How can you literally believe...

[columbus]

Didn't you believe this a few weeks ago? During one of your Christian incarnations?

I had to bite my tongue so hard to avoid responding to the OP I'm bleeding pretty badly.
I remember last summer when my Catholic theological purity didn't rise to the OP's high standards.
Tom

 

[Shad]

Like I said, they were the underdogs. Their version of the truth may not have been the "official" version of the truth, in their day. But many many people believed their story, they had a good jury of 12 disciples. Which is good enough for any court.

A jury is not constructed by the claimant's own followers that have already accepted the claim as true. All you have done is establish that you have a rigged jury and you accept it. A jury is supposed to be neutral, the 12 disciples would have been removed by the opposition due to their bias.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Didn't you believe this a few weeks ago? During one of your Christian incarnations?

No. I haven't literally believed that stuff in a long time.

 

[Kemosloby]

A jury is not constructed by the claimant's own followers that have already accepted the claim as true. All you have done is establish that you have a rigged jury and you accept it. A jury is supposed to be neutral, the 12 disciples would have been removed by the opposition due to their bias.

Yeah well, I'm sure we have 12 people on a jury because there were 12 disciples. That's how good the disciples were.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Do you have actual historical evidence of any of that happening?

I'm guessing you mean historical evidence of what Jesus did and not historical evidence of Christian martyrdom, which is widely available.

So Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate were written about by Josephus (born 37 A.D), the Jewish historian and also Tacitus (born 56 A.D.), the Roman senator and historian.

For much more complete historical info, check out the books by Saint John the Apostle and his colleagues. Or explain why these eye-witness authors are not sufficiently credible.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I am a non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Hinduish/New Ageish type.
The universe and life itself can be said to be miracles from my perspective, Now, as for the things we call paranormal miracles the evidence is plenty if you consider the extra-ordinary experiences of many, many people. These things are temporary events leaving nothing to show a denier later. I think paranormal miracles by higher entities are only meant to support belief but not compel a non-believer to believe.

Can you come up with anything that could be considered empirical? That's what the OP is all about.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I'm guessing you mean historical evidence of what Jesus did and not historical evidence of Christian martyrdom, which is widely available.

So Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate were written about by Josephus (born 37 A.D), the Jewish historian and also Tacitus,(born 56 A.D.), the Roman senator and historian.

For much more complete historical info, check out the books by Saint John the Apostle and his colleagues. Or explain why these eye-witness authors are not sufficiently credible.

Because they've been churned through 2000 years of various historical contexts including the dark ages and long periods (I'm talking centuries upon centuries) of adulteration due to political agenda. It's really not that hard.

 

[George-ananda]

Or they have the same data you do, but do not accept it as being relevant either because of its unverifiable nature, being purely based on anecdotal evidence, being correlative, or being gathered in a way that influences a conclusion in a biased way (e.g. promiscuity studies of homosexuals comparing straight sex frequencies gathered from churches to gay frequencies gathered from gay bars).

I agree we have to listen to all sides and then form our own opinion. What other method is there?

But yeah, I agree we'd have to look at it as a case by case basis. But I'm willing to bet pseudo-skeptic gets thrown around mostly because they don't accept the same data, not because the data not being accepted is valuable.

The term pseudo skeptics has been created by those who have listened to their arguments and concluded they have no interest in objective consideration but instead are just no holds barred defenders of atheist-materialism and not really skeptical inquirers. Again, fair unbiased skepticism is a good thing.

 

[George-ananda]

Can you come up with anything that could be considered empirical? That's what the OP is all about.

Here is some empirical evidence I happened to have looked at recently

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Here is some empirical evidence I happened to have looked at recently

Interesting site. Conceptions of the "afterlife" is a far cry from the claims of mainstream religions and those mentioned in the OP though. Not to mention that the afterlife is a subjective concept.

 

[George-ananda]

Interesting site. Conceptions of the "afterlife" is a far cry from the claims of mainstream religions and those mentioned in the OP though. Not to mention that the afterlife is a subjective concept.

