REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Well, I would think that because the psychiatrists haven't personally evaluated him, that it would be a bit hard to draw conclusions on whether he was delusional or not.

They seem to believe they can.

[Nurvingiel]

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus was not delusional. Actually, the thought has never entered my mind. I believe Jesus was loving, passionate, and kind, and that He's the Son of God.

To people who aren't Christian, and therefore probably do not believe he was the Son of God, he may have seemed to be delusional. Or maybe not. I'm not sure what people's thoughts on this one are. Maybe Drgnslyer or Chrys could clarify that for us.

What do you think about Joan of Arc? Was she inspired by God?
I'm not sure we could ever know that personally.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
we believe that he was a man who found his enlightenment
or at least what Nirvana meant for him
he must have been a good and ethical person, for so much good
did he say, however, as we do not have a god as such, we do not believe him to be a son of god

nurv, i did answer a question relating to sanity of jesus a while back, u prob didnt notice because we get so many posts here

hope this clarifies buddhist position

chrys

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
ok… basically what it comes down to is that the little religious stories (such as the Christian one as just one example) don’t really mean much to me. Whether they are simple tales used to deliver a message, symbols that many can relate to, or actual documentation of followers of a well respected figure. Its ALL smoke. Its ALL the trappings of the human mind attempting to approach the divine somehow.

Am I beginning to understand correctly, that no matter what evidence I present, you still will not begin to change your mind? That no evidence for these people having written what they saw, and what they saw having been reliably preserved to us, will make any difference to you?

That's really what's beginning to come across to me.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
My argument all along was that there IS actually a thread of the divine in Christianity because it is how a group of genuinely convinced people attempt to get their minds around something beyond their capacity to perceive.

This you'll have to explain better. They wrote what they did perceive. You can argue that Jesus and his followers were wrong, but the events of their lives are accurately preserved, and therefore, the religion is very worth considering.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Now for YOU, the divine IS Christianity and that’s where you reach the ceiling. It doesn’t go up any higher for you. You are inside that bubble. Therefore the way I think makes no logical sense to you.

You're right. The way you are arguing this does make no sense to me. Perhaps it would be better to drop it.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
It makes no difference to me whether the bible contains statements made by people who lived within the same century as jesus. This proves absolutely nothing to me. People can follow others and praise them and write things about them from the point of view of attracting others further to their cause.

There is documentation from the records of their Jewish enemies also, which says that Jesus was a practicer of black magic. That shows evidence that he really did accomplish these miracles. Also, these things were preached in areas where people would actually have seen and witnessed the events, and within the same time period that those people would still be alive. That is of huge significance, because it means that if they had introduced any lies into what they said or what they wrote, they would have been publicly sabotaging their credibility.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
This is pretty standard stuff.

People making propaganda is common. Yet people don't write and publish propaganda in places where they know they'll be condemned to torture and possible death for it, when they know what they're writing is lies.

[i]Originally posted by Insidious Rex[i]
And this is meaningless to me. There is simply no way to link one event to the next throughout history, take it back to jesus and then link jesus to a divine force. Your religion requires faith as a prerequisite and faith remains the ultimate tool for clothing oneself in belief and not in fact.

Lee Strobel came to faith because of the evidence. People in the time of Paul (the epistle writer) came to faith because of his miracles, as was included in the New Testament. I came to faith because God introduced himself to me. Before he did that, I didn't even have the faith to set a meeting between us. I'd considered asking to, but was afraid that my house of cards (Christianity) would be knocked down. I was afraid that it would be proven to me that my religion was useless, and I was afraid of that. But then in a very dramatic way, God came to me, and since then I've known that this is no house of cards. It is not a mere collection of beliefs, but something with power in it, something that I've seen affect the physical events of our time. Faith came after the spiritual experience. Faith is something that one has to walk with each day, but that is faith that God will look after you, that he's guiding your life on the correct course. It's not faith that he exists. For that one requires no faith- that's knowledge.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writers of these documents were eyewitnesses. What they were writing about were events that occurred, witnessed by thousands. Thousands of people who were still alive at the time of the writing of these documents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. how do you know?

A lot more evidences exist for that. Do you really care enough for me to get into them?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
2. how does this say anything about the link between jesus and the divine?

