful feeling which turns our attention inward, toward it and away from other people. This state of self-directedness is selfishness - is concentration on one's own condition to the exclusion of the needs of others. This leads us to seek some form of comfort for ourselves at the expense of others, to commit a selfish act, which leads to more guilt and more selfishness. Of course there can be other factors, but understanding this negative feedback loop is one of the keys to freeing humanity from it's dark side.[/QUOTE]

 

[1robin]

I can explain my reasoning, but it probably doesn't fall within your concept of acceptable reasoning. Since I don't believe in the supernatural, if Satan is going to mean something to me it is going to be as a symbol for something. Since I believe that idealism is the root of all evil because it robs us of unconditional self-acceptance and unconditional self-acceptance is needed for us to be able to act on our original unconditionally loving nature, then, if Satan is supposed to be the force behind evil it make sense that Satan is the symbol for idealism. Since he is also called The Accuser, this makes sense that he would be the idealism that accuses us of being unworthy. And he is also called The Father of Lies. Idealism encourages us to lie to try to avoid being judged for our imperfections. The problem with this, from your perspective, will be that it is a pile of cards built out of declarations. To me it makes sense. I look for a pattern where all the pieces seem to fit into place.

As I mentioned before debates take place on the common ground of accepted scholarship. It does not matter what I think is a proper way to do research and make conclusion, nor does it matter how you think you should. Debates consist of determining who is being consistent with the scholarly consensus as to what makes a good argument or a reliable conclusion. My point is not that your methods must adhere to my methods, it is that your methods ought to line with well established techniques for properly researching these issues. My argument is that your methods violate even the most basic of accepted way to reach conclusions.

I'm not saying that things which can be plainly stated don't communicate a message to our minds. But clearly the reason Jesus used parables was because there were some things he didn't know how to get across as well to those he addressed in direct speech. "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. n them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." Matthew 13:13-13:14 This is particularly true when he was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. He had to say what the Kingdom of Heaven is like in symbols or parables because it is an abstract concept. It's not the same as giving direct advice, like telling people to settle arguments before the end of the day. The Book of Revelations is full of wild symbolism, unless you think there will literally be dragons and horsemen with swords for tongues, etc.

The verse you quoted contradicts your conclusion. The verse you quoted does not say that he spoke in parables because he did not know how else to make a point. He said that he spoke in parables so that certain groups of people would not understand what he did not intend for them to. Now to find out why that was start by looking into scriptures like:

New American Standard Bible
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

God can grant even an idiot perfect understanding concerning any issue he wishes but for various reasons he wishes some to work hard for clarity.

I don't know if we can know for sure because of the interconnectedness of all things. People do evil as a reaction to other people's good. And someone inspired by Jesus may show charity that saves the next Hitler from what would have been a mercifully early grave. As Oscar Wilde said : "It is well for our vanity that we slay the criminal, for if we suffered him to live he might show us what we had gained by his crime. It is well for his peace that the saint goes to his martyrdom. He is spared the sight of the horror of his harvest." I'm willing to concede the possibility that Jesus' influence has been a net good, but it is an unprovable proposition unless we can create an exact duplicate world and history with nothing changed but his absence.

Well lets look at at least one example.

Which of these two thing would prevent more murders.

1. If God does not exist then: Human beings are merely biological anomalies, our lives have no sanctity, no objective worth, no inherent dignity, no equality, and murder is at best a mere social fashion.
2. If God does exist then: Human beings have a divine soul, were created in the image of God, our lives are endowed with inherent meaning, sanctity, dignity, worth, and murder is an absolute and objective moral failure.

Now which scenario if adopted by a society would prevent more murder? I will give you a hint, the most destructive single human being in history was Joseph Stalin. He was specifically selected to carry on the communist ideal because he absolutely hated religion.

But what I think is very important is to think about why some people committed terrible atrocities in Jesus' name and it is the same reason, essentially, that Stalin and other's like him did such evil. There is nothing so dangerous as a group of people whose dark side aligns with their conscience. Most of us have a deep repository of hostile feelings which we hold in check, which we try to rise above. For most of us our conscience tells us not to let our dark side out. But sometimes someone comes to the conclusion that justice or righteousness calls for violence. Then there is nothing to stop them from giving themselves over to terrible bloodshed and cruelty, because they feel that right or God is on their side. They get the best of both worlds, an outlet for their sadistic impulses and the ability to feel saintly at the same time. The "witch" burnings are always what come back for me. These men who truly believed themselves to be Christians burned women alive because they thought that was what God wanted them to do. We need to remember just how badly people can get it wrong, regardless of which holy book they read each night before they go to bed.

Well if you wanted to investigate the immorality of Christians in history, you will not find an argument with me. I am very willing to concede Christianity's darkest days, I can probably post more immoral actions by Christians than you could. However let my introduce two undeniable facts.

1. Not all those who claim to be Christians actually are.
2. Those who murder, steal, or oppress are acting against Christ's teachings.

You judge a teacher by the students who obey him, you do not access a teacher by looking at the students who betray his teachings.

I gave my interpretation of the myth of Satan. It's an opinion. I state my opinions without any qualification.

I believe you began by stating that what you believe about Satan was actually true before you even began to make an argument. I can go back and quote you if necessary.

I'm willing to accept that that is the scientific consensus if you say that it is. I really haven't read much about the Big Bang. I've dealt with this above. I'm really more interested in things which have some relevance to how we live our lives here on earth in the present day.

Ok, do you want to discuss the fact that the most generous demographic in the history of the human race is the current conservative Christian demographic?

 

[1robin]

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Matthew 11:25

Jesus didn't seem to think that the wise and learned had any great advantage when it came to seeing the truths he was trying to express. Most of those people over those 2000 years believed in the supernatural. I don't believe that little children believe in the supernatural until the belief is instilled in them by adults.

I never stated otherwise. I said that scientists are the best group to reach scientific conclusions, philosophers for philosophical issues, mathematicians for math, etc........ but that theologians are the best for theology. However here specifically I am talking about the simple reading of a sentence. I believe your the one claiming that it is the vastly more complex conclusions about scripture are correct. When Jesus said he turned water into wine, I conclude he turned water into wine.

I am sure you have spent a long time studying this stuff.

I bet you wouldn't believe just how long. I am obsessed by this stuff.

If there is a YouTube debate between them I might check it out. I always have way more books to read than I can get around to, and I don't read much about religion at all. I am hoping to get around to reading the Bible though.

There are probably several dozen and I have seen them all. Just type in DR White or Dr. Craig versus Dr. Ehrman. You will hear everything from thorough history, to textual criticism, to probabilistic calculus.

I feel it is the most honest way to describe my way of seeing the universe. It allows for speculation, and science can fit comfortably within its framework.

None of this applies to my arguments.

What kind of confirmation are we talking about? I already feel guided by Jesus. The path that was clouded at first gets clearer every day. So why would I depart from it if it brings me comfort and inspiration and a sense of being in contact with Jesus?

I mean the born again experience all true Christians have in common and which no other religion has or offers.

I think that is very true. I think we are getting closer every day and people are oblivious to it. But I don't think it will be what you imagine. Nothing supernatural. A spreading awareness of what Jesus really meant that exposes those who thought they were wise to be fools. And many who thought they were on the side of love will find they were enemies of love. It will be end of lies and all will be seen for what they really are. But love is the sea that refuses no river. All will be welcomed into the new world.

