Theology III

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

A Norwegian poet wrote a poem called "To one nameless", beginning with the words "Whom should I give thanks to?" (my translation. Original: "Til ein namnlaus" by Tor Jonsson, beginning "Kven skal eg takke?").

He ponders all the things he wants to give thanks for, like his ability to see the world, and I think he would have agreed with you about the beauty and the simpleness and the uniqueness.

I don't know whether he regarded himself an atheist or an agnostic, but he seems to feel a certain sadness that he hasn't got anyone to give thanks to. He asks the giver, "Who are you? Why do you keep quiet?" ("Kven er du gjevar? Kvi teier du still?")

And he ends up by giving thanks to someone whom I interpret to be the woman that he loves.

I feel the very same way Varna. Some nights I can stand alone or with friends outside of our cabin in the summer, and look up at the sky, an absolute beauty of stars on a black tapestry. And it gets very big, very philosophical. I can almost feel the shiver down my spine as I watch in awe. And there's a sadness to it, right before I walk inside again. If only there was someone to thank for it. Something that we all could relate to, something bigger than us.

But for me, the answer is painful, but honest. We're alone here, and intelligent life on other planets (I think this is a good possibility) is so far away that we can not share our existence with them.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Y'know, Gwaimir, when I saw you enter Catholicism, I really never thought that one day I'd be following you.

Nor did I. Things work out in funny ways, don't they?

[hectorberlioz]

Lief---I see you believe the Orthodox split off of Catholicism instead of vice versa. Now I have two of them to deal with *mutters*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I feel the very same way Varna. Some nights I can stand alone or with friends outside of our cabin in the summer, and look up at the sky, an absolute beauty of stars on a black tapestry. And it gets very big, very philosophical. I can almost feel the shiver down my spine as I watch in awe. And there's a sadness to it, right before I walk inside again. If only there was someone to thank for it. Something that we all could relate to, something bigger than us.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief, you discuss many things.
The senses. Near Death Experiences. Morality. China. Slavery, Colonialism and Imperialism. The downturns of economic development.

While it shows an okay display of knowledge of the general timeline of world history, the analysis is contradictory and incomplete. And sometimes, it seems completely made up as you go along.

I can cite every fact I mentioned. I've got A's in two Honors courses on the history of Western Civilization and another on a History of China course. Also a lot of reading done out of personal interest. *Fidgets with his cuffs, modestly.*

Of course the analysis is incomplete, though. It was just a post, not intended to be a book.

I'm glad you're going to be preparing a longer answer for the summer, though.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

We'll just have to agree that we disagree completely in our worldview.

Unfortunately . Do you mind if I pray (privately) that God will reveal himself to you, though, anyway?

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The existance of electrons and quarks is obviously not known on the basis of smelling them or touching them. The reason we do know there are electrons is because it has been observed through scientific method. By reading science I can learn of this method and how the said scientists document their theory that electrons do exist. I therefore know of these electrons through reading.

You're trusting the book publishers, who you know nothing about, you're trusting the scientists and the sources documenting their work. I could keep breaking it down further- you're trusting the engineers who developed the technology they used for their work, and the methods used to verify that technology, you're trusting the technology tree that technology comes from, that it doesn't have fundamental errors buried in it. No matter what you do, you're relying on faith backed by evidence.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Eyes - Evidence - Evaluation - Experience - Enlightenment.

I like the 5 E's . Nice. Rather Biblical too, in fact. The scripture says, "the eyes are the light of the body."

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

This part was referenced to by BeardofPants.

Yeah, she suggested that I read the material of a person who thinks he has an explanation for all spiritual experiences. It was nice of her to offer me some good reading, which may or may not be solid in some of its conclusions (having not read it, I can't say). I know it isn't solid in all its conclusions already, because there are a number of visions or paranormal occurrences have been experienced by multiple people simultaneously, and it obviously can't explain answered prayers or outstanding miracles with a psychological analysis. But it may have some good points about sensing experiences. I don't know.