It shows that there were thousands of witnesses of his miracles and teachings. Everyone knew he was a miracle worker at the time- otherwise the disciples would never have gotten away with their teachings. The miracles are a visible link between Jesus and the divine.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
3. why does this matter one way or the other? Was this still about jesus not being crazy by the way or was this more about the Truth of the bible?

Truth of the Bible, mainly.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gospel writers also were people who had everything to lose, by what they were doing. They were people ready to perish for what they wrote
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This can be taken the opposite way too. They were people so out of touch that they were willing to die for something that wasn’t reality. So is it any wonder they put forth things in the bible to support their own belief system and to lure others into buying into their belief system?

So now not only Jesus was crazy. All the disciples were crazy too! I think that's the first time I've heard a nonbeliever come up with that one .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Note: Im playing the devil’s advocate here just so you know. I don’t necessarily hold to that specific way of thinking BUT it makes it clear that your argument can easily be shown to be empty.

Honestly. Do you really think there is any merit in that argument you presented?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
By the way Ill take your confusion between my comments and brownjenkin’s comments as a compliment (to me). *tips hat to bj * I find many of his arguments about as compelling as Ive seen on this message board.

The reason I mistook the names was that I'm so used to arguing with you. I might have debated more with you than anyone else on Entmoot, and that's saying something .

[Lief Erikson]

I may have to leave this debate. I don't know for how long, but right now I've got a lot of writing activities to keep up on.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I may have to leave this debate. I don't know for how long, but right now I've got a lot of writing activities to keep up on.

thanks for the discussion lief... while i may not agree, it is nice to see a fresh perspective... i frequently read and post at work and i know the perils of getting too caught up in one subject

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Nope, a fact is something that is true, whether or not it can be verified by people at any given time. For example, it's a fact that I'm wearing a certain color sweater today. And no one but I (and the dog) can see it right now (and I think dogs are colorblind, so he can't even see the color!) Yet it remains a fact, and if you were to guess the sweater was green, you would be wrong, and if you were to guess the sweater was purple, you would be right.

Now I'll grant you that a scientific fact is something that can be verified over and over again.

ah... but if you want to convince me that you were wearing a purple sweater, i'd expect to see it in person (or at least get a affidavite from your dog)

it might very well be a fact that you have a purple sweater on... but if you chose to hide in your house 24/7 and say "trust me, it's purple", i'd have my doubts... and rightly so

of course, in your case i do have faith in your word

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It can be established very reasonably that Jesus was not at all crazy, which was the stance you were taking. Therefore, it is relevant.

might I remind you again (I think for the third time) that I stated that I DIDN’T like the simple label of “lunatic� for jesus. I didn’t think it was that simple. Not sure why you keep ignoring this. I assume because youd rather have me play the contrary position to your point of view then simply be indifferent which is what I am. In trying to connect jesus to the divine I said of the three choices given this was about as close as I could get and makes sense since its been shown again and again throughout history that those folk apparently connected (in our opinion) to something beyond ourselves often are mentally “abnormal�. In fact I think by definition anyone who has the ability to be in touch with the creator of the universe, be it true or not, would NEVER be considered mentally normal. That instead they have some special mental ability. Do you disagree?

Would you please describe the evidence to support your belief that God is "Neither caring nor uncaring, neither sentient nor omnipotent nor limited."

sure as soon as you describe the evidence that a hypothetic microbial life form imperceptible to our senses is neither happy or sad or curious or apathetic or loving or hateful. Whats that you say? It doesn’t compute? You cant describe such things in those particular human terms? Well then you have answered your own question.

You keep saying that you're "way up here". I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever to strengthen your point of view. Rather, repeatedly, you have ignored my arguments.

If you argue that your country is an enormous place and I say well ok but earth is a very small place in the grand scheme of things and you keep countering with NO! MY COUNTRY IS HUGE!! ITS ONE OF THE BIGGEST! I HAVE REAMS OF EVIDENCE FOR IT! Should I be reduced down to your argument and say no your country is NOT huge when I know perfectly well that perspective is arbitrary and you are stuck on yours?

Insidious Rex "Jesus was crucified for his beliefs because he was crazy."

oh making up quotes for me now? How about “Jesus was crucified for his beliefs because he was considered dangerous.� Irrelevant of whether he was insane or not.