The point he was making was that those who are condemned may not have any awareness of it. As I said, those who are deluded are the same ones who are most certain they aren't.[/quote]

 

[Riders]

After all of that , no one has still proved Jesus existed.No proof.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I suppose we just look at things differently. I don't see the Bible as a scientific text which can give us insight into genetics and life-expectancy. It is true that our psychological state has a major impact on our physical health, so worrying about being sinful could certainly shorten someone's life. Life is a process of birth and death and change. Is any human being really so special that they were worthy of being preserved intact for eternity? I'm not. I have my limited usefulness, but I hope that those who come after me will be an improvement and those who come after them will be an improvement again. A state of eternal physical life for individual humans would be a state of stagnation unworthy of the majesty of life.

Stagnation! To me, an alive living person is Not stagnant but when healthy looks forward to actively doing enjoyable things.
What healthy person wants to pick the day they want to die?
I enjoy my favorite foods and do Not tire of them.
I enjoy being with favorite people and do Not tire of them. I look forward to the next time we can be together.
Can't we always look forward to new experiences, trying new things, new adventures, etc.
God thought Adam & Eve (besides His angels) very worthy of being intact for all eternity. Human eternity on Earth.
If Adam had Not broken God's Law, then healthy Adam would still be alive on Earth. Healthy and intact today.
Having perfect health of sound heart, mind, and body, then Adam would have un-limited usefulness.
Many today seem to be devolving Not improving. I know of one mother who passed on her physical defects to several children. The children are Not in better physical shape but in some ways worse, and now that is showing up in her grandchildren with one already dead at age 12.

It is Not our choice to be worthy or Not. 'Conscious life' is a free gift from our Life Giver ( Heavenly Father )
and He is giving most of humanity an earthly home to enjoy forever and ever - Psalms 115:16
It is only the wicked who will be destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7 - Not the righteous - Matthew 5:5; 25:37

 

[Aussiescribbler]

Scribbler I am in no way making a complaint but I usually have a dozen debates or more going with other posters and in many threads. I seem to attract the most prolific posters and I only have so much time. You are an interesting, seemingly honest, and intelligent person but I just cannot adequately discuss all the things you bring up. I feel like I am cheating you but I must do something to reduce the amount of time I spend on each debate I have going. So I will only briefly respond to your points unless I find a few that I find interesting and important.

I understand and I really don't want to keep you away from more productive debates. I'll try to be brief and avoid situations where we are attempting to use incompatible methods. It may be more useful to see why I approach things the way I do rather than just have evidence that I do.

What was this belief structure that gave you so much doubt?

A theory by Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith which claims to explain the human propensity for good and evil and thereby provide the necessary knowledge to heal us and allow us to join together selflessly as agents of integrative meaning - the theme of the universe which he identifies with the mythological figure "God". He claims that this "first principle biological knowledge" is the fulfilment of Jesus' promise about the coming of the "Son of Man".

I spent much of my early life feeling very depressed and believing that the human race was doomed to extinction. I had no belief in the supernatural side of religion, though the idea of Jesus and some of the things he said struck a chord with me and had importance in my world view. When I thought about the ideals which Jesus expressed though I felt condemned by them. It was just a painfully guilt-inducing reminder that I should live like that but I couldn't. (My parents took us to the Quaker meeting house a few times, and I attended Sunday school there, but I don't remember what I thought about the stories they told us. Maybe I believed them because I was a child and children tend to believe what adults tell them. My parents were not really religious in the sense that my father, when he finally wrote his autobiography expressed agnosticism regarding the question of God and my mother, in her later years, would tell Jehovah's Witnesses who came to the door that she didn't want life after death. She was tired and wanted only rest.) But the only time I remember believing in anything supernatural as an adult was in the brief periods when I psychotic, which was later. So I had a bleak outlook. No prospect for hope. I tried to think about why things were the way they were. Why didn't we all just love each other? Why was I plagued, during periods of depression, by fears that I might mutilate myself or kill a baby? Why was there this horror inside me?

Then, one day, I read a book by Griffith. On the plus side, he promised an answer - a future for the human race and some release from the horror inside. On the down side, reading his book (which I did at a single sitting) was like being cut open with a rusty knife. It hurt like hell. It was the same kind of feeling I got from the words of Jesus, but this was a whole worldview which, to a large degree, seemed to make sense and have some scientific evidence behind it. It is presented as a biological explanation for why we are not ideally behaved. This is what makes it so tricky. It is not an insistence that we should behave ideally, but a defence for why we don't, predicated on the idea that, once that defence is provided, ideal behaviour becomes possible. It is kind of back-door idealism, and it's description of the ways in which we are non-ideal is excruciating. A fancy spoon on our kitchen table is a "three or four starving Ethiopians extravagance". Sex is an attack on innocence. Wearing sunglasses is an attack on the innocence of sunlight. And yet there is the promise of a healing of the human race and the science regarding evolutionary psychological changes in our ape ancestors seemed credible.

For a brief time I tried to help Griffith and his organisation. I started to have my doubts about aspects of his theory, but I believed it was mostly correct. The stuff about sex felt wrong, but since I was a virgin who had a history of shame about my sexual feelings, I couldn't be sure it wasn't right and the reason for my shames and anxieties. It was suppose to be a defence. It wasn't supposed to make me feel guilty, but it did. They say the truth hurts though. Anyway, conflicts arose. I had my first mental breakdown. The organisation sensibly suggested that someone with mental health problems probably shouldn't be trying to be involved with the exploration of such potentially disturbing issues.

For a while, from a distance, I promoted Griffith's work still, on the basis that, if it achieved wide recognition it would be debated and any flaws in it would be discovered and corrected.

I was kind of stranded. I didn't want to go back to living with the depression of there being no hope for humanity, but I couldn't place my trust in Griffith either. So I continued to turn Griffith's ideas over in my head. Maybe I could find out what was wrong with them and come up with something better that worked. I'm not a biologist, but on the psychological end I've had a lot of chances to observe the workings of my own mind and see how things go wrong. At the heart of Griffith's theory is the idea that the human conscience is a genetically encoded orientation toward selfless behaviour with which our conscious mind is at war. It took me a very long time and much, often disturbing, contemplation, but I eventually managed to take Griffith's theory apart and put it back together in a different way which made sense to me. In my configuration, the conscience is a learned part of the ego, the genetic orientation is toward unconditional love, or acceptance of others, and, rather than our mind being at war with the idealistic demands of our genes, idealism is a cultural phenomenon arising from the conscious mind. The Adam and Eve story, rather than being about the origins of conscious thought setting it at war with our instincts, is about the origin of idealism as a kind of thought virus which gives rise to our dark side.

Perhaps this gives more of an idea why I have the approach that I do. I have a history of trying to find understanding of life by pulling ideas apart, putting them back together in other ways and see if those ideas can act as a key to explain mysteries, such as myths or religious dogmas.

The important thing is that, since I achieved the basic framework of the world view I expressed in my book How to Be Free, I've been free of depression or psychosis. I feel at peace and have a deeper sense of satisfaction in my day-to-day work, and I have hope for the future. I no longer think the human race is doomed.

Let me hazard a possibility. It seems like you experienced to a much greater degree what I and those I have counseled have all experienced. While you experience seems more severe it is a type we all experience. I will use my own experience to serve as a example.

I was always some what intelligent and I spent much of my time want and needing wisdom and certainty. The gears in my brain were always grinding away but no matter what they stopped on I was never content. I was raised in the church but when my mother died of cancer after 5 years of torture I turned my back on Christianity and grew to hate the God I didn't even think existed. Many years later and after some profound experiences I decided to once and for all get to the bottom of religion. I spent years investigating religions and wound up investigating Christianity again. The moment that began it was as if a very dim light started grower brighter, until one day through a supernatural event I accepted Christ as my savior. I experienced something I did not expect and could not have imagined was possible. Since that day I have never lived in that same darkness and I experience a new found peace and contentment most of the time. All minds cast about in darkness but only those that find their appropriate foundation will ever stop drifting around in confusion.

