Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But what really cracks me up about this one is: how did the Egyptian army drown in shallow water?

If it was shallow, the Hebrews going thru the water was no miracle, but the Egyptians drowning in it WAS a miracle!

If it was deep, then the passing thru (on DRY land) would be a miracle, but the drowning wouldn't.

Or is he saying that the Hebrews slogged thru the shallow water, then the tidal wave wiped out the Egyptians, amazingly missing the Hebrews that just finished exiting the water?

Have you ever been to the ocean? The water flows back and forth - back and forth. Tidal waves when they come - take the inland water and drags it out to sea - then in one big rush - forces the water onto the land. If you have any questions - I suggest you watch the video. It does explain the nature of tidal waves and how they work to back up their hyposthesis.

When the Hebrews crossed the river was dry - the water had been sucked out in the sea. When the Egyptians went to cross the tidal wave came and flooded the land (it was no longer just a swamp).

Again this seems to be an example of scoffing at scientific research - whereas you are perfectly happy to accept a book that you don't even have idea who wrote. I take it you don't know much about the tidal waves and the ocean or how underground earthquakes affect the waves and so forth.

As for the miracles - I don't think there were any. It was a series of coincidences and natural occurences. These things, how ever many thousands of years ago - they didn't understand.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
You do realise that evolution is not an entirely atheistic concept, don't you? How can there be evidence against something which wholly transcends science?

Hey Gwaimir, we've got a whole thread on evolution where Rian is fighting the good fight single-handedly. How 'bout jumping in with posts about evolution over there?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Very well, jerseydevil, since the only thing author you've brought up questions about is John, the author of Revelation, I'll read you what the NIV says about that.



Again, I'm going to shift to the New Testament accounts, as they're more recent and easy to come up with evidence to support.
The eyewitnesses
We see strong evidence that the New Testament gospel writers were men of great integrity, not likely to lie in their accounts. They were reporting the words and actions of a man who called them to an extremely exacting level of integrity, and they were willing to live out their beliefs even to the point where they were tortured and killed.

These individuals had nothing to gain from lying except criticism, ostracism and martyrdom.

As did, for example, the early followers of Mohammed, the Buddha, Zoroaster, Joseph Smith and many other Holy men and women throughout history.

This is evidence that people are willing to die for what they believe in, nothing else.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[B]

Some of Jesus' sayings are written down in rabbi documents aside from the Gospels.

/B]

No, some of the sayings of Jesus are similar to some of the Rabbis of the time (some of whom lived before Jesus).

None of the Jewish writings of that time attribute these sayings to Jesus.

This just shows that Jesus was a particularly successful member of a tradition (including the Essenes) that was widespread at a particular time and place - as was the Buddha, or Mohammed.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson

Then there's the fact that the skeptics, enemies of the Christian movement, that didn't contradict the gospel accounts. On the contrary, their evidence is in support of Jesus' miracles and influence.

Such as ?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
where do you see 'evolution' in that sentence? I didn't even mention it.

I was merely wondering if you werer using evolution as proof that there is no higher power. What evidence is it, then? How can science prove that there a Being which wholly transcends sciencem and is not a part of the natural realm, which science applies to, does not exist?

GrayMouser, I don't have much of a stand either way, for evolution. As far as I'm concerned, it could be either; I lean towards Creation, but I don't by any means rule out evolution, and to me, it's not really that important.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I was merely wondering if you werer using evolution as proof that there is no higher power. What evidence is it, then? How can science prove that there a Being which wholly transcends sciencem and is not a part of the natural realm, which science applies to, does not exist?

GrayMouser, I don't have much of a stand either way, for evolution. As far as I'm concerned, it could be either; I lean towards Creation, but I don't by any means rule out evolution, and to me, it's not really that important.

Absolutely, science can't, and those scientists who do make such claims as " science shows there is no evidence of purpose in the Universe" are speaking beyond their competence.

As for the "evolution not being that important" (in religious or spiritual terms), I heartily agree.

Actually, I love evolutionary theory the way I love American politics - it doesn't affect me personally, but it's so much more interesting than the other options

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Absolutely, science can't, and those scientists who do make such claims as " science shows there is no evidence of purpose in the Universe" are speaking beyond their competence.

As for the "evolution not being that important" (in religious or spiritual terms), I heartily agree.

Actually, I love evolutionary theory the way I love American politics - it doesn't affect me personally, but it's so much more interesting than the other options

That's always what I've thought, too. Although, I think more "grasping at straws" than "speaking beyond their competence". Although I expect there are probably both.