Lief Erikson "Jesus was not crazy- the psychiatrists have certified that."

and im incredibly amused that there are “psychiatrists� who can “certify� the mental state of a figure who died 2000 years ago and for whom the only “data� we can take measure from is holy texts written by devotional followers who desperately believed with all their heart the goodness of their religion. I mean this is simply patently ridiculous talk to me. But in the end… as ive said… it doesn’t really matter to my point about his connection with the divine.

Insidious Rex "Christianity has a divine thread in it, but is a flawed religion."
Lief Erikson "It is not flawed. We can see that because of these and these and these evidences."

Im sorry. Which evidence was it again that proves that jesus is the son of god and that Christianity is the one true literal interpretation of the divine? Run those by me again I must have missed them.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Am I beginning to understand correctly, that no matter what evidence I present, you still will not begin to change your mind?

evidence for… the legitimacy of Christianity? Well sure you could present me irrefutable evidence for every assertion made in the bible. you could show me without question that the god of the bible is the creative force of the universe. Until then I have to conclude that Christianity is at best a human expression of the divine.

They wrote what they did perceive. You can argue that Jesus and his followers were wrong, but the events of their lives are accurately preserved, and therefore, the religion is very worth considering.

I don’t understand how you can sit there and tell me flat out that because the followers of jesus wrote things down about jesus that this proves that everything they say is fact. That argument has a massive gap in it as far as Im concerned.

There is documentation from the records of their Jewish enemies also, which says that Jesus was a practicer of black magic.

And this was done to make him look bad not look like the son of god. Are you saying that every accusation of performing black magic in the ancient world should be taken as evidence for divinity?

That shows evidence that he really did accomplish these miracles.

woah your logic leaps are getting bigger and bigger. How does that show that jesus actually was capable of miracles and had super natural powers?

Also, these things were preached in areas where people would actually have seen and witnessed the events, and within the same time period that those people would still be alive. That is of huge significance, because it means that if they had introduced any lies into what they said or what they wrote, they would have been publicly sabotaging their credibility.

you make it out as if christianty took off like a fire from the beginning. Why was it such a small group tettering on the edge of extinction at first then? why didn’t every witness and every witness’s family member IMMIDIATLY start following this man of obvious extraordinary powers? You could have had the vast majority of the jewish people behind you in no time. And was it just coincidence that there were dozens of massiah like figures (or at least sorcerer like figures) during this time that also performed “miracles�? In fact from what I understand it was pretty standard form for these figures to do miracles for their followers to prove themselves worthy of following. If you couldn’t perform a miracle then you weren’t even worth consideration.

People making propaganda is common. Yet people don't write and publish propaganda in places where they know they'll be condemned to torture and possible death for it, when they know what they're writing is lies.

Im sure many of jesus’s followers actually believed the words they said. Im sure the followers of David Corech genuinely believed him too.

I came to faith because God introduced himself to me. Before he did that, I didn't even have the faith to set a meeting between us. I'd considered asking to, but was afraid that my house of cards (Christianity) would be knocked down. I was afraid that it would be proven to me that my religion was useless, and I was afraid of that. But then in a very dramatic way, God came to me, and since then I've known that this is no house of cards.

if I declared that I had direct experience with a phenomenon that you had absolutely no physical evidence for would that make my beliefs fact to all or simply fact to me? Would you have to accept that my belief system was simply the Truth even though I had nothing to give you but my own word of my apparent perception of something you cant perceive? In a way Id love to tap into your mind and analyze exactly what it is that made you truly believe that god had somehow contacted you specifically. But I don’t think I can. And that’s a shame for both of us I think.

It's not faith that he exists. For that one requires no faith- that's knowledge.

or more accurately that is your perception of your reality. My knowledge ends before I reach the imperceptible.

So now not only Jesus was crazy. All the disciples were crazy too! I think that's the first time I've heard a nonbeliever come up with that one .

so you think Im saying that they are crazy because they are willing to die for something they believe in? Do you therefore contend that every devout follower of every other religion on earth is nuts because that’s the logic string your leading to. Since Christianity is right they must all be nuts. But come on. Of course you DON’T have to be insane to follow something that isn’t factual. Of course you don’t have to be insane to be mistaken. Or mislead. Or even misleadING.

Honestly. Do you really think there is any merit in that argument you presented?

absolutely. My only confusion is why you don’t see something so elementary. You assert one thing but when that statement is turned around you discount it as ridiculous.