I agree. I had to find my appropriate foundation and only since I did have I been secure.

I know that a lot of people, in Christianity, have experiences which feel supernatural to them. Now maybe the event you are talking about was not simply personal. Maybe it was something witnessed by others. I don't know. I've read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience. I know that the conversion experience can involve a profound experience of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. People also "see God" when they take hallucinogenic drugs. I have no doubt about the reality of these experiences, but I view them as an encounter with something which exists in all of us rather than with something that exists outside of us. The human mind is extraordinarily suggestible, so I don't believe it is all that hard to induce profound spiritual experiences in people which will conform to what they have been encouraged to expect from those experiences.

That is a shame and I can tell you that almost any scholar on any side of any issue in any relevant academic discipline would tell you that you should never ever investigate something by first ruling out any possibility. I can give you all kinds of proper steps to take when searching for truth but the mistake you making is drastic and fundamental. I can show you how but I can't make you willing. Your choice.

Let's say I don't rule it out as a possibility, but agree with Carl Sagan that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Accounts in books don't really count as extraordinary evidence, as people who write books can be mistaken or can lie. I'm willing to believe written accounts of non-supernatural events because they are not extraordinary claims.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

Maybe I misunderstood. Regardless free will does not mean free expression. Everyone can will anything they wish but that does not mean they can do what they want.

Freewill does not mean what most people think. Freewill means the ability to chose that which we wish to choose. It takes a lot or argumentation to show exactly how and why this is but it is fact true. Freewill does not mean the ability to act out our will.

Can we be said to have the ability to chose that which we wish to choose if we didn't chose who we are? That's the point I was trying to make. We can make choices which we may or may not be able to act upon, but the person who is making those choices is the product of forces outside their control - i.e. genes, environment, circumstance. It's that old chestnut - if we knew absolutely everything there is to know about someone (which, given the interconnectedness of things would mean knowing everything there is to know about the whole universe) could we predict every choice they would make before they made it? I believe in determinism but of a kind so infinitely complex and finely wrought as to be unpredictable most of the time. It is not that we don't have the ability to chose, but the chooser's nature has been determined by the chaotic system of which they are a manifestation. So, in a sense, the chooser's choices have been made by the system which gave rise to the chooser.

So where does freedom lie? I've been thinking about the concepts "slave to sin" and "will of God". If we just act on our impulses then we are the slave of those impulses. But the idea of "doing the will of God" sounds like surrendering our freedom in another way - just obeying orders. This is different from slavery, because the slave has no choice. I can see how the concept of free will is important here. If God wanted us to do his will then why did he give us the freedom not to? Because then we would be robots and the human world would be as meaningless as a wind-up toy.

Here is how I see it. We can go around trying to serve our own ends, driven by our pride or our lusts or our ambitions. We have our ego which wills things for us. I think a lot of this tends to be driven by the idea that we need to prove something about ourselves. We doubt our worth so we want to "prove" we are worthy by being smarter than the next person, or richer than the next person or more charitable than the next person, or having more sex or being more famous. Some things we do simply for themselves and others so we can say "look at me, ain't I great?" So to the extent that we are driven by ego or selfish desires, we surrender our spiritual freedom to those ends. We may have freedom to do these things, but we are like horses being ridden by those impulses. The impulses hold the reins and direct our behaviour.

So what is the alternative? I think we can let go of the need to prove anything about ourselves and grow comfortable enough with ourselves as we are to not be driven impulsively into the escape of self-indulgence of one kind or another. In so doing we can throw our rider. But what comes next? Love. We know that love is an emotion we feel because of oxytocin, but what is the relational component to love? What makes the chemical-driven emotion occur? It's all about communication. Love is what occurs when we enter into a mode of communication characterised by honesty, openness, spontaneity and generosity. When we are driven by ego we are embattled and competitive. We ask ourselves whether we are better than the other person in some way. When we surrender to love - let down the battlements - we are :

1. Honest - We don't try to gain an advantage through deceit and we are willing to be vulnerable by exposing our weaknesses. We meet on the common ground of truth and our self-exposure makes it easier for others to follow suit.

2. Open - We don't feel the need to protect ourselves and we pay close attention to what others communicate.

3. Spontaneous - We are constantly being changed by what is communicated to us and responding in the moment.

4. Generous - Our default mode is to give when asked for something unless there is some good reason not to.

To me this is where doing the will of "God" comes in and why it is freedom. "God" is the larger whole we open up into through love. We are not being told what to do, rather "God" is being manifested by our surrender to our deepest impulse for creative connection with others. I suspect that this process will eventually lead us out of our sense of ourselves as seperate individuals, so that we are more like synapses in a giant brain. That's why I talked about "the mind of god". And I think that this is what Jesus meant by "the Kingdom of Heaven".

I was talking about the wisdom and likely outcomes as they concern the issue you brought up about indulging our whims and fleshly appetites.

I don't think I ever said we should "indulge our whims and fleshly appetites". I was talking about unconditionally accepting our thoughts, emotions and erotic sensations. I'm not talking about acting on them. I think someone can live a less dissolute and wasteful life by doing this. If we fight against thoughts, emotions or erotic sensations, that takes energy which could be more productively used in work, study, helping others or other creative activity.

The central dilemma which sowed the seed of this approach for me was a thought. As a teenager, while recovering from the flu, I found myself in a bout of depression. My sister visited us with her new born baby. One day I pictured myself picking up my baby niece and dashing her to her death on the floor. In my imagination my family looked to me and asked me what was wrong. This was not an issue initially. It was a thought that didn't carry a strong emotional weight. But gradually I started to ask myself how I could think such a thing. Was I evil? And the more scared I became about the fact that I thought it, the more I began to fear that I might actually do it. I was terrified, especially when I was given the baby to hold. (I actually have a photo of that moment.) It took a long time to recover from this, and I still sometimes feel uneasy around tiny babies. When I read some Freud I discovered that this kind of experience was not uncommon. It is the obsession end of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The lesson I learned from this was about the nature of a fixation. We cling to thoughts which we can't accept, that we can't forgive ourselves for having. Now I can see my thought as nothing so terrible. I was feeling bad. Feeling bad makes us selfish. It directs our attention inward. The baby was getting lots of attention. Being selfish I resented that attention. What could I do about this? You could kill the baby, says my imagination. Not a good idea. Any other suggestions? The problem was that I didn't accept it as just an idea. If I had, I could have let it come and go and saved myself from a horrifying ordeal which didn't just effect me, but put a strain on the rest of the family who were worried and had to deal with me being in an inoperable state.

That was my key example of a situation where unconditional acceptance of a thought would have been the way to go. Did this have a universal applicability? I would come to believe that it did. This isn't about indulging whims. I didn't kill the baby. In the same way if I see a sexy girl in a bikini down the beach, I'll enjoy the sight and maybe imagine what I'd like to do with her, and then I'll go on with my walk. I won't try to pick her up or go and hire a prostitute. Now I'm not saying I don't indulge my whims and my fleshly appetites some of the time, but that's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about thoughts and emotions. If you feel angry, go somewhere private and yell an obscenity, if that lets you let go of the feeling, or just do it inwardly. Don't punch someone. Whether we act on a thought or emotion is a seperate decision, and I'm certainly not recommending reckless or self-indulgent behaviour. It's about letting go rather than holding onto something by fighting with it.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

Now if your interested this is one of those claims that I believe we need to dig into deeper.