In any case, without having his work presented and argued, that reference in no way disproves anything I said.

I've actually looked into some of the scientific attempts to explain NDE's, and these efforts so far look to me very hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I rephrase my words, (although I suspect you know exactly what I meant), to say that there is no after, after we die.

Yeah, sorry for being a silly nit-pick. I come from a household where we're always all over one another's grammar, so I sometimes get crazy.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

From the passage above to the passage below there was nothing but talk of God and the ways of God. Things I can't respond to without simply calling it made-up. Which would be rude of me But I don't find it at all convincing.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to prove Christianity's doctrines with those statements. I was only trying to explain what its perspective is based upon its doctrines, to show its internal logic.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Because you're one very small human with very limited knowledge, like the rest of humanity, and like the rest of humanity, you are very prone to making errors in judgment. That book offers you what you need most from life: Unity with God.


I disagree very, very much with this line of thought and the concluding remark.

Well, I can accept your not believing my last sentence- I haven't tried to establish Christianity's truth with evidence at this point, so that's logical enough. But the rest of what I said is pretty obviously true. Looking at the vast variety of cultures in the world and the countless disagreements between humans about all sorts of things, it's clear that a lot of people have to be wrong about a lot of things. There's no getting around that.

Even your belief about Christianity could be taken as proof of this (from your perspective) all by itself. 2 billion people in the world who disagree with you about Christianity being wrong have their worldviews framed by an erroneous set of beliefs, from your point of view. So we have to be very limited and susceptible to error.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
The answer to this is simple. Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you." Seek God and tell him you'll devote your life to him if he reveals himself to you, and seek God persistently, and he will reveal himself to you in a way that makes sense to your reason and fills your heart with a fountain of new love and joy.

That's how I feel when you insist that you have an answer to every one of your questions about God's behavior in the world before you convert. If everything was easy to understand and every question had an obvious answer, God would be no more complex than we are.


Lief, this is all you and no concrete evidence from the world outside.

It's self-evident that if every answer to God's behavior was within our ability to understand here on Earth, we'd be at least as smart as God. I don't have to prove that statement I made.

As for my claim about the how effective seeking God can be, I can point to the millions and millions of converts to Christianity who claim to have sought God and found him in powerful personal experiences when they looked persistently.

I'm one. I sought God and found him, because he promises, "He who seeks finds." I endured six months of aching, painful searching before God revealed himself to me, but when he did, it was very clear to me that it was God.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

What exacty are you basing this on? The Bible? Tell me why I should believe this over the existance of Santa Claus?

Well, millions of children say they believe in Santa Claus because their parents say he's real, but all these parents will admit that he's fake to other adults.

On the other hand, 2 billion Christians believe in Christ, and hundreds of millions of these claim to have encountered him themselves. None of them will say they actually believe he's fake, because they know he isn't, and in many countries, they die for him, which proves their sincerity about their personal experiences with him.

Nowhere is this evidence more dramatic than in the case of Jesus' disciples. All of them except John died for their faith in Christ, which proves their sincerity about their beliefs. Now, religious people all over the world have died for their beliefs, and this too proves their sincerity, but it doesn't prove the truth of their beliefs. It does in the case of Christianity, though, because these ten knew for a fact, from their own experiences as eyewitnesses, whether what they were saying about their eyewitness stories was true or false. All ten claimed to have encountered the resurrected Jesus and declared to be true all the stories of the Gospels that they are written as witnesses of. Lots of people die for false beliefs, but no one dies for what they know to be lies.

All ten of the disciples died, in torture or grisly executions, for the truth of their own eyewitness accounts. Therefore we know beyond all credible doubt that they sincerely believed that they had seen and spoke with their resurrected Lord, that they sincerely believed they had seen him eat meals in their company after the resurrection, that they sincerely believed they were in his company when he rose into heaven.

