Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Robert.Evans]

It would be most helpful if you three would stop being so dishonest with your "truth"

You would have to prove it was dishonest to say that. I think that would be hard for you as this is not your subject. Why not try and think up an answer in place of ours that would answer all the facts.... go on, have a go.

 

[1robin]

Your example appears to have wandered in from the Faith In Larry Is Completely Logical thread.

Meanwhile, "I know a guy named Larry" hardly seems like evidence. Isn't that the claim?

That would make any hypothetical or analogy to have wandered into that which it does not belong. Why? I was pointing hat since how many see, think, or do X is taken as suggestive of he truth in countless areas of study then it is suggestive of a knowable issue like being born again. Just the same as a doctors first question is about our experience so is knowledge of Christ. However if you going to insist that only historical or empirical evidence is valid (something not even science does) then take these conclusions.

The majority of NT historians (those who know more about evidence than either of us) agree that:
1. Christ appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. And for this issue it does not matter if we know he had such authority just that he thought he did. It is even granted that he practiced a ministry of exorcism.
2. That he was crucified and died. This is among the most textually attested facts in ancient history.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That even his enemies claimed to have experienced a risen Christ.

These are facts as certain as history can make them. I have no need of additional agreement from NT scholars but have thousands of events like these that they grant as reliable. Not to mention the thousands of artifacts and finds that show the bible to be a exacting historical biography in every way it is evaluated.

 

[Cephus]

But the point is, you come out of the room with a Rolex..... yet there was nothing in there. Don't you see the problem? That was the crux of his argumentc

No, you are claiming I came out of the room with a Rolex, yet there is no Rolex in evidence. Maybe the crux of the argument is that you're seeing things that cannot be justified.

 

[Cephus]

You are trying to make a metaphysical argument a physical one again... It won't do you know. False argument!

Nobody is trying to do that, they are trying to get you to justify your unsupported claims. I'm not saying that you don't really believe this stuff, I'm saying that you have no rational reason to come to the conclusions that you've come to. Your claims are empty. I don't believe your claims. I'm asking you to justify your claims, to show us why your claims about the existence of God are valid. You cannot do so, you repeatedly prove that with every post. "I know because I know because I know" is not a rational response and no matter how many times you repeat it, it won't become any more rational. You're simply dodging the question because you have no good answer.

 

[Cephus]

It is spiritually discerned, have I not told you this before!!! Feel free to keep ignoring it, haha

There's no evidence of spirituality, period. It's an invented term with no demonstrable validity. It's like saying you had a psychic vision or a little bird told you. These are not rationally valid ways of gaining objective knowledge. Until it can be actually validated in some objective fashion, rational people are going to consider it imaginary.

 

[Sapiens]

Anecdotal means hearsay or secondhand accounts, which the resurrection was not. So false argument.

No, that is not what "anecdotal" means: it means: "not necessarily true or reliable, because it is based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

Something can be first hand and still be considered anecdotal. As far as the resurrection is concerned, it is not anecdotal, it is undocumented unverified and thus should be assumed to be nonexistent under the common sense demands the application of: "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," yet even ordinary evidence is lacking.

But while not anecdotal, the evidence is, at best hearsay, and with reference to the hearsay nature of the "best evidence" available, Bart D. Ehrman (James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) says: "You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses; they’re Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They’re not contemporary, they’re not disinterested, and they’re not consistent."

 

[Sapiens]

No pats, just a recognition of the same truth and a realisation that you are clueless as to what that truth is. Both Robert and Disciple are trying in vain to show you but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

There is little on earth more pernicious than a shared delusion.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, you are claiming I came out of the room with a Rolex, yet there is no Rolex in evidence. Maybe the crux of the argument is that you're seeing things that cannot be justified.

His original post was that there was no watch in there ..... but he still comes out with one. It should cause one to stop and think, should it not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nobody is trying to do that, they are trying to get you to justify your unsupported claims.

But how are they trying to do that? We have an argument which is metaphyical not physical, so what objective evidence are you expecting to see. The outer evidence is not sufficient on its own as the very thing we speak of, God, we cannot see. That is the bottom line: you can't see God so think that there isn't one. But you are not going to see God are you, so why the argument for the kind of evidence you ask for, evidence which would be proof! The best evidence you can except is a believer, as they are living witnesses...... to ignore, whether you believe in all that they say or not, is to ignore millions of people. Again this should make one stop and ponder.... not just dismiss. It is too much reliance on science which has blinded people to think that it can solve all things, which it will not. Science is limited. Period.

I'm not saying that you don't really believe this stuff, I'm saying that you have no rational reason to come to the conclusions that you've come to. Your claims are empty.

They are not empty, they are real, more real than you and I put together... it is just you who cannot see it.

