Back to Windows...

[Jason Taylor]

Not to kick this off again :)... but

 . Consider also, that the Gospels themselves are often mutually
> contradictory, and
> subtly change th story each time.
>

Its actually more of a problem that 3 of the gospels are so similar :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem




On 12/7/06, Alexander Jacob Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 07 December 2006 01:50, Nikolai wrote:
> > Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:
> > Well, if you are not making any truth claims, why should anybody pay any
> > attention to what appears to be as a truth claim (e.g. your belief in
> > God)? To say that there's a God out there and then qualify it by saying,
> > "I'm not actually saying it's true" reduces your claim to triviality. No
> > one should take it seriously, including yourself.
> >
> You would have never read nything from which said "there is a God." That
> is a
> statement of fact I sikmply cannot make. I believe in him, a very
> different
> concept. That means that I do think there is one, but I cannot possibly
> substantiate it
> > > Religion
> > > teaches us to be humble, and that si part of it in m opinion.
> >
> > Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Ehad (Hear, O Israel: The LORD our
> > God is one LORD, Deuteronomy 6:4). This is a truth claim for which
> > millions of people, Jews and Gentiles, have lost their lives. Being
> > humble does not imply embracing competing truth claims, although I would
> > also add it doesn't imply exterminating those who make such competing
> > claims either.
> >
> Liek I said, I believe it, but I cannot demonstrate it, and other people
> could
> jsut as easily be right adn I be wrong. I dont believe they are, but I
> coudl
> conceivably be mistaken. The thing is though that I will never know, adn
> neither will they.
> > >>> For me the concept of me believing in a "God" concept is
> inconceivable.
> > >>
> > >> Yet, you have no trouble believing in "Saddam Husein" or any other
> such
> > >> concept.
> > >
> > > It is impossible to convince soembody that there is a God. You either
> > > believe, or you don't.
> >
> > True. But so is everything else - you either believe a proposition or
> > you don't. Any proposition. Insert there anything you fancy.
> >
> Not quite. Very few people,and none who are considered sane would
> disbelieve
> something which they see with their own eyes, for example "the sky is
> blue".
> Slightly more, but tsitll very few woudl disbelieve that Saddam Hussein
> was a
> brutal tyrant, irrelevant of whether they supported the war or not. That
> is
> because these are demonstrably true facts, unless you choose to doubt
> everything, in itself an illogical position becuase you are disregarding
> evidence. They can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. The
> existence
> of God cannot.
> > > There is nothign rational in belief. It is an inherently
> > > illogical process.
> >
> > What exactly is illogical in a belief in God? Maybe we have vastly
> > different definitions of what is logical? For me, everything that
> > conforms to the law of contradiction is logical, i.e. as long as A is
> > not non-A, it is logical (I don't want to throw in the pot the law of
> > identity and the law of excluded middle, the law of contradiction should
> > suffice for this discussion).
> >
> No. Logic is the process where certain axioms which are clearly true, adn
> certain postulates which are demonstrabely true lead to the formation fo
> conclusion. Religion exists with the axiom that there is a God, which is,
> as
> I have said, not clearly true. neithere woudl be the atheist assumption
> that
> there isn't one. The onyl possible axiom which can lead to logical
> conclusions is lack of knowledge. That is Ok though. I do not require
> myself
> to be a wholly logical person. I prefer to be illogical but comfortable in
> the knowledge that I act on what I believe to be true.
> > For example, it would be illogical from my point of view to accept that
> > the street is wet because it was raining if the argument is:
> >
> > if the street is wet, it must have been raining
> > the street is wet
> > therefore, it must have been raining
> >
> That of course is illogical, becuase it assumes that the only reason the
> street was wet is that it was raining, where there are others, eg. a hose
> could be used. However, "it was raining, therefore the street was wet" is
> a
> logical statement. Your statement was illogical because it relied on a
> demonstrably false axiom.
> > This is utterly illogical (yet this is precisely how modern science
> > operates). Perhaps you have a different idea of what is logical or
> > illogical? Maybe you can share it?
> >
> Not at all. Modern Science seeks obviously true axioms such as 1+1=2, and
> demonstrably true postulates, such as the universe is expanding. From
> those
> scientists draw conclusions. While it is true that sometimes they do not
> have
> proper logical basis for thier statements, usually due to insufficient
> data,
> that does not make the process itself inherently illogical.
> > >>> I've tried, but I'm quite a logical person and the logic of belief
> for
> > >>> the sake of belief seems like Lunacy to me.
> > >>
> > >> It is lunacy, yes, you're correct. If, however, you're a logical
> person
> > >> (whatever that means), maybe you could briefly outline what sort of
> > >> logical problems you're having with what you have called a concept of
> > >> God?
> > >
> > > I coudl outline some of that oens I have, as a believer. I am Jewish.
> I
> > > find it inconceivable that God allowed the Holocaust to occur, and yet
> he
> > > did. We are his chosen people (according to oru Torah) and yet he
> allowed
> > > one of the greatest crimes of history to be perpetrated on us.
> >
> > Perhaps you should re-read the book of Isiah, in particular something
> > like 46:10 where the Lord declares "...My counsel shall stand, and I
> > will do all my pleasure..." and further. If God is sovereign, as He
> > claims to be ("my counsel shall stand" clause), the concept of
> > "allowing" is totally foreign to Judaism as well as Christianity. It is