Hmm...I suppose I love evolutionary theory/Specific Creation theory the way I love Pokemon; something that a lot of people are crazy about, but not my bowl of soup.

[HOBBIT]

People around you are crazy about pokemon? That is so 5th grade, totally passe. No one likes pokemon anymore. Now everyone is into Dragon Ball Z whatever that is, also yu-gi-oh - im done with anime :P its good in small doses - but that show is just too stupid for me to watch (in high school now of course).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hmm, well, it's been quite some time since I was in that age group. I could easily be wrong.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Have you ever been to the ocean? The water flows back and forth - back and forth. Tidal waves when they come - take the inland water and drags it out to sea - then in one big rush - forces the water onto the land. If you have any questions - I suggest you watch the video. It does explain the nature of tidal waves and how they work to back up their hyposthesis.

When the Hebrews crossed the river was dry - the water had been sucked out in the sea. When the Egyptians went to cross the tidal wave came and flooded the land (it was no longer just a swamp).

Again this seems to be an example of scoffing at scientific research - whereas you are perfectly happy to accept a book that you don't even have idea who wrote. I take it you don't know much about the tidal waves and the ocean or how underground earthquakes affect the waves and so forth.

As for the miracles - I don't think there were any. It was a series of coincidences and natural occurences. These things, how ever many thousands of years ago - they didn't understand.

Oh JD, I feel that you never really take time to read through my posts, but you just react to the first thing that irritates you

Remember, I took a year of physics at uni as a physics major - I know something about waves. (and you never told me what your background was in this area, either.)

I'll REPEAT what I said, and bold the pertinent part for your convenience: "Or is he saying that the Hebrews slogged thru the shallow water, then the tidal wave wiped out the Egyptians, amazingly missing the Hebrews that just finished exiting the water?" I would say that tidal waves are not particularly neat and fastidious, staying nicely inside the normal boundaries of whatever body of water they're currently making lively.

whereas you are perfectly happy to accept a book that you don't even have idea who wrote.

Oh, bilgewater! I think I'll get to that misconception next on this thread, along with the idea posted by several people that if you decide you're God and write a book, that it is immediately in the same category as the Bible. Also the whole Greek gods and kiddie story thing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh JD, I feel that you never really take time to read through my posts, but you just react to the first thing that irritates you

Remember, I took a year of physics at uni as a physics major - I know something about waves. (and you never told me what your background was in this area, either.)

I'll REPEAT what I said, and bold the pertinent part for your convenience: "Or is he saying that the Hebrews slogged thru the shallow water, then the tidal wave wiped out the Egyptians, amazingly missing the Hebrews that just finished exiting the water?" I would say that tidal waves are not particularly neat and fastidious, staying nicely inside the normal boundaries of whatever body of water they're currently making lively.

Maybe you should just watch the movie - then you can pick it apart for yourself. They were experts on tidal wave, volcanoes and earthquakes. You comment towared that in your post I was replying to was rather arrogant - that's why I must assume you don't have much knowledge in tidal waves if you can't see the way it can happen naturally - especially since you have no problem believing the biblical story - which is even more unbelievable.

Oh, bilgewater! I think I'll get to that misconception next on this thread, along with the idea posted by several people that if you decide you're God and write a book, that it is immediately in the same category as the Bible. Also the whole Greek gods and kiddie story thing.

So tell me - why is believing in a christian god more superior or more believable than the Greek gods or Roman gods? What about the Hindu gods? To me they are all fanciful stories to explain things people don't understand. And I never said "immediately". I SAID if a book was found a thousand years from now - people would not be able to tell whether is was true or not.

[Rían]

I guess it's a good time to stop the tidal wave discussion now, because you think I'm arrogant and I think you're condescending Anyway, it's obvious we disagree, and we're not getting anywhere, so I'm done with it.

by JD
And I never said "immediately". I SAID if a book was found a thousand years from now - people would not be able to tell whether is was true or not.

I didn't say that YOU said "immediately".

I'll try to start up the topic tomorrow, but I'm pretty busy on the evolution thread, too, so it might have to wait until after vacation (we're leaving Saturday for a week in the Arizona high desert near the Grand Canyon).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
the biblical story - which is even more unbelievable.