It is almost a certainty that Jesus existed. If he existed then he must be defined within the primary evidence concerning his life. We know of Christ primarily through the biblical documents. Those particular documents emphatically state both that he did supernatural acts and that he was Immanuel (God with us). So you have two choices. You can deny the primary evidence by which we learn of Christ all together and treat him like a fictional character across the board or if we allow the same evidence which claims he existed to determine who he was. What we cannot intellectually justify is to presume what the truth must be and then examine the evidence and torture it until it fits in our presumption. To do so is called begging the question.

There is no doubt that Muhammad existed. Our primary evidence concerning his life is the Quran, Hadith and Sirah. These documents emphatically state that he was the last prophet of Allah. Do we have only two choices here, to believe that Muhammad received instruction from the angel Gabriel and that his message superseded that of Jesus or to reject these sources as having any historical value?

Books sometimes combine history and myth. Of course there is a mystery involved when it comes to the gospels. If the supernatural elements are myth, how did they get there, if the books were written when the events were, historically speaking, fairly recent? If Jesus were a spiritual teacher who was not born of a virgin, didn't perform supernatural miracles and did not rise from the dead, the likelihood that enough people would be interested in his message for it to spread like wildfire across the world is small. His message might have done as well as Buddha's. But people love fairy stories, especially real life fairy stories. The supernatural events, if treated as fiction, do convey spiritual messages symbolically. They aren't just window-dressing. If we entertain the alternative view that the supernatural God is real and he made these things happen, what would be his motive for making these things happen? The same motive as might make the writers fabricate them. People don't want spiritual instruction without fairy stories. I'm loathe to think the gospel writer's deliberately fabricated the supernatural elements. Can they be explained by some kind of ecstatic state in which the natural seemed supernatural? A man cries : "I was blind and now I see" and those witnessing the event are so ecstatically transported by the excitement that Jesus' presence elicits in them that they forget he was not literally blind, but felt himself to be spiritually so. There is mystery here, but I can tolerate mystery. There is no shame is saying : "I don't know." But what interests me is the spiritual message (as I define the term "spiritual"), not the fairy story elements, real or not. Do you really think Jesus would have been worried about the fact that I don't believe he walked on water as long as I believe we should love our enemies?

Regardless, if you really want to get into this then invest maybe 30 minutes at the most, reading a brilliant paper by one of the greatest legal minds in history as to the reliability of the NT manuscripts. Scholar do not come any better credentials than Simon Greenleaf. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

There is a fundamental flaw in Greenleaf's reasoning. He is making an analogy to a criminal case in which there is the presumption of innocence. If I were arguing that the gospels were a bad influence on people and should be banned, then there would be the presumption of innocence. But this is not that kind of case. This is a claim of ownership. The gospels are making a claim of ownership over my credulity, and in that case the burden of proof is reversed. If a wallet with a thousand dollars in it is found in the street and I claim it is mine, there will be no presumption that I'm telling the truth. I will have to prove it is mine.

Also, what he said about the authorship of the gospels didn't match up with what I had read previously, so I checked on wikipedia where they say that the consensus of opinion amongst scholars is that none of the gospels were written by eye witnesses. Also they mention that many scholars believe there were earlier accounts or collections of Jesus' sayings which influenced the gospels but which are lost to us.

I did not ask you to explain the origin of the universe. I gave you how the universe came to be which is supported by all the evidence we have. What I asked was for you to take the origin event as to how the universe began to exist and then we can compare how well Pantheism lines up against how Christianity lines up with the universe's coming into being. The best place to start is at the beginning unless you have another idea.

Pantheism is just an umbrella term within which I feel my philosophy fits, so I can't compare what pantheism says about the origin of the universe with what Christianity says about the beginning of the universe. Pantheism is a way of looking at the universe which sees it as divine or as being synonymous with God. Now you could say that, if the universe began with the Big Bang and the universe is God, then how did it spontaneously start without something starting it? I know that Christianity has the belief that a supernatural God has always existed and brought the universe into being. If I were going to try to convert that into a concept that would be suitably pantheistic it would be that something immaterial always existed which took on material form. "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." James Jeans As I say, I don't speak for anyone but myself. This question of the supernatural is a slippery one. There are things I believe in, or entertain, which strict materialists would consider supernatural. But I believe that everything is a connected system without special favours for individual humans. How can something come out of nothing? We don't know. How can God make something out of nothing? We don't know. But I can't see any inconsistency between pantheism and the idea that the God which is the natural universe had a non-material form before becoming the natural universe. The big difference is that Christianity sees God as being, at least partly, outside of his creation, where as pantheism sees God, in the present, as being entirely intrinsic to the natural world of the universe.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

As I mentioned before debates take place on the common ground of accepted scholarship. It does not matter what I think is a proper way to do research and make conclusion, nor does it matter how you think you should. Debates consist of determining who is being consistent with the scholarly consensus as to what makes a good argument or a reliable conclusion. My point is not that your methods must adhere to my methods, it is that your methods ought to line with well established techniques for properly researching these issues. My argument is that your methods violate even the most basic of accepted way to reach conclusions.

My method is unorthodox. This is how I see it. The norm is for people to be alienated, that is dishonest and crooked, in their thinking. There may be truths we can't face which we have to think around and prejudices we can't let go of which we need to carefully buttress. This takes a lot of time and effort and keeps us from seeing things clearly. We can't see the wood for the trees. Now you probably think this is what I'm doing. Not going to the direct, obvious conclusion, but rather going to great effort to come up with some way to twist the facts to conform to my prejudices. And this is what I think other people are doing. I think I'm seeing things clearly. The problem is that an alienated person can't see that they are alienated. If a person who is not thinking truthfully could recognise that they were not thinking truthfully then they would no longer be able to think untruthfully in that way. A lie to ourselves is only effective as long as we don't know that it is a lie. If I'm alienated and twisting things to suit myself then I won't know it. The argument I use with myself against my being alienated in this way is the lack of effort involved in maintaining my way of thinking and relative lack of concern with what others think of it. It strikes me that a person who is hiding from the truth or buttressing prejudice will tend to feel the need to put a great deal of effort into gathering supporting evidence and will place a good deal of emphasis on trying to persuade others. Not that there aren't genuine reasons for trying to proselytise, but you can often tell the difference between people who are trying to share something they have found of value and those who see other's contrary beliefs as a threat because they mesh with their own doubts. Straight thinking leads to a secure foundation of belief. When everything fits together coherently, there is no need to pay a lot of attention to it. It's there when you want it. I think about people going to church each week to hear that God loves them. If they truly believed it, why would they have to hear it so often? If we truly believe something we only need to hear it once. So why don't I have more reverence of established methods and all this research? It feels like I'm thinking honestly, directly and clearly and everyone else is thinking crookedly around the things they are afraid to face and the prejudices they daren't let go of. Or maybe it is me who is doing that.

The verse you quoted contradicts your conclusion. The verse you quoted does not say that he spoke in parables because he did not know how else to make a point. He said that he spoke in parables so that certain groups of people would not understand what he did not intend for them to. Now to find out why that was start by looking into scriptures like:

New American Standard Bible
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

God can grant even an idiot perfect understanding concerning any issue he wishes but for various reasons he wishes some to work hard for clarity.

Let's look at this again : "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." Matthew 13:13-13:14

So you are saying that God makes the prediction that people will have trouble understanding things and then talks to them in parables to make his own prophecy come true? It seems to me the passage is saying that it was prophesied that a time would come when people have trouble understanding things, i.e. were very alienated, confused by their dishonest thinking, and so Jesus talks to them in parables because they will be able to remember stories and pass them on, and those who are less alienated will know what he meant by the parables.