In short, we have eleven eyewitnesses of these events who all were willing to accept torture and death rather than admit that they were making some of this stuff up. This proves their sincerity. And it makes it very, VERY hard to rationally escape the truth of Christian doctrine.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I could as well be listening to a person ranting on about a Blue Bunny that lived in Egypt 3,000 years ago and that came down to Earth to Redeem all of Mankind. All based on the Teachings of some Leaves made of Stone, lying on the bottom of the Mediterranean.

I'm finally beginning to get into some of the objective evidence supporting Christianity's truth. The blood of the disciples is my first evidence, not the existence of the Bible. I don't use the existence of the Bible or its claims about itself as my evidence- that kind of argument is circular.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Is this your view of people that do not share your faith?

It is my view that some people use this belief in God's absence as moral license, yes. I'm not saying all, but some.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief, the current economic boom in China is not caused by an upsurge in religious activity. It is the, relative, increased freedom of movement and freedom of thought in China that has caused an upsurge in all types of societal activity, including Christianity. And Islam.

Most of the spread of the Church I'm referring to is taking place in the underground churches, not the legal, state-controlled ones.

But this thing, we're both agreed, is a matter of perspective. You see prayer as disconnected from the economic surge, though you can't possibly know that you're right. I see prayer as very possibly connected with it, and I can't possibly know that I'm right. So there we are.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The reason that China experienced a colossal turn of events for the worse in the 19th century was because the nations of Europe violently imposed trade agreements and, from the mid-19th century and into the 20th century, along with Japan, broke down the intricate relationship China had with all its neighbours. The era of the Sinocentric Tributary System was replaced by an era of Treaties and Western economics an statehood.
China is the oldest country in the world. It is the most successful civilization over the last 4,000 years, and it is not Christian. It is also the least imperialist nation in the entire world history of great powers. It was through trade relations and non-interference, not violence, that China became the economic powerhouse of Asia. And it is happening again, today, only interrupted by a 150 year period where the nations of Europe, the USA, and Japan, colonialized, fought, took, and exploited, including Great Britains colonial rule of Hong Kong until 1997. The era of exploitation in the 19th century is seared into the conscience of the Chinese, as is the invasion by the Japanese. This started with Christian Europeans coming not only as trademen, but as missionaries, without respect for the Chinese culture, for the Chinese way of living.

There was a good deal that needed to be changed. Female infanticide, abortion and footbinding (which crippled generations of women) for starters.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Yes, there are Christians in China today, several million in fact out of a population of 1.3 billion. There is an equal amount of Muslims. They are experiencing an upsurge, but freedom of religion exists in China, and I have visited a church in the Sichuan province in China, run by a few Norwegians.

That's an understatement of the size of the Christian population. There are actually 50-100 million Christians in China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

I think your account of Chinese history has a good deal that's accurate, but you leave out all of the sordid elements of China's history. But in any case, I don't care to debate any of it, as none of it refutes anything I said. God works through the natural, as occurs repeatedly in the stories of Israel's history in the Bible, where God raises up nations to punish them for their sins (natural forces used by a spiritual being).

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But this Lief:
"Prior to the coming of Christianity to China, I think God was very merciful to them in spite of the wickedness of many accepted customs and practices, because of their ignorance."


This is very rude. I hope you don't mean this.

Oh, of course I mean it, and you should agree with it! Footbinding, abortion and female infanticide were evil. The first crippled multiple generations of women and the other two involved mass slaughters. There were bad practices going on there. Christian doctrine opposed them.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Everything you've told me about God is guesswork. So when I respon to this elaborate exercise of guessing, I have no choice but to guess back.

It's your incorrect guess that everything I'm saying about God is guesswork. We experience a great deal of it firsthand, answered prayers, dramatic healings, visions or miracles . . . here's one that was seen by a million people, filmed and photographed. There are other photos of it and some footage at other places on the Internet. Even Muslim newspapers, which usually carefully pretend the Copts don't exist, had to talk about it because thousands of Muslims had seen these apparitions and were talking about them. Many blind and crippled people were healed in the presence of these spectacular visions. It's one of the most public miracles I know of, though there have been others too that I could get into.