Only if one acts on the presupposition that a High Power(s) is/are non-existent, or that if they do exist, they never involve themselves in this world.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So tell me - why is believing in a christian god more superior or more believable than the Greek gods or Roman gods? What about the Hindu gods? To me they are all fanciful stories to explain things people don't understand. And I never said "immediately". I SAID if a book was found a thousand years from now - people would not be able to tell whether is was true or not.

Well, I have now decided that this will definitely have to wait (at least for me) until we're back from camping. I'm just too busy with the evolution thread, as well as getting ready for camping. I was up until 2 am last night getting paperwork done

And JD, let me just ask you if you could think of some ways that a book found a thousand years from now COULD be considered reliable. What would some circumstances be that would make a reasonable person think that what was in the book was true?(and let's assume that what WAS in the book WAS true for the sake of this scenario)

Anyone else with some thoughts on this please jump in, too, and we can pick it up in some more depth when I get back, or I'll just jump into wherever you guys have taken it while I was away.

[GrayMouser]

This interesting suggestion from Richard Dawkins

A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, of Sacramento, California, have set out to coin a new word, a new "gay". Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Bright? Yes, bright. Bright is the word, the new noun. I am a bright. You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time you came out as a bright? Is he a bright? I can't imagine falling for a woman who was not a bright. The webside http://www.celeb-atheists.com/ suggests numerous intellectuals and other famous people are brights. Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights. Look on the bright side: though at present they can't admit it and get elected, the US Congress must be full of closet brights. As with gays, the more brights come out, the easier it will be for yet more brights to do so. People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as a bright.

Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?" And then you're away: "A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."

"You mean a bright is an atheist?"

"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."

snip two gratuitously offensive jokes- you can see them in the original article

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/s...981412,00.html

[GrayMouser]

(cont'd)In the article he also points out that we shouldn't refer to a "Christian child" or "Muslim child" anymore than we would refer to a Communist child or a neo-conservative child. We should wait until someone is old enough to make their own choice; we should instead refer to a "child of Christian (or Muslim, Hindu etc.) parents"

For example, I would never call my sons "Atheist children"

(Though I might call them brights )

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
As did, for example, the early followers of Mohammed, the Buddha, Zoroaster, Joseph Smith and many other Holy men and women throughout history.

This is evidence that people are willing to die for what they believe in, nothing else.

But you're forgetting one of the really important things. These people claimed to have met the resurrected Christ. That means that they themselves knew whether or not what they said was true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would they have been willing to die horribly for something that they knew for a fact was a lie?

Originally posted by GrayMouser
No, some of the sayings of Jesus are similar to some of the Rabbis of the time (some of whom lived before Jesus).

None of the Jewish writings of that time attribute these sayings to Jesus.

This just shows that Jesus was a particularly successful member of a tradition (including the Essenes) that was widespread at a particular time and place - as was the Buddha, or Mohammed.

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
Having talked primarily about Roman corroboration with Jesus, I wanted to turn a corner at this point and discuss whether any other Jewish accounts besides that of Jospehus verify anything about Jesus. I asked Yamauchi about references to Jesus in the Talmud, an important Jewish work finished about A.D. 500 that incorporates the Mishnah, compiled about A.D. 200.

"Jews, as a whole, did not go into great detail about heretics," he replied. "There are a few passages in the Talmud that mention Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic and who was justly condemned to death. They also repeat the rumor that Jesus was born of a Roman soldier and Mary, suggesting there was something unusual about his birth."

"So," I said, "in a negative way the Jewish references do corroborate some things about Jesus."

"Yes, that's right," he said. "Professor M. Wilcox put it this way in an article that appeared in a scholarly reference work:"

The Jewish traditional literature, though it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a great healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had disciples (five of them), and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages had finally made up their minds that he was a "heretic" or a "deceiver."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
"When people begin religious movements, it's often not until many generations later that people record things about them," Yamauchi said. "But the fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion."

That caught me off guard. "Really?" I said. "Can you elaborate on that?"

"For example, although the Gathas of Zoroaster, about 1000 B.C., are believed to be authentic, most of the Zoroastrian scriptures were not put into writing until after the third century A.D. The most popular Parsi biography of Zoroaster was written in A.D. 1278.

"The scriptures of Buddha, who lived in the sixth century B.C., were not put into writing until after the Christian era, and thefirst biography of Buddha was written in the first century A.D. Althought we have the sayings of Muhammad, who lived from A.D. 570 to 632, in the Koran, his biography was not written until 767-more than a full century after his death.

"So the situation with Jesus is unique-and quite imprfessive in terms of how much we can learn about him aside from the New Testament."