I don't believe your claims. I'm asking you to justify your claims, to show us why your claims about the existence of God are valid. You cannot do so, you repeatedly prove that with every post. "I know because I know because I know" is not a rational response and no matter how many times you repeat it, it won't become any more rational. You're simply dodging the question because you have no good answer.

The answer is given. It is God who opens the eyes not man. It is the inner witness which is real, not the world, not the argument. Any outer evidence is only relative to the one who has eyes to see. You do not understand this argument because you are of the world. I know how hard it was for me to understand the Bible (and still am doing) what hope you? None. Even if I tell you everything I know it does not mean that you will agree, only that you understand English. Your mind, I am sorry to say, is closed/. I cannot open it.... your heart has to be right with God.

If you are going to look at physical things, then I suggest you look at the ridiculous odds of this universe even being here in the first place, and the fact that it is supposed to have come about naturally! What does that mean anyway? If all things are natural, then what is everything??? All things then come from some form of energy (if we can call it that) that has to evolve from chaos into something with form and order. HOW? The answer is with luck and a sprinkle of magic. Why? Because you do not have intelligence because you don't think there is a God. I find it hard to imagine that anyone can accept that is ''just happens'' but this is the nonsense I keep hearing all the time, ''it is natural'', ''I don't know, but it isn't God''. Won't do. You need to think of the whole, not just the parts.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There's no evidence of spirituality, period. It's an invented term with no demonstrable validity. It's like saying you had a psychic vision or a little bird told you. These are not rationally valid ways of gaining objective knowledge. Until it can be actually validated in some objective fashion, rational people are going to consider it imaginary.

You have to stop confusing the term ''rational people'' with ''atheists''. That is saying that believers cannot be rational. Francis Collins is a scientist and a believer, he seems to have his head screwed on alright to me

 

[Twilight Hue]

I like you... you don't think too much do you.

Considering the subject at hand, it's not necessary for further intellectualizations in light the reality of what you are attempting to put forth stems from too much thinking over something that is not really there in the first place.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have to stop confusing the term ''rational people'' with ''atheists''. That is saying that believers cannot be rational. Francis Collins is a scientist and a believer, he seems to have his head screwed on alright to me