The eyewitness story of a million people, plus photography and film footage, accompanied by all kinds of healings, is strong evidence.

So is the blood of the disciples, because they knew whether what they were dying for was true or false as they claimed to be eyewitnesses of it, and if they were lying about any part of their story, at least SOME of them would have cracked under torture and said so, and consequently been spared and his confession used to humiliate the Christian communities. People die for beliefs they don't know are lies, but they don't die for beliefs they know are lies, and the disciples claimed to be eyewitnesses of the Gospel accounts of the resurrected Jesus.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Wouldn't life be easier if the issue of God was just put aside? If until we really saw the guy sitting up there, we really shouldn't concern ourselves about it? Isn't that more healthy?

Not if God is in fact the source of all goodness. It would, in that case, be unhealthy and destructive to stray from him. And Jesus said that he was "the way, the truth and the life." So if he was right, we're busted if we don't follow him.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Isn't it more healthy to concentrate on our worldly problems and employ worldy solutions, for the betterment of mankind (we keep doing it with our human rights charters, with our internationalization)?

How do we know what is in the best interests of mankind? Communist rebels and democratic rebels and dictators all have waged wars because they thought they have the best worldly solutions anyone had for the betterment of mankind, and all of these have created genocides in their efforts. Everyone disagrees about what is in the best interests of mankind, and human knowledge can come up with all kinds of different answers to the question. The enormous variety of human civilizations that have existed throughout history, some allowing human sacrifice while others thinking that women wearing jeans rather than long dresses was evil. The vast variety of human thought is incredible, and equally large is the variety of contradictions that come up in it. So I don't think humanity is all that reliable a source for coming up with truth. It has to be revealed by God if it is to be reliable. Human philosophies, through the enormity of their contradictions, have proven their unreliability.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I don't believe in God because to me it is pure guesswork. Thus, it is not up to me to prove that there is a God or no God, because I find it completely irrelevant. Until I am presented with evidence that there is a God, there is as much possibility in my view that there is a holy Coca Cola bottle in our neighbouring galaxy, as there is the possibility of a God. It's irrelevant, because no one has ever shown me anything remotely holy. And I used to believe in God. Why? Because I did not know better (no pun intended).

Okay, well I've presented some evidence here in this post .

It's worth noting that even if there was only the tiniest fragment of evidence supporting Christianity, that would be more than a non-believer could ever possibly have, because there can never be any evidence supporting the hypothesis that God doesn't exist. So if any Christian who knows any of the evidence supporting Christian truth argues with an atheist (even if he only knows the tiniest bit- like that St. Margaret had a vision, and nothing more than that), they'll have more evidence and therefore a more rational position than an atheist can ever have.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You present a very, very long explanation of the Enlightenment. I find it an impossible to answer that adequately as we speak, with an even longer answer. The analysis you present of the Enlightenment I believe to be very faulty and incomplete, and since I argue this I will have to back it up, very thoroughly, because there is so much to say about this! I could answer you now, but since I think your're so dead wrong on so many things I'd rather have the evidence ready. So forgive me for that. Maybe (I'm completely serious) I'll work on an answer over the summer, if not I may not answer your history part before in August But that's the beauty of Entmoot.

I thank you very, very much for thinking about taking that much effort. I would indeed really appreciate it, for it would much better support your case.

Before you start (if you start), I'll admit right now that my analysis is certainly incomplete. There are too many true facts to make a thorough presentation- you have to pick and choose. I was trying to write a post, not a history book.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But I have a very short answer for you until that time. Since you show a great disliking for the Enlightenment (which isn't even entirely consistent with the Vatican Church's position today), I would gladly ship you back to early 1300, when life was easier and the authority of the Church was near total. Au revoir!

I'm not saying life was easier for a laborer in the Medieval Ages than it is for an average citizen in the US right now. We do have much more physically luxurious and comfortable conditions now than they did then, obviously. But we got that economy by using some extremely twisted methods. That was my point.