Well lets look at at least one example.

Which of these two thing would prevent more murders.

1. If God does not exist then: Human beings are merely biological anomalies, our lives have no sanctity, no objective worth, no inherent dignity, no equality, and murder is at best a mere social fashion.
2. If God does exist then: Human beings have a divine soul, were created in the image of God, our lives are endowed with inherent meaning, sanctity, dignity, worth, and murder is an absolute and objective moral failure.

What do you mean by "merely biological anomalies"? We are nature's most amazing creation. We can do unto others as we would have them do unto us, without belief in God. When we love someone they have objective worth to us, with or without belief in God. I see nothing inherently undignified in humans. We may lose our dignity when we become psychologically troubled. If we decide to treat each other as equals we can. Does your God treat people equally? Murder is a horrendous crime, we know this because of how much we don't want to be murdered ourselves. Look at a family of gorillas living peacefully together in the wild and tell me that life is so horrible without God.

A supernatural deity might have nothing but contempt for humans and delight in the misery and wretchedness of our lives. What matters is whether love exists, whether it be only in human hearts or in some external supernatural deity's constitution.

Now which scenario if adopted by a society would prevent more murder? I will give you a hint, the most destructive single human being in history was Joseph Stalin. He was specifically selected to carry on the communist ideal because he absolutely hated religion.

There's a bunch of them : Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung. I don't think it is actually about religion though, even though they were all against it. If they were true Christians would that have happened? Of course not. But I think the key factor which unites these men and those who have committed atrocities in the name of Jesus is what I would call idealism. They were obsessed with reshaping the world to fit their idea of how it should be. With the communists it was a radical concept of equality of outcomes. They ended up killing anyone who wouldn't cooperate with their vision of a worker's utopia. Hitler's ideal was racial purity. He wanted to make Germany perfect by eliminating those he considered inferior. The Spanish Inquisition had an ideal of conformity to their interpretation of Christian doctrine. The Puritans who burned "the witches" I suppose had an ideal of making the world free of those they felt were inimical to God.

All this stands in stark contrast to Jesus, who didn't try to reshape the world to fit some ideal. He offered a gift which people were free to accept or reject. In terms of religious leaders that is what places him in stark contrast to Muhammad who converted the whole of the Arabian peninsula to his religion by putting people to the sword.

Well if you wanted to investigate the immorality of Christians in history, you will not find an argument with me. I am very willing to concede Christianity's darkest days, I can probably post more immoral actions by Christians than you could. However let my introduce two undeniable facts.

1. Not all those who claim to be Christians actually are.
2. Those who murder, steal, or oppress are acting against Christ's teachings.

You judge a teacher by the students who obey him, you do not access a teacher by looking at the students who betray his teachings.

Who really qualifies as a Christian I suppose might depend on the standard applied. I know that Jesus says a lot of people who think they will be recognised as Christians at Judgement Day will not. And some are even more finicky : 'In truth, there was only one christian and he died on the cross.' Friedrich Nietzsche.

I believe you began by stating that what you believe about Satan was actually true before you even began to make an argument. I can go back and quote you if necessary.

If I say that Satan is a mythological character symbolising idealism, do I really have to qualify that by saying "In my opinion..." before hand? Clearly I'm expressing an idea which you will either find credible or not based on it's explanatory power or lack thereof.

Ok, do you want to discuss the fact that the most generous demographic in the history of the human race is the current conservative Christian demographic?

That wouldn't necessarily surprise me. When you combine an ideology which praises generosity with a believe in eternal life in Heaven, I imagine it would tend to be effective in that area. No need to be greedy if you'll hit the jackpot after your dead anyway. If someone thinks this is all there is then that may make them think they better live it up big while they can.

The whole Heaven idea raises interesting questions. I remember asking a Brother at the Catholic school I attended for two years : "If someone who doesn't believe they will go to Heaven does good deeds are they better than someone who does those things with the expectation that they may go to Heaven?" He conceded I had a point. My belief is that we are all motivated by self-interest. There is short-term self-interest in which we grab what we want now at the expense of our future wellbeing. If we eat lots of donuts, it may feel good now, but later we'll be sick. So the wisest thing is to make decisions which are in line with our longer term self-interest. And we incorporate the interests of loved ones, because our happiness is conditional on their happiness. But what of someone who gives their life for others? If they don't think they will get a reward in the after-life for doing so, my view is that they are exchanging their life for meaning. Our life is finite, and pleasure is not the only reward. Meaning gives us participation in something larger then ourselves, a sense of being more, and it lessens the sting of suffering. If we are engaged in some form of work which is going to bring lasting benefit to others then we don't mind if our arms ache or the sweat stings our eyes. But to me Heaven seems like a bit of a cheat. If it is selfish to want bliss for yourself, you can be as selfish as you want, you just have to delay delivery until after you die. On the other hand, if most people live lives of quiet desperation, who can blame them for wanting something better after they die? Is there such a thing as genuine selflessness? What if someone was told that either they or a loved one could have everlasting life? Would someone forgo eternity so that the one they loved didn't miss out?

 

[Aussiescribbler]

I never stated otherwise. I said that scientists are the best group to reach scientific conclusions, philosophers for philosophical issues, mathematicians for math, etc........ but that theologians are the best for theology. However here specifically I am talking about the simple reading of a sentence. I believe your the one claiming that it is the vastly more complex conclusions about scripture are correct. When Jesus said he turned water into wine, I conclude he turned water into wine.

My conclusions are not really "vastly more complex". You needn't find them credible, but they are mostly very simple. I'm suggesting that, in Jesus' presence, the guests felt as intoxicated as if the water were wine. A real-life event which meshes with Proverbs 15:17 Better is a dinner of herbs where love is than a fattened ox and hatred with it.

There are probably several dozen and I have seen them all. Just type in DR White or Dr. Craig versus Dr. Ehrman. You will hear everything from thorough history, to textual criticism, to probabilistic calculus.

So far, I've watched more than half of one between Dr. White and Dr. Ehrman. It's about Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. So far I would hardly say White was "wiping the floor" with Ehrman. I think it is very much a case of which side of the debate you are sympathetic to. Ehrman reveals some things I didn't know that I find remarkable. I didn't know that the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the earliest version of John that we have or that the earliest version of Mark that we have was missing the end. I would admit that White is right that Ehrman is overstating the case to say that changes in a book alter it's entire meaning, and that the fallibility of copiers does not undermine the possibility that the original may have been divinely inspired and preserved in essence through the copying process. I really like Ehrman though and admire his integrity.

I mean the born again experience all true Christians have in common and which no other religion has or offers.

As I think you mentioned, one person's experience carries limited weight as an argument to another. From the outside, my limited experience with people who consider themselves to be "born again" is of people divided against themselves. That they are not whole people, i.e. people with integrity. That they are transcending their dark side, rather than owning it and achieving individuation. Having said that, I've spent little time with people who see themselves this way, so my view may be based on too little raw data and too many preconceptions.

The point he was making was that those who are condemned may not have any awareness of it. As I said, those who are deluded are the same ones who are most certain they aren't.

Are you certain you are not deluded? I am actually willing to concede that I may be. The test is to remain in communication with those who can make me aware of the error of my ways.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

Stagnation! To me, an alive living person is Not stagnant but when healthy looks forward to actively doing enjoyable things.