Lol it is also cleverly saying that atheists are by default rational.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, that is not what "anecdotal" means: it means: "not necessarily true or reliable, because it is based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

~~~~~~
an·ec·dot·al

an·ec·dot·al [ànnək dṓt'l]
adj
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation
anecdotal evidence

2. of anecdotes: relating to anecdotes or in the form of anecdotes

-an·ec·do·tal·ly, , adv
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~

Something can be first hand and still be considered anecdotal. As far as the resurrection is concerned, it is not anecdotal, it is undocumented unverified and thus should be assumed to be nonexistent under the common sense demands the application of: "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," yet even ordinary evidence is lacking.

It is documented, I don't know why you would even think it was not.... Magsalene was told so.... how did they know. The Bible has to be understood in context as the Scripture that it is... it is not history in the sense of the word that we use now, but it is still history as with any other book. If you don't accept that, why accept any. It is witnessed testimony... what else could they do. You ignore because it suits you.

But while not anecdotal, the evidence is, at best hearsay, and with reference to the hearsay nature of the "best evidence" available, Bart D. Ehrman (James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) says: "You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses;

They are and they were. Even believers can be wrong. Do not set your stall up so high and mighty of what one scholar might say.... that is why it is spirituall discerned. The more I read these things, the more neat I think it is.

they’re Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They’re not contemporary, they’re not disinterested, and they’re not consistent."

They are consistent when you understand it...... but to repeat myself, it is Scripture and spiritually discerned.
You are looking for answers that fit your own mindset..... the one that says closed on it. At least you have learnt one thing, you DO have faith. I wish I could recall how you worded it... should have copied it, eh.

 

[Robert.Evans]

an·ec·dot·al

an·ec·dot·al [ànnək dṓt'l]
adj
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation
anecdotal evidence

2. of anecdotes: relating to anecdotes or in the form of anecdotes



-an·ec·do·tal·ly, , adv
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~
According to the Encarta ''based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge''....So the big bang and evolution are anecdotal.... interesting!

 

[Robert.Evans]

There is little on earth more pernicious than a shared delusion.

Well you should know.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

That would make any hypothetical or analogy to have wandered into that which it does not belong. Why?

What did you just finish explaining? Let's review:

It is a fallacy to suggest that a group being wrong about a thing is evidence they are wrong about another.

Assuming that's true, couldn't we substitute the word "correct" for the word "wrong" and still have a valid proposition? Something like:

"It is a fallacy to suggest that a group being correct about a thing is evidence they are correct about another."

If we grant that your original assertion was correct, then the reverse should also be correct, no?

I was pointing hat since how many see, think, or do X is taken as suggestive of he truth in countless areas of study then it is suggestive of a knowable issue like being born again.

Just like how evolution is a fact, right?

...

Being "born again" is a claim. We're probably in total agreement that a person can go through the motions of being born again: Accept Jesus and get dipped in the water (or however you care to define it).

Just the same as a doctors first question is about our experience so is knowledge of Christ.

That's an apples and oranges comparison, isn't it? A doctor asks questions ("How are you feeling?" or
"Where does it hurt?") about physically demonstrable phenomenon. The second element that you're describing isn't really quantifiable, is it?

If I set two comatose human subjects before you, and told you that only one of them has been "born again" ... do you have a method that would reveal which one had gone through the process? Does an MRI provide empirical evidence that the scanned subject had accepted Jesus and been dunked in water at some point in the past?

However if you going to insist that only historical or empirical evidence is valid (something not even science does)

Please. Indulge me. Cite a few examples of non-empirical, scientifically accepted evidence.

then take these conclusions.

Why start with your conclusions? Refresh my memory. What are the starting premises again?

The majority of NT historians (those who know more about evidence than either of us) agree that:
1. Christ appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. And for this issue it does not matter if we know he had such authority just that he thought he did. It is even granted that he practiced a ministry of exorcism.

So people who know more about the evidence than we do agree with the claim that Jesus "arrived on the scene" with "an unprecedented sense of divine authority?"

So you feel that an Appeal to Authority ... about an unverified claim ... about a supernatural quality ... that might have been imagined reflects sound, rational thought?

2. That he was crucified and died. This is among the most textually attested facts in ancient history.

According to who? Could you cite a dozen examples, please? I'd like you to demonstrate so we're clear about what you mean when you say "most textually attested facts."

Thanks.

3. That his tomb was found empty.

Sadly, bodies are sometimes removed from their resting places.

Why isn't it Standard Operating Procedure to assume that the body might have gotten up on its own and walked away? Does a police report even have a check-box for "Suspected Miracle" on it?

4. That even his enemies claimed to have experienced a risen Christ.

Again, the operative word here is "claim." Where are these claims recorded again?

These are facts as certain as history can make them.

What a remarkably debatable assertion! Where should we start?

I have no need of additional agreement from NT scholars

Translation: "Everything I just offered up to support my belief is actually irrelevant as far as I'm concerned."

... but have thousands of events like these that they grant as reliable.

Thousands? Then it should be no problem whatsoever for you to site a small sample of them, right? Let's start with 100 examples, OK? You're officially on the clock.

Not to mention the thousands of artifacts and finds that show the bible to be a exacting historical biography in every way it is evaluated.

Thousands of artifacts? Yes. Even back in the day, Christians found it rather remarkable how many Pieces of The True Cross were popping up all over Europe:

"Now let us consider how many relics of the true cross there are in the world. An account of those merely with which I am acquainted would fill a whole volume, for there is not a church, from a cathedral to the most miserable abbey or parish church, that does not contain a piece. Large splinters of it are preserved in various places, as for instance in the Holy Chapel at Paris, whilst at Rome they show a crucifix of considerable size made entirely, they say, from this wood. In short, if we were to collect all these pieces of the true cross exhibited in various parts, they would form a whole ship's cargo." ~ John Calvin, A Treatise on Relics, 1543

 

[Robert.Evans]

Considering the subject at hand, it's not necessary for further intellectualizations in light the reality of what you are attempting to put forth stems from too much thinking over something that is not really there in the first place.

haha.... right, okay. So ignore nearly two thirds of the planet.... that makes sense. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist, right? So you don't believe in the big bang or evolution then! I shall wait for the obvious answer.

 

[Sapiens]

His original post was that there was no watch in there ..... but he still comes out with one. It should cause one to stop and think, should it not.

No it was not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If I set two comatose human subjects before you, and told you that only oneof them has been "born again" ... do you have a method that would reveal which one had gone through the process? Does an MRI provide empirical evidence that the scanned subject had accepted Jesus and been dunked in water at some point in the past?

Classic mistake. You are looking for metaphysical evidence in physical terms. Clearly if you do that, you've won, but that is just a false argument. Thus the rest of your comments are void.

 

[Sapiens]

an·ec·dot·al

an·ec·dot·al [ànnək dṓt'l]
adj
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation
anecdotal evidence

2. of anecdotes: relating to anecdotes or in the form of anecdotes



-an·ec·do·tal·ly, , adv
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~
According to the Encarta ''based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge''....So the big bang and evolution are anecdotal.... interesting!

Try using a real and current dictionary rather that a poor second from a decade ago.