Anyway, I'll look forward to your short-term response to this post and your much later possible post in response to my historical argument about the roots of economic development in the Enlightenment.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Nor did I. Things work out in funny ways, don't they?

Yeah .

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Lief---I see you believe the Orthodox split off of Catholicism instead of vice versa. Now I have two of them to deal with *mutters*

Hee hee! Care to join the fray?

*Starts fancily flipping about in his hand his still deactivated lightsaber.*


P.S. BTW, you're Protestant, right?

[hectorberlioz]

No, I'm Eastern Orthodox. Eastern/Byzantium half of the Roman Empire.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

In my view the world is exactly what it appears to be, based on everything my senses tell me, and everyway nature interacts with us, that there is no hocus pocus, no fairy tale magical beings floating here and there, always hidden, never being especially constructive.

Totally forgot t jump on this one. Lief covered it already, but I thought I'd put my own spin on it:

Human senses are extremely limited. Many animals that we would call "primitive" (stomatopods, for example) can sense goings on in our environment that we cant. The can sense a much, much wider range of light that we can, and in fact have the most complex eyes in the animal kingdom. We cant even detect this light. We cant detect certain smells, but we know they are there (as Lief said) through advanced technology. Also, how does one count beauty? Better, how does ech person here describe beauty in their own words? I see it as an artistic design, meticulously thought out and intimately known.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No, I'm Eastern Orthodox. Eastern/Byzantium half of the Roman Empire.

That's cool! I have very great respect for them. I know some about your history, how they fought the jihadis for hundreds of years and in later years suffered and stood by their faith in spite of the oppression of Communist governments led by Russia.

You should be Roman Catholic, though . IMHO .

Hey, at least we're much closer in ideology now than we were while I was Protestant! On the bright side .

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's cool! I have very great respect for them. I know some about your history, how they fought the jihadis for hundreds of years and in later years suffered and stood by their faith in spite of the oppression of Communist governments led by Russia.

As did Vlad Dracula (son of Vlad Dracul).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

As did Vlad Dracula (son of Vlad Dracul).

Right, yes! Him too.

Lol.

BTW, way back on post 664, I responded to one of your posts.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I like the part where Lief says "People have died (or are dying) for their belief in Christ as God, therefore he's real."

It has a Manifest Destiny naivete that's kind of charming, in a theocrats-take-over-the-world way.

I know people who have died for all kinds of things, and I know of ,ore. Like dying for political liberty, or scientific advancement. Of course people have died to preserve slavery, and because they idolized another human...I never considered the strength of anyone's faith said anything about the validity of their object.

I think Lief attributes too much to Man, while he's saying he doesn't. He points out the errancy of beief in quarks, because publishers might be untrustworthy, but thinks a much older story is inerrant. It's an interesting contradiction, imo.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Right, yes! Him too.

Lol.

BTW, way back on post 664, I responded to one of your posts.

I know, kind sir. But it will have to wait until tonight.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I like the part where Lief says "People have died (or are dying) for their belief in Christ as God, therefore he's real."

It has a Manifest Destiny naivete that's kind of charming, in a theocrats-take-over-the-world way.

I know people who have died for all kinds of things, and I know of ,ore. Like dying for political liberty, or scientific advancement. Of course people have died to preserve slavery, and because they idolized another human...I never considered the strength of anyone's faith said anything about the validity of their object.

I think Lief attributes too much to Man, while he's saying he doesn't. He points out the errancy of beief in quarks, because publishers might be untrustworthy, but thinks a much older story is inerrant. It's an interesting contradiction, imo.

Lots of people die for false beliefs. They don't die for beliefs they know to be false. The original disciples died for their own eyewitness testimony, so they knew, because they were eyewitnesses, whether their beliefs were true or false. Hence their sincerity (which is all their deaths prove) is a heck of a lot more important than is the sincerity of someone who's dying for an abstract belief.

That's what I was saying.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

I know, kind sir. But it will have to wait until tonight.

Just making sure . . . that post was very, very buried, and I'm so longwinded I can EASILY accept people not reading all that I post.