The reason I mistook the names was that I'm so used to arguing with you. I might have debated more with you than anyone else on Entmoot, and that's saying something .

Well its always a fun time. I especially enjoyed those debates we had back in the glory days of the good and evil thread. At least I think that was you… But I think in this debate we are kind of talking about two different things really.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think it's necessary to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, or that he preformed miracles. The important thing is that people believe that. And it's faith itself that's important to those who believe.

If you don't believe it, that's alright. I don't see a need to challenge anyone's beliefs, except for the purpose of an interesting discussion (which I hope is what this thread remains). Though Christianity isn't the be all end all of worldviews, being a Christian is a positive and wonderful thing.

[Megwynne]

I was christiened Protestant, my being born and growing up in the SE of England (a lightweight area where religion and politics is concerned) and church was a choice I had, my parents were not church people, my mother was a spritualist though, but my friends were church people so I toddled along with them, a believer all the same for quite a long time. And I've had a taste of all camps really, the belief scaling down over time, Christian to agnostic to athiest, or at least, I don't hold with an anthropomorphic god as a creator.

Religion I now believe is about preserving a community's socio-political forms and traditions, perhaps essential in early times of human settlement and previous to the invention of writing (for recording purposes) or the development of politics (for ordering purposes) - which I think put together that would be bureaucracy, wouldn't it (ah, the curious mysteries of red tape and the greedy god, Revenue)?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
They seem to believe they can.

Yeah? Based on what? They can't interview him personally, and to date we haven't recovered his diary, so where are they drawing their conclusions from? Gospels that were written BY OTHER PEOPLE well after this death? This would render any psychiatric evaluation inconclusive at best.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
ah... but if you want to convince me that you were wearing a purple sweater, i'd expect to see it in person (or at least get a affidavite from your dog)

it might very well be a fact that you have a purple sweater on... but if you chose to hide in your house 24/7 and say "trust me, it's purple", i'd have my doubts... and rightly so

of course, in your case i do have faith in your word

But my whole point is that there IS a true state of the color of my sweater. The issue of how to discover/verify the color is irrelevant at this stage. There's no reason to even start to discuss verification if you can't get people to agree that for many issues, there IS a single, true statement of how things really are.

What I'm trying to deal with is the rather illogical (IMO) statements like "all religions are true". It's illogical to conclude this if there are ANY contradictory statements in ANY of the "religions" under consideration. That's my point.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But my whole point is that there IS a true state of the color of my sweater. The issue of how to discover/verify the color is irrelevant at this stage. There's no reason to even start to discuss verification if you can't get people to agree that for many issues, there IS a single, true statement of how things really are.

What I'm trying to deal with is the rather illogical (IMO) statements like "all religions are true". It's illogical to conclude this if there are ANY contradictory statements in ANY of the "religions" under consideration. That's my point.

my point is that the color of your sweater is a fact because it can be verified... religious truths cannot be verified, so they will never be facts

instead they are opinions... and as such, their truth is based upon an individual's pov... thus, while all religions are not true to any single person... different religions can be just as true to different people

it's like if i said your sweater looks nice... this is not a fact, it is my opinion... someone who can't stand purple might call it tacky... this is just as true for them as my opinion is for me... there is no "universal truth" as to what is a "nice looking sweater"

[Rían]

Well, I differ with you ... surprised?

by Mr. Jenkins
my point is that the color of your sweater is a fact because it can be verified... religious truths cannot be verified, so they will never be facts

Yes, they will indeed be verified at a future point in time, if Christianity is right

don't confuse "can't be verified right now" with "can't ever be verified" ...

and the point of Christianity is not to "verify" God's existence, anyway; remember, the demons themselves have no question about the truth that God exists; they've seen Him themselves ...

more by brownie...
instead they are opinions... and as such, their truth is based upon an individual's pov... thus, while all religions are not true to any single person... different religions can be just as true to different people

there are certain statements that, by their very form, HAVE to be either true or false.

People can have opinions about whether these statements are true or false, but the statements THEMSELVES are NOT opinions; they are either true or false, altho they might not be verifiable (or verifiable in a way that we would like them to be) at the present time by any abilities we now possess. And the Christian position is that NO person has ANY excuse for turning away from seeking God, because they have SUFFICIENT proof of His existence, in their hearts and in the glorious creation around them, on which to base their decision. It's NOT a matter of "I don't have enough proof" - it's a HEART matter. Satan had enough proof ...