I wasn't talking about the individual level. I'm thinking of evolution. Evolution is a process which can lead to increasingly wonderful entities. It requires death. Each generation has to be replaced by the next. If all humans were to end up living for ever, there would be no new generation and without new generations there could never be anything more marvellous on earth than human beings. Imagine if reptiles had been given eternal life. There would have been no birds and no mammals. There would have been no human beings. If we achieved immortality as individuals, then human beings would be the end of the evolutionary process on earth. That is what I mean by stagnation.

What healthy person wants to pick the day they want to die?
I enjoy my favorite foods and do Not tire of them.
I enjoy being with favorite people and do Not tire of them. I look forward to the next time we can be together.
Can't we always look forward to new experiences, trying new things, new adventures, etc.

I enjoy life and hope I live to a ripe old age, but familiarity does take some of the excitement out of our experiences. Eternity is an awfully long time. In fact it is completely impossible for the human mind to even imagine. The less we have of something the more it means to us. If we only have one day at a luxurious holiday resort we will make the most of it. We will really drink in the experience and try to do as much as possible. But if we were there for six months we would be getting bored. We would have done everything ten times over. And that is only six months. If you dropped the whole time line of the history of the universe so far into the time line of eternity it would disappear completely. Eternity has no end. None. You'd be bored after a thousand years.

It is only the wicked who will be destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7 - Not the righteous - Matthew 5:5; 25:37

The kind of eternal life you're talking about sounds like punishment to me. I'd rather be destroyed forever.

But that is only if we are talking about eternal life for me as an individual. I want life itself to go on.

 

[1robin]

Can we be said to have the ability to chose that which we wish to choose if we didn't chose who we are? That's the point I was trying to make. We can make choices which we may or may not be able to act upon, but the person who is making those choices is the product of forces outside their control - i.e. genes, environment, circumstance. It's that old chestnut - if we knew absolutely everything there is to know about someone (which, given the interconnectedness of things would mean knowing everything there is to know about the whole universe) could we predict every choice they would make before they made it? I believe in determinism but of a kind so infinitely complex and finely wrought as to be unpredictable most of the time. It is not that we don't have the ability to chose, but the chooser's nature has been determined by the chaotic system of which they are a manifestation. So, in a sense, the chooser's choices have been made by the system which gave rise to the chooser.

Mercy, I will give you a famous quote from a General Armistead after his soldiers literally annihilated an attack by General Burnside in the civil war. He said "Their devotion is worthy of a better cause". It was made even more profound by his equally as devastating attack he made at Gettysburg a year later which was even bigger and the losses even greater.

As much effort as you are willing to invest you ought to let me give you some scholars in a field of your choosing to investigate the bible through. If you sincerely put the amount of effort into studying the bible as you do in discussing other things you could at least be fairly certain your conclusions would be satisfactory. Also, I have to delete much of what you say that I respond or there is little room left for that reply. Every character you use takes one out of the 12,000 left for me. I am given to Anyway let's get to your post.

I agree in principle but want to clarify a bit. While it is certainly the case that we are influenced by external or internal forces it is the case that we still freely choose things. For example threatening my life can certainly influence me but I can never the less choose to die. To investigate this in depth we need to consider each case in turn.

As far as determinism goes I was very surprised to find that after over a year of failure I eventually hit upon an argument which proves to a certainty that free will exists and therefor determinism does not determine everything. I can supply that argument if requested.

So where does freedom lie? I've been thinking about the concepts "slave to sin" and "will of God". If we just act on our impulses then we are the slave of those impulses. But the idea of "doing the will of God" sounds like surrendering our freedom in another way - just obeying orders. This is different from slavery, because the slave has no choice. I can see how the concept of free will is important here. If God wanted us to do his will then why did he give us the freedom not to? Because then we would be robots and the human world would be as meaningless as a wind-up toy.

Being a slave to sin does not imply that we cannot choose not to sin. It means that without help we will always be overcome by some sinful desire or another. An analogy is that while every actual slave is strongly compelled to never rebel, they never the less could have rebelled at any point. It means that almost all slaves will be compelled to remain a slave, however none of them had to.

Here is how I see it. We can go around trying to serve our own ends, driven by our pride or our lusts or our ambitions. We have our ego which wills things for us. I think a lot of this tends to be driven by the idea that we need to prove something about ourselves. We doubt our worth so we want to "prove" we are worthy by being smarter than the next person, or richer than the next person or more charitable than the next person, or having more sex or being more famous. Some things we do simply for themselves and others so we can say "look at me, ain't I great?" So to the extent that we are driven by ego or selfish desires, we surrender our spiritual freedom to those ends. We may have freedom to do these things, but we are like horses being ridden by those impulses. The impulses hold the reins and direct our behavior.

The bible describes our sinfulness more adequately and completely than we can do so without God. The bible says that our flesh and our undegenerated hearts desire things that God considers wicked, it states that only once our hearts and minds are spiritually renewed is the case where on average out spirits can overcome our flesh. A famous verse about this states that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Again let me point out we can not even begin to resolve this many issues. Only once you pick one or two and we concentrate on them can I sufficiently resolve anything. Right now the best I can do is briefly comment on some of the issues you mention. I prefer to debate less subjects, but much more in depth.

So what is the alternative?

This one is easy, the alternative is Christ. The following points briefly summarize Christianity.

1. If God is to be God then he must demand perfection. Also, the only criteria that make sense are that a perfect God cannot settle for anything less than perfection and that for imperfect creatures to be redeemed depends entirely on grace.
2. So no one other than Christ is perfect yet God requires perfection.
3. So creatures as imperfect as we are completely dependent of God to supply the remedy.
4. God paid the entire price to provide that redemption.
5. God allowed himself to die in our place by our killing his perfect and divine son.
6. This is another issue that makes Christianity different from other faiths.
7. His allowing his perfect son to take the just punishment our imperfect records deserve is called substitutionary atonement.
8. Substitutionary atonement means Christ's perfect record is accredited to our own lives when we accept his sacrifice and we inherent the reward he received by being morally perfect before God, where as the punishment for our imperfection was placed on Christ which he willingly paid for on the cross.
9. That means that since Christ willingly suffered the full penalty for my sins I am declared perfect before God so that I may enjoy what Christ himself earned.
10. Also since the Holy Spirit comes to live inside every Christian believer the moment he accepts Christ's sacrifice and he is born again, that means that after that point we have divine help in overcoming out sinful flesh but the fact we all fall short of perfection will not matter since it is Christ's righteous that he provided when he died to all those that believe that I will be judged on. Those who do not accept Christ's sacrifice will be judged on their imperfect record but not Christians.

Now that was overly brief but even if Christianity that is the most complete, sufficient, and comprehensive plan for salvation ever put forth by anyone at anytime. I do not care what aspect it is that a person tries to attack, I can show that any complaint will utterly fail to identify a fault in that model of salvation.

1. Honest - We don't try to gain an advantage through deceit and we are willing to be vulnerable by exposing our weaknesses. We meet on the common ground of truth and our self-exposure makes it easier for others to follow suit.

You could take the most honest mortal who ever lived and his life will be full of sin.

2. Open - We don't feel the need to protect ourselves and we pay close attention to what others communicate.

3. Spontaneous - We are constantly being changed by what is communicated to us and responding in the moment.

4. Generous - Our default mode is to give when asked for something unless there is some good reason not to.

You can find the least flawed mortal in human history and his life will fall short of any logical standard a perfect God could demand. We had better stop kidding ourselves, and admit to all our present or past failures before it is too late.

To me this is where doing the will of "God" comes in and why it is freedom. "God" is the larger whole we open up into through love.