[Nautipus]

Dont worry, I've been keeping up.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Lots of people die for false beliefs. They don't die for beliefs they know to be false. The disciples died for their own eyewitness testimony, so they knew, because they were eyewitnesses, whether their beliefs were true or false. Hence their sincerity (which is all their deaths prove) is a heck of a lot more important than is the sincerity of someone who's dying for an abstract belief.

That's what I was saying.

You're confused, sir.

You say "They were eyewitnesses, therefore they were right."

It doesn't follow. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and easily fooled. People will die for things they believe are important...and whether I believe they were correct is a different issue, entirely.

Take an ordinary, everyday example. Motorcycle helmets. Despite ample evidence that wearing a motorcycle helmet may prevent death or brain damage, many people don't wear one. Is that because they wish to die? Maybe in some cases, they aren't concerned about that. Maybe they believe having the 'right' to louse up their health is more important than the risk. Maybe they assess the risk as being slight. In any rate, they die for a combination of reasons.

You're willing to believe witches can attack people. That opens a range of possibilities for explaining the behavior of the Apostles that really runs a distance.

Maybe they were under hypnotic compulsion, or a spell, that made them self-destructive. Maybe they thought the things Jesus represented were worth dying for. Maybe there was a Savior, but Jesus wasn't it, and they got it wrong. Maybe the Last Supper was bung-full of ergot.

At some point, you have to just say, "I have faith" because anything else is completely unprovable, don't you see?

I have heard stories of things that happened 6 months ago, which I witnessed personally, which bear NO resemblance to my experience, at all. I've had conversations and differed about the content between breakfast and lunch. Have you ever heard your parents have the "I thought you were picking up the milk" conversation? People are easily confused.

Therefore, I don't rely on people (including the Apostles) for evidence on the existance of God. I, personally, think that evidence is widely available, anyway.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Do you mind if I pray (privately) that God will reveal himself to you, though, anyway?

Yes I mind that. I want absolutely nothing to do with that fairy tale. But I know you intend well

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, Coffeehouse.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You're confused, sir.

You say "They were eyewitnesses, therefore they were right."

It doesn't follow. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable,

Their willingness to die for their claims makes their testimony far, far more reliable than that of an average witnesses.

Four or five witnesses to an event are considered very important evidence in a courtroom even if they weren't willing to die for their testimony. We have ten, all of whom died for their beliefs, usually in grisly fashions, and often after torture. If they were faking parts of it, at least one of them would have made damaging admissions under that kind of pressure.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

and easily fooled.

The kinds of claims they made about their experiences with the post-Resurrection Jesus are of such a kind that the idea that the disciples were fooled becomes extremely unrealistic.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

People will die for things they believe are important...and whether I believe they were correct is a different issue, entirely.

Of course.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Take an ordinary, everyday example. Motorcycle helmets. Despite ample evidence that wearing a motorcycle helmet may prevent death or brain damage, many people don't wear one. Is that because they wish to die? Maybe in some cases, they aren't concerned about that. Maybe they believe having the 'right' to louse up their health is more important than the risk. Maybe they assess the risk as being slight. In any rate, they die for a combination of reasons.

The last is usually the most common reason, I think. Very few purposefully ignore helmets because they have a death wish. Usually, they're being lazy or "cool," or some such.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You're willing to believe witches can attack people. That opens a range of possibilities for explaining the behavior of the Apostles that really runs a distance.

Maybe they were under hypnotic compulsion, or a spell, that made them self-destructive.

Very far fetched, I think most people would agree. Much more far fetched than the simple answer that they were telling the truth as they saw it. I believe in the existence of demonic possessions. The idea that all of these people were demonically possessed is supported by none of their actions, words or deeds.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Maybe they thought the things Jesus represented were worth dying for.

Among these that all liars will go to hell .

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Maybe there was a Savior, but Jesus wasn't it, and they got it wrong.