It's my OPINION that Christianity is true; it's your OPINION that it's not. But Christianity (or a given statement within Christianity) either IS or ISN'T true - it is not itself an opinion.

For example, it's my opinion that the statement: "God, as described in the Bible, exists" is true. From what I can tell, it's your opinion that that statement is false. We may never know (altho I know that we will ) whether it's true or false, but it MUST be either one way or another, or there is no purpose in language.

it's like if i said your sweater looks nice... this is not a fact, it is my opinion... someone who can't stand purple might call it tacky... this is just as true for them as my opinion is for me... there is no "universal truth" as to what is a "nice looking sweater"

Agreed - but is irrelevant to the question of whether the statement "the sweater is purple" is true or false.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
For example, it's my opinion that the statement: "God, as described in the Bible, exists" is true. From what I can tell, it's your opinion that that statement is false. We may never know (altho I know that we will ) whether it's true or false, but it MUST be either one way or another, or there is no purpose in language.

as an aside... if you wish to state something exists, i would say that it is your responsibility to prove it... it is not my opinion that it is false, it is false until proven otherwise

on the rest... if god must be a physical being, there may be an ultimate answer as to his/her/its existance... but if god is more of a collective concept (like good or evil, hate or love, nice or tacky) it may not be a simple yes/no question... it may have everything to do with point of view

let's just say that religion is a method of conceptualizing our existance... as opposed to a purple sweater

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
... it is not my opinion that it is false, it is false until proven otherwise

Is that an absolute truth? You seem to have a lot of those ...

And I disagree - something is not false until proven otherwise, except in US court protocol. To take the sweater example again: let's say you think my sweater is green, and Lief thinks my sweater is purple, and I actually AM wearing a purple sweater, but neither one of you guys know it. Are you saying that it's false that my sweater is purple, because neither one of you can currently prove it to be purple? Again, the true-ness of the statement has nothing to do with whether or not you or Lief can verify it at the time - it's either purple, or it's NOT. And your opinions will be shown to be either true or false, once you guys see me (let's meet at a Starbucks and chat - such fun! Lief lives w/in an hour or so of me - you're a bit farther away )

And I'm still hoping to start the "why you believe what you believe" discussion soon - looks like it might actually happen soon, because GLB is done for now, I think.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
on the rest... if god must be a physical being, there may be an ultimate answer as to his/her/its existance... but if god is more of a collective concept (like good or evil, hate or love, nice or tacky) it may not be a simple yes/no question... it may have everything to do with point of view

I agree.

let's just say that religion is a method of conceptualizing our existance...

I disagree

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And I disagree - something is not false until proven otherwise, except in US court protocol. To take the sweater example again: let's say you think my sweater is green, and Lief thinks my sweater is purple, and I actually AM wearing a purple sweater, but neither one of you guys know it. Are you saying that it's false that my sweater is purple, because neither one of you can currently prove it to be purple? Again, the true-ness of the statement has nothing to do with whether or not you or Lief can verify it at the time - it's either purple, or it's NOT.

but it has everything to do with whether it is something that can be proven, whether it actually is proven or not... taking the color example, colors are actually the way we perceive certain wavelengths of light reflecting from an object... there are many wavelengths we cannot perceive, like sounds only your dog can hear

i could postulate that sentient beings live around us that exist in such a way that we can not see them, or interact with them, something like poltergists from common mythology... to take it one step further... maybe they actually do exist... but until they can be perceived by us, for all practical purposes they do not exist

god is in the same category... he may very well be out there... but until he makes an appearence, it is all just speculation with no basis in verifiable fact

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
And that's doctrinal, by the way. He himself said he had never sinned.

I know, but I can't agree with that. In NO way am I trying to be disrespectful, but thats just what I love about Jesus. He was the ideal life of a human being on Earth, but he had weak moments. In the Garden before his crucifiction he almost gave up, and the fig tree story was already cited. But that gives us humans hope, because no matter how hard we try, we are going to make mistakes, to almost give in. Jesus is the ultimate role model. None of us can reach the perfection of God because at one point or another we all give into temptation. But with Jesus we see that he has moments of weakness too, so we are more inclined to try because we see it closer to within our reach.

Katie