Not even the prophets and apostles thought their records merited salvation on their own. Paul (the greatest apostle IMO) said that he was the chief of sinners. Debating the relative goodness of any specific person will never make up for the sins of that person.

I don't think I ever said we should "indulge our whims and fleshly appetites". I was talking about unconditionally accepting our thoughts, emotions and erotic sensations. I'm not talking about acting on them. I think someone can live a less dissolute and wasteful life by doing this. If we fight against thoughts, emotions or erotic sensations, that takes energy which could be more productively used in work, study, helping others or other creative activity.

The moment you stop trying to kill off the impure thoughts you have is the moment you start feeding them.

Christ said you have heard it was wrong to physically commit adultery, but I come to tell you that if any man looks at a women with lust has committed adultery in his heart. God knows every mistake you committed or thought of and even one disqualifies you from meeting God's standard. Either we accept God's sacrifice of his perfect son for our sins, or there is no hope.

Keep in mind that you saying you do not like God's standards or his provision is not an argument. I did not believe in Christianity because I liked it, but because I believe it is true.

The central dilemma which sowed the seed of this approach for me was a thought. As a teenager, while recovering from the flu, I found myself in a bout of depression. My sister visited us with her new born baby. One day I pictured myself picking up my baby niece and dashing her to her death on the floor. In my imagination my family looked to me and asked me what was wrong.

we all have thoughts so vile that we would be loathe to make them public. Again the Bible more than any other world view accounts for these things all of us think and that many of us carry out in a brutally honest accounting. It alone gives a comprehensive foundation, description, and remedy for these things most of us are lucky if we even admit to ourselves.

You have an advantage. You are right to admit you and others have these terrible thoughts and actions on their record. You are right to wonder if you are evil, because we all are. The only thing left is for you to recognize that only the bible fully accounts for those horrific things, and only it contains a sufficient remedy for them.

That was my key example of a situation where unconditional acceptance of a thought would have been the way to go. Did this have a universal applicability? I would come to believe that it did.

Well, you have things out of order a bit. You are right in many cases, you just have scrambled up everything.

1. We all fail and we all do so utterly.
2. If we are honest we can see that no one ever fully overcomes our frailties. So if God who is perfect and demands perfection (and I can not see how that couldn't be the case) judges us, even the best among us will be condemned.
3. So trade in your own imperfect record for Christ's perfect record, then and only then when you have plugged into God can you have any hope of overcoming your failures.
4. To try and fix your failures before you plug into Christ is to tell God you are perfect and have no need of his provision which is to lie to him as well as your self.

I am not trying to preach here but the issues you bring up require that type of a response.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I wasn't talking about the individual level. I'm thinking of evolution. Evolution is a process which can lead to increasingly wonderful entities. It requires death. Each generation has to be replaced by the next. If all humans were to end up living for ever, there would be no new generation and without new generations there could never be anything more marvellous on earth than human beings. Imagine if reptiles had been given eternal life. There would have been no birds and no mammals. There would have been no human beings. If we achieved immortality as individuals, then human beings would be the end of the evolutionary process on earth. That is what I mean by stagnation.
I enjoy life and hope I live to a ripe old age, but familiarity does take some of the excitement out of our experiences. Eternity is an awfully long time. In fact it is completely impossible for the human mind to even imagine. The less we have of something the more it means to us. If we only have one day at a luxurious holiday resort we will make the most of it. We will really drink in the experience and try to do as much as possible. But if we were there for six months we would be getting bored. We would have done everything ten times over. And that is only six months. If you dropped the whole time line of the history of the universe so far into the time line of eternity it would disappear completely. Eternity has no end. None. You'd be bored after a thousand years.
The kind of eternal life you're talking about sounds like punishment to me. I'd rather be destroyed forever.
But that is only if we are talking about eternal life for me as an individual. I want life itself to go on.

To me, any healthy individual would want life to go on. ( even most un-healthy try to get better )
Eternity is in our hearts. For each day we can think of, or imagine, we can think of a next or following day.
We can count forwards and backwards forever and ever.
Do you enjoy travel and meeting new people ? I never tire of travel and meeting new people and re-visiting others.
If you enjoy that, if so, just think eternity in perfect physical health would make that enjoyable and possible.
Eternity would make possible to absolutely meet each and everyone one on Earth.
A friend last year visited Australia and brought me back gifts including vegemite which I never had before.
Could you meet everyone on Earth in only a thousand years, and even if you could you might want to re-visit them.
We don't use all of our brain capacity at this point, so with a better brain we can learn and study in depth as never before in history. We'd be able to communicate much better and understand each other better than now.

Yes, evolution would require death, so we are Not talking about evolution but creation, as Adam was created from the dust of the ground. Lifeless Adam came to life ' after ' God breathed the breath of life into lifeless Adam.
Only Adam and Eve (people) were offered everlasting life on Earth as long as they did Not break God's Law.
The breaking of the Law carried with it the evil or the bad which is the death penalty. No post-mortem penalty.
Since we are innocent, and death pays the price tag of sin, then there will be a resurrection of the dead.
Is there any dead person you would really like to see again? Resurrection, to me, will make that possible.

 

[1robin]

My method is unorthodox. This is how I see it. The norm is for people to be alienated, that is dishonest and crooked, in their thinking.

I do not expect you to agree with me, and I do not expect you to use well established methods for properly resolving claims of certain types in every case. However if you disagree and you always contradict established scholarship then you very quickly lose credibility and persuasiveness. I always believe that occasionally a laymen may have a better position than that most scholars do, I never think that someone who always has a fringe conclusion is persuasive or are correct any more than very occasionally. There is a reason that universities and companies teach, and pay for those who have mastered mainstream scholarship. They must pay and teach mainstream scholarship because it is far more reliable than fringe methods for producing needed results.

Let's look at this again : "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." Matthew 13:13-13:14

So you are saying that God makes the prediction that people will have trouble understanding things and then talks to them in parables to make his own prophecy come true? It seems to me the passage is saying that it was prophesied that a time would come when people have trouble understanding things, i.e. were very alienated, confused by their dishonest thinking, and so Jesus talks to them in parables because they will be able to remember stories and pass them on, and those who are less alienated will know what he meant by the parables.

Your getting too far afield here I never said any of this.

You said Jesus had to speak in symbology and parables because that was the only way he could figure out to communicate. I responded by saying that no, he did so in a few places because for whatever reasons he had he did not want certain groups at certain times to understand him.

I already showed how the scripture above showed your conclusion to be wrong, let me give you another one. Please notice that Christ went out of his way in the few instances where he spoke in parables to let everyone know he was not being literal. In fact in many places he gave the meanings of the few parables he used to his disciples afterwards. So there are two reasons why Jesus spoke in parables in his own words, another reason was that he re-enforced a literal he used in one place by also stating it in an analogy. However I have never heard from any respected scholar any of the reasons you gave for the few non-literal verses in the bible.

What do you mean by "merely biological anomalies"?

If my God or one very similar did not specially create humankind then the primary creative foundation for human beings is natural selection. If God does not exist then evolution is an unguided process which only creates a series of equally worthless life forms. There is no reason to think that the randomness of nature alone could endow anything with value or worth. So that we (in that case) have no inherent value or worth.

A supernatural deity might have nothing but contempt for humans and delight in the misery and wretchedness of our lives. What matters is whether love exists, whether it be only in human hearts or in some external supernatural deity's constitution.

I am not defending (nor do I believe in) the God you described. When I say God, I obviously mean the God I believe in and he comes in a very well understood context and is a very specific being who carried out very specific actions.