Sure, one can argue that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven and performed all kinds of miraculous signs but wasn't the Savior. Their willingness to die rather than retract any of their testimony proves their sincerity. They could, of course, arguably have been sincerely wrong about the truth of the ideologies Jesus supported, but the miracles they claimed they saw were eyewitness testimonies.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

At some point, you have to just say, "I have faith" because anything else is completely unprovable, don't you see?

Of course there's a certain amount of faith involved. Nothing can be proven. Things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, though, and that little bit of unreasonable doubt that's left is what you sometimes need faith to cover.

Faith in Christianity is about practicing one's beliefs. The evidence that Christianity is true is overwhelming. However, when one has to act that out in one's personal life, it becomes a lot harder. If you have to trust in God for a miracle, or to get you through something, or you feel his voice telling you to do something and you're afraid to do it, this requires faith. And no amount of argumentation and evidence is going to make the difference at the moment the walking out of one's faith forces you to move out of your comfort zone.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I have heard stories of things that happened 6 months ago, which I witnessed personally, which bear NO resemblance to my experience, at all. I've had conversations and differed about the content between breakfast and lunch. Have you ever heard your parents have the "I thought you were picking up the milk" conversation? People are easily confused.

Sure. Have you read the post-resurrection Gospel accounts?



By the way, thanks for the politeness and respectfulness of your post.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Okay, Coffeehouse.

Their willingness to die for their claims makes their testimony far, far more reliable than that of an average witnesses.

And what is the evidence that these people existed and died for their beliefs?

The last is usually the most common reason, I think. Very few purposefully ignore helmets because they have a death wish. Usually, they're being lazy or "cool," or some such.

Which implies, to me, that people die for foolish reasons, as well as wise ones.

Among these that all liars will go to hell .

Doesn't say that.

Sure, one can argue that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven and performed all kinds of miraculous signs but wasn't the Savior. Their willingness to die rather than retract any of their testimony proves their sincerity. They could, of course, arguably have been sincerely wrong about the truth of the ideologies Jesus supported, but the miracles they claimed they saw were eyewitness testimonies.

I disagree. You have no eyewitness testimony...it was 2000 years ago. More or less. In history, even if you believed the Bible you're reading was penned personally by St. John, it woulld still be far beyond a secondary source, do you see?

Of course there's a certain amount of faith involved. Nothing can be proven. Things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, though, and that little bit of unreasonable doubt that's left is what you sometimes need faith to cover.

See, I think this point of view is COMPLETELY contrary to the Bible. Faith is not a rope to close the gap between the bridge you built with Reason, and the Promise of Heaven. It's the whole darn foundation.

By the way, thanks for the politeness and respectfulness of your post.

No problem.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In fact, we should not have the economic prosperity we have now. The Enlightenment's economic "contributions" came at an incalculable moral cost. No one should do evil to produce good. No one should produce materialistic gains through moral evil, and our modern economies required some terribly evil actions to come about. f the Church in order to achieve this economy. It did shrug off the Church's principles to build the economy, and here is how it did it:

1) Slavery. In order to build a successful modern economy, the development of Mercantilism and the TransAtlantic Slave Trade were necessary. Slavery had existed sporadically throughout the Medieval Ages, in the form of the enslavement of prisoners of war (they were trying to destroy our nation, so why shouldn't they be made to build it up as penalty?) or the temporary enslavement of workers who couldn't pay their debts, until they could settle. Most workers had a contract with their lords during the Medieval Ages, which involved each gaining some profit. The common serfs or vassals could expect a steady supply of food and protection, as well as homes and land, from their lord. They, in turn, spent half of their time working on their own property and half working on their lord's fields, they paid his taxes and did odd-jobs for him. There was mutual benefit in the contract.

This kind of labor system broke down a lot with the Black Death, because fewer workers existed in the pool, so they were able to demand higher wages. Because normal laborers toward the end of the Medieval Ages demanded more income, people in charge felt the need to move to cheaper sources of income.