I wanted to pick up on that theme and summarize what we had gleaned about Jesus so far from nonbiblical sources. "Let's pretend we don't have any of the New Testament or other Christian writings," I said. "Even without them, what would we be able to conclude about Jesus from ancient non-Christian sources, such as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others?"
Yamauchi smiled. "We would still have a considerabble amount of important historical evidence; in fact, it would provide a kind of outline for the life of Jesus," he said.

Then he went on, raising a finger to emphasize each point. "We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; sixth, despite his shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshiped him as God."

We even have evidence that the sky turned black at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Though as the person who recorded it didn't believe in Christ, he tried to explain it as an eclipse.

Aside from that, we have large amounts of evidence for the reliability of the Gospels, the Epistles, and the eyewitness accounts. The eyewitnesses themselves also have very good credentials, as I already pointed out.

There is no evidence in Jewish writings at the time that contradict the Bible or claim it was wrong. The only evidence, as has been demonstrated, is in support of the Bible's accounts. And the Gospels were written during the same generation as all these people, so they still lived and could be referred to by skeptics (of which there were a very large amount).

[Lief Erikson]

Then we can look to another piece of major evidence for Jesus, I'd like to mention. The prophesies.

Various prophets, hundreds of years before Christ, fortold his coming, and their prophesies are very, very strongly evidence for his being who he was. They fortold the time of his birth and the place of his birth. Jesus was the only one who fitted those descriptions. They fortold the manner of his death and detailed it.

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
First, I asked Lapides whether it's possible that Jesus merely fulfilled the prophesies by accident. Maybe he's just one of many throughout history who have coincidentally fit the prophetic fingerprint.

"Not a chance," came his response. "The odds are so astronomical that they rule that out. Someone did the math and figured out that the probability of just eight prophesies being fulfiolled is one chance in one hundred million billiion. That number is millions of times greater than the total number of people who've ever walked the planet!

"He calculated that if you took this number of silver dollars, they would cover the state of Texas to a depth of two feet. If you makred one silver dollar among them and then had a blindfolded person wander the whole state and bend down to pick up one coin, what would be the odds he'd choose the one that had been marked?"

With that he answered his own question: "The same odds that anybody in history could have fulfilled just eight of the prophesies."

I had studied this same statistical analysis by mathematician Peter W. Stoner when I was investigating the messianic prophesies for myself. Stoner also computed that the probability of fulfilling forty-eight prophesies was one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!"

Our minds can't comprehend a number that big. This is a staggering statistic that's equal to the number of miniscule atoms in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, billion universes the size of our universe!

"The odds alone say it would be impossible for anyone to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies," Lapides concluded. "Yet Jesus-and only Jesus throughout all of history-managed to do it."

After hearing this originally I was quite excited, so I went to my Dad about it. He is also a Christian, and a mathmetician himself. He told me that I had to be rather skeptical of such reports though, because they didn't take all the factors into account. They didn't take into account that a number of prophesies went unfulfilled (those which we now relate quite smoothly to the second coming). Even though we know now that these prophesies were related to the second coming, there was no concept of a second coming at the time of the Old Testament. At the same time, some of the prophesies hadn't been taken as prophesies until the time of the Messiah, when we saw that he fulfilled them. So you have to also take into account the possibility that some prophesies go unfulfilled. This makes it a much more difficult calculation, and my Dad dimmed my excitement a bit by saying that. My Dad hadn't studied the prophesies, but he likes to look carefully before putting his faith in something, as is logical.

However, even despite these failures to take into consideration, the numbers would be astronomical. I was at youth camp during the past week and spoke to a youth pastor about the prophesies. I told him what my Dad had told me, and he reminded me how large the numbers were we were talking about. Also, he told me that this was just 8 of the prophesies that had such vast odds, or 48 in the endless trillion amount. There are actually about 300 prophesies that were fulfilled in Jesus.

In the Case for Christ, there is a chapter that goes into these evidences, and the arguments against them. First, the coincidence argument, which I have already quoted from.

Second, the "altered Gospel argument", which basically questions whether or not the fulfillment of the prophesies were fabricated by the gospel writers.

Third, the "Intentional Fulfillment Argument", which goes into whether or not Jesus could have purposely fulfilled the prophesies.

And fourth, whether or not the prophesies were misinterpreted by Christians or taken out of context.


GrayMouser, it would probably be very useful to you to read "The Case for Christ," which addresses these different issues in depth.