There's a bunch of them : Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung.

Yes and many more, and all of them share a single primary characteristic, atheism. That being said, I did not even hint that atheism was their only influence just one of the greatest, and I said emphatically that Christians have way too much evil in their history. I said instead that that the greatest crimes against humanity have been done by atheistic leaders from the recent atheistic utopias. You cannot blame Christianity for the crimes of those that betrayed Christ and excuse the far worse acts of atheists acting consistently with atheism.

All this stands in stark contrast to Jesus, who didn't try to reshape the world to fit some ideal. He offered a gift which people were free to accept or reject. In terms of religious leaders that is what places him in stark contrast to Muhammad who converted the whole of the Arabian peninsula to his religion by putting people to the sword.

Yes and no. Christ not only wished his ideology to replace all others, he literally condemned all opposing ideologies as utterly evil. What he didn't do was to suggest anyone accomplish this by force where as that is exactly what Mohammad did. Similar missions, completely dissimilar tactics. But the main issue is that those so called Christians who tried to use force betrayed Christ and the Muslims the opposite.

Who really qualifies as a Christian I suppose might depend on the standard applied. I know that Jesus says a lot of people who think they will be recognised as Christians at Judgement Day will not. And some are even more finicky : 'In truth, there was only one christian and he died on the cross.' Friedrich Nietzsche.

The standard is Christ and not any one else opinion. Also it is not a digital situation and even if it was Nietzsche is not qualified to comment. Christians become Christians by being born again, they should emulate Christ but it does not mean we are not Christians if we occasionally fail. However none of this is what we are talking about. What is important is that you cannot blame Christianity for the actions of Christians when they contradict his teachings.

If I say that Satan is a mythological character symbolising idealism, do I really have to qualify that by saying "In my opinion..." before hand? Clearly I'm expressing an idea which you will either find credible or not based on it's explanatory power or lack thereof.

If you want someone who is unfamiliar with you to understand that what you stated as fact is something you are not claiming was fact, then yes. My point was that what you stated as fact several times was not something you could possibly know was fact, even if it was.

That wouldn't necessarily surprise me. When you combine an ideology which praises generosity with a believe in eternal life in Heaven, I imagine it would tend to be effective in that area. No need to be greedy if you'll hit the jackpot after your dead anyway. If someone thinks this is all there is then that may make them think they better live it up big while they can.

The issue was that if you want to discuss the moral excellence of the Christian record then I start off with what I posted. It does not matter if it is surprising or not, it matters if is true or not.

The whole Heaven idea raises interesting questions. I remember asking a Brother at the Catholic school I attended for two years : "If someone who doesn't believe they will go to Heaven does good deeds are they better than someone who does those things with the expectation that they may go to Heaven?" He conceded I had a point. My belief is that we are all motivated by self-interest. There is short-term self-interest in which we grab what we want now at the expense of our future wellbeing. If we eat lots of donuts, it may feel good now, but later we'll be sick. So the wisest thing is to make decisions which are in line with our longer term self-interest. And we incorporate the interests of loved ones, because our happiness is conditional on their happiness. But what of someone who gives their life for others? If they don't think they will get a reward in the after-life for doing so, my view is that they are exchanging their life for meaning. Our life is finite, and pleasure is not the only reward. Meaning gives us participation in something larger then ourselves, a sense of being more, and it lessens the sting of suffering. If we are engaged in some form of work which is going to bring lasting benefit to others then we don't mind if our arms ache or the sweat stings our eyes. But to me Heaven seems like a bit of a cheat. If it is selfish to want bliss for yourself, you can be as selfish as you want, you just have to delay delivery until after you die. On the other hand, if most people live lives of quiet desperation, who can blame them for wanting something better after they die? Is there such a thing as genuine selflessness? What if someone was told that either they or a loved one could have everlasting life? Would someone forgo eternity so that the one they loved didn't miss out?

I do not think it matters whether a Christian is better who does good things than a person who is not. It just matters if it is true. Reminds me of someone who suggested that since Constantine had more to do with the growth of Christianity than any other of his day did that make Christianity less impressive. It took me a while to even understand what they were talking about but the simple fact that God used a single man to grow Christianity actually made it more impressive. So you are not going to qualify any result of Christianity in anyway that will meaningfully change the fact that Christianity produced it. The attempt will just be a waste of your time.

 

[1robin]

My conclusions are not really "vastly more complex". You needn't find them credible, but they are mostly very simple. I'm suggesting that, in Jesus' presence, the guests felt as intoxicated as if the water were wine. A real-life event which meshes with Proverbs 15:17 Better is a dinner of herbs where love is than a fattened ox and hatred with it.

The verse contained the words water and wine, but did not mention intoxication. In 2000 years of mainstream biblical hermeneutics and exegesis the literal interpretation is always taken unless the symbolic is emphatically indicated. You are doing the exact opposite as usual. The literal is always simpler than the symbolic made even worse by the absence of the word that would have served as the entire foundation if you were right.

So far, I've watched more than half of one between Dr. White and Dr. Ehrman. It's about Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. So far I would hardly say White was "wiping the floor" with Ehrman. I think it is very much a case of which side of the debate you are sympathetic to. Ehrman reveals some things I didn't know that I find remarkable. I didn't know that the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the earliest version of John that we have or that the earliest version of Mark that we have was missing the end. I would admit that White is right that Ehrman is overstating the case to say that changes in a book alter it's entire meaning, and that the fallibility of copiers does not undermine the possibility that the original may have been divinely inspired and preserved in essence through the copying process. I really like Ehrman though and admire his integrity.

Well it helps if you have enough biblical knowledge to understand what White's arguments are. If you are unfamiliar with Granvel Sharps rule, the Alexandrian versus Constantinople textual traditions, theopneustos, Hebrew roots and koine Greek verb tenses, or the basis for some of Paul's writings in prior salvation formulas dated to within months or years of Christ's death, etc...... you may not be qualified to judge accurately. While you may not be qualified to discuss the concept of biblical inerrancy established in the Chicago statement of faith you are qualified to debate the accuracy of the biblical textual tradition. You want to discuss that instead? Heck, you can even do that accurately in your own home, with the right software, in a matter of hours. I believe White is the best candidate for the person who has handled the most extant biblical manuscripts since the apostles.

As I think you mentioned, one person's experience carries limited weight as an argument to another. From the outside, my limited experience with people who consider themselves to be "born again" is of people divided against themselves. That they are not whole people, i.e. people with integrity. That they are transcending their dark side, rather than owning it and achieving individuation. Having said that, I've spent little time with people who see themselves this way, so my view may be based on too little raw data and too many preconceptions.

Yes that is true but it has nothing to do with sufficiency and everything to do with persuasiveness. Experiential claims being properly basic beliefs are among the most certain. I can only state that your understating of the results of being born again are the exact opposite of my own, and between us I am the one claiming to have been.

Also, whether it be born again issues or a Christians level of faith, I alone of us have been on either side. I at one time thought Christians were deluded, irrational, and just plain weird. I have also been on the opposite side. While I still think some Christian's get stuff quite wrong I only feel shame concerning my original atheist conclusions. I thought I had really good arguments against the bible's doctrines only to realize I was an utter fool.

Are you certain you are not deluded? I am actually willing to concede that I may be. The test is to remain in communication with those who can make me aware of the error of my ways.

No, but between us I can easily have more certainty that I am not deluded than you can ever have that I am.

Christianity is a faith position as well as most of human knowledge. Can you tell me anything that you can know to a certainty in any field? Regardless, why are you demanding certainty for faith claims? Inappropriate standards are evidence of a failed argument.