Well, my original post in this thread was about another religious leader (Sai Baba) who has done many of the same miracles ascribed to Jesus making the Jesus miracles more believable. As such miracles leave no lasting evidence, the best evidence is an objective study of the empirical experiences of many, many individuals. That kind of study is what has formed my opinion on the OP topic.

 

[David1967]

I had to bite my tongue so hard to avoid responding to the OP I'm bleeding pretty badly.
I remember last summer when my Catholic theological purity didn't rise to the OP's high standards.
Tom

And now I am laughing.

 

[Deidre]

How can you believe things like a man coming back from the dead, bringing a corpse back to life, walking on water, instantly healing the sick and disabled, changing the weather, ascending to heaven (did he float up into the air or what?), etc. literally happened, as historical events?

Seriously. This perplexes me. If someone was literally doing that stuff, it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Corpses coming back to life and walking around! But the only writings about are mythological writings from Christians, decades later at best. No one else noticed? Everyone just forgot? That's just irrational. If you make the claims that those things literally happened, I would expect some rather amazing evidence. But, we have nothing. What's going on here?

Now, if you take these things as metaphor or otherwise non-literally, that's fine, but this thread isn't directed towards that crowd.

What you call irrational, some simply call ''faith.''

 

[Nietzsche]

No. I haven't literally believed that stuff in a long time.

Well, that's what you're saying right now.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, that's what you're saying right now.

Why don't you and the others get off my ***? People have the right to change their minds and there's no reason to be getting uppity with me about it. It's not like we're close friends and you know so much about me, so it's none of your concern.

 

[lovesong]

Why don't you and the others get off my ***? People have the right to change their minds and there's no reason to be getting uppity with me about it. It's not like we're close friends and you know so much about me, so it's none of your concern.

Yes you have the right to change your mind, but it is highly unfair to put down those who hold religious beliefs when you yourself once held them sincerely. You're essentially belittling all those who believe in something outside of the normal experience, which seems unfair, and even rude, coming from someone who seems to have followed a good quarter of religions known to man. At least these people have been able to make up their minds about what they believe. It's hard to look down on people as naive when you yourself seem to change beliefs biweekly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes you have the right to change your mind, but it is highly unfair to put down those who hold religious beliefs when you yourself once held them sincerely. You're essentially belittling all those who believe in something outside of the normal experience, which seems unfair, and even rude, coming from someone who seems to have followed a good quarter of religions known to man.

First off, I wasn't attempting to insult or belittle anyone. It's not even directed towards all Christians, just those who take certain things literally. It's an honest question I have. That's all. And you are being insulting towards me for changing my mind about something which has been my life since you were a little child. People change, explore and evolve. A lot of people change and come to be opposed to their past beliefs. It's called life. Deal with it.

 

[Nietzsche]

Why don't you and the others get off my ***? People have the right to change their minds and there's no reason to be getting uppity with me about it. It's not like we're close friends and you know so much about me, so it's none of your concern.

Touched a nerve?

First off, I wasn't attempting to insult or belittle anyone. It's not even directed towards all Christians, just those who take certain things literally. It's an honest question I have. That's all. And you are being insulting towards me for changing my mind about something which has been my life since you were a little child. People change, explore and evolve. A lot of people change and come to be opposed to their past beliefs. It's called life. Deal with it.

How is pointing out your past insulting? You, of all people, should know very well how people believe X, Y and Z, no matter how ridiculous.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Touched a nerve?

More like I'm sick of people bringing it up as if it's really any of their business and we're such good friends, so I owe them an explanation. Plus it's derailing the thread.

 

[lovesong]

First off, I wasn't attempting to insult or belittle anyone. It's not even directed towards all Christians, just those who take certain things literally. It's an honest question I have. That's all. And you are being insulting towards me for changing my mind about something which has been my life since you were a little child. People change, explore and evolve. A lot of people change and come to be opposed to their past beliefs. It's called life. Deal with it.

Since I was a child? You are not my elder.

Noting a person's history is not insulting, and I only did so to make the point that we have to have our own beliefs before we can criticize others.