To develop a modern economy, the nations of the Enlightenment felt the need for slavery as never before. Previously, slavery had only been seen as justified in cases where the person was born into slavery (if they don't pay the debt they owe their master for providing for them throughout their youth, masters have no incentive to look after them and the children would have to be separated from parents, living in dependency on the Church or charities, or dying in the streets), prisoners of war and temporary enslavement of debtors. The Enlightenment changed all that. They needed to justify mass-enslavement and mass-exploitation to fuel their economies, so they advanced and justified racism enormously at that time, a view that contradicted the views of the Church, as it had had ministers and congregations in Africa since the very first centuries of Christianity's existence, and they hadn't had a racist mentality.

Leif, you have some interesting points here , but you need to be more exact in your terminology and your timelines.

"The Enlightenment" with a capital "E" refers to a specific thing: an intellectual movement in the 18th Century, with roots going back to Descartes, Leibniz, and Newton and the Royal Society in the 17th Century.

In Britain major influences were Bishop Berkeley, Locke, Hume, and Adam Smith; in France the Encyclopediasts, Diderot, d'Halbach, Condorcet, and above all, Voltaire; in America , Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Its members were Deists or (a few) atheists who believed in reason, equality, science, and liberty- even slave-owners like Jefferson acknowledged slavery to be morally wrong.

Slavery (and anti-semitic laws) were abolished by the French Revolutio,; they were re-introduced by that nice Italian Catholic boy Napoleon Bonoparte, who didn't have any truck with that crazy French radicalism.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, justified by racism as well as some reinterpretation of Christianity (This was post-Protestant Reformation now, remember, so Tradition doesn't matter), played a crucial role in the development of our economies into the form they are now. Millions of African and Native American slaves paid the brutal price for the greed the development of our system was originally based on.

...weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors.

Romanus Pontifex, a Papal Bull issued in 1455 by Pope Nicholas VI.

Since this was 28 years before Martin Luther was even born, I think it's stretching things to blame this on the Protestants

2) Colonialism. This and point 3, as well as point 1, are all closely linked. To develop a modern economy, the industrial giants needed raw resources. The Industrial Revolution had swiftly stripped Europe bare. So they created colonies that often brutalized and enslaved native populations, justifying their conduct on racist principles, in order to produce the modern resources the West needed to fuel its modern economy.

The Industrial Revolution started in the late 18th Century in Britain, some three hundred years after "Inter caetra", the famous Papal Bull issued by Alexander VI dividing the world between the Spanish and Portuguese.

3) Imperialism. To secure strategic economic points, the European nations began swiftly competing with one another to get as much as they could of the rest of the world.

These three, Imperialism, Colonialism and Slavery built the new economy of Europe on an ocean of blood of millions of innocent people. Imperialism and colonialism did not exist in Medieval Europe. There were battles between different nations over territory, especially in the Late Medieval Ages, but there was nothing like the imperialism of the new era.

True enough about the first point. Imperialism and colonialism did of course exist in Medieval Europe- ask the Lithuanians- but it's true that Medieval Europe wasn't a great imperial civilisation, simply because they were unable to be so. For most of medieval history Europe was a weak, primitive backwater on the defensive againt Islam- who were they going to be imperialist against?

Post-imperialism nations today are still fighting wars with one another in many parts of the globe, and even genocides have resulted from European powers clamping together tribes or nations that had no historical commonalities between them. Colonialism did not exist in the Medieval Ages. Slavery was a much rarer practice and was more rational and more just. Christian masters also felt more responsibility for their slaves in that time, because of protective laws established by the Emperor in the East and promoted by the Church in the West. The Enlightenment built a new economy through savagery. It was indeed an escape from Christian morality in many senses.

Again, Christendom didn't have slavery or imperialism because they were too weak to enslave others. It is true that opposition to slavery is a strong strain in Christian thought through the Middle Ages, but equally true that there were many Christians willing to defend it- and as soon as Christendom grew strong enough to launch its expansion, slavery was part and parcel of the whole deal. The leading states in the imperialist rush were Spain and Portugal, and I've never heard of Reconquista Spain being described as a bastion of Enlightenment thought.