> > according to His will the events of history unfold and pondering over
> > why He "allowed" this or that to happen is utterly fruitless and
> > inevitably leads to despair. The question you and I should be asking
> > instead is, what has gone wrong with us for these terrible things to
> > unfold? Perhaps the answer could be found somewhere here (a rather long
> > quote, sorry):
> >
> > But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be
> > drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
> > I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye
> > shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over
> > Jordan to go to possess it.
> > I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set
> > before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life,
> > that both thou and thy seed may live:
> > That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his
> > voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the
> > length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD
> > sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give
> > them. (Deuteronomy 30:17-20)
> >
> That is a reading of the text which ignores a fundamental aspect of
> Judaism
> (and, I assume, though I may be wrong, Christianity). God doesn't do
> anything
> to us directly, becuase we have the freedom of will to act as we please.
> While our acts will lead to consequences, both in this life and the next,
> this does nto explain how the innocent were punished witht eh guilty. What
> crime had babes under the age of one committed? While there is a jewish
> answer to the question I asked (two actually), they are both very
> difficult
> to accept, adn beg more questions. Nevertheless, the statement that "God
> is
> King of the Universe" does not mean he cannot "allow" anything anythign to
> happen, that he can onyl directly cause it, becuase he has given human
> beings
> free will.
> > > I do not believe that
> > > belief in a God is such a simple thing as to be easily demnonstrable
> (or
> > > at all).
> >
> > Again, as I already mentioned, it all depends on what sort of
> > demonstration is demanded. If someone wishes the sun to stand still as
> > it did at the battle of Gibeon, then I'm afraid I cannot produce this
> > kind of demonstration. But there's nothing illogical to accept as an
> > axiom of one's world view a proposition "The Bible alone is the word of
> > God." Neither it is illogical to accept any other proposition for that
> > matter. Question is, can you defend a world view erected on a
> > proposition "There is no truth" or "All knowledge must be verifiable by
> > sensory experience?"
> >
> No. All those axioms are blatantly illogical. The one about the bible is
> not
> clearly true. It may be true to you, as it is to me, but unless it is true
> beyond any reasonable doubt, which it is not, it is an incorrect axiom,
> adn
> all assumptions made upon its foundation are illogical. "There is no
> truth"
> is clearly untrue. Some things are clearly, demonstrably true, eg. the sky
> is
> blue. Other things are not, such as the existence of God. The difference
> between knowledge and belief in my view is the ability to prove
> conclusions.
> I do not know God exists, I believe it. As for "all knowledge is
> verifiable
> by sensory experience," the argumnt can be made. Certainly, sensory
> experience, often witht eh aid of machine adn devices, is the onyl method
> we
> have to produce proof. As knowledge assumes the existence of proof, I
> woudl
> say that the statement is correct.
> > >> As far as proof is concerned, it all depends on what kind of proof
> > >> you're after. Usually, if not always, people demand one kind of proof
> > >> from those who defend Christianity all the while accepting different
> > >> kinds of proofs from everybody else. For example, the accounts of
> > >> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rejected as fantasy all the while
> > >> similar accounts, and much less attested for, can be easily accepted
> in
> > >> a court of law as long as there are no miracles in them. But question
> > >> is, on what basis the miracles are rejected as impossible while the
> > >> possibility of miracles is precisely what is at stake? Can you see a
> > >> problem here?
> > >
> > > There is a problem with the evidence proided in the gospels. Whiel it
> is
> > > evidence:
> > > a) it is secondary (they were all written well after jesus' death)
> > > b) There is absolutely no corroborating evidence.
> >
> > Your a) doesn't diminish the account of those who claimed to witness, or
> > in the case of Luke and Mark, to record a witness' account. The death of
> > the account's subject (Christ in this case) doesn't render the gospels
> > untruthful just like the death of Tolstoy doesn't discount an
> > autobiography of his written after he died. Question is, is the account
> > truthful (both of Christ's life and Tolstoy's)? In the case of the
> > gospels, since they were written shortly after the events took place,
> > plenty of opportunities were available to refute those accounts. Where
> > are these refutations? (please note though, the lack of such refutations
> > doesn't prove the accounts are truthful)
> >
> Interestingly, refutations were made. if you would like to read them, adn
> theya re really quite interesting, you shoudl look at teh apocryphal
> bible.
> The four gospels were only sanctified three hundred years later by Emperor
> Constantine the First. Until then, plenty of different versions of the
> bible,
> and plenty of heresies existed relatively peacefully. Emperor Constantine,
> as
> far as we can see rejected almost all of the written gospels and chose
> only
> four, on no evidentiary basis. You can believe he received divine
> inspiration, or that it was a politically calculated move to properly
> deify
> Christ so as to properly bolster his own divine authority after his recent
> flying of the cross into battle, as some gospels contended that he was not
> the son of God, but in any case, from a historical perspective, it is
> impossible to say which of these accounts, if any, is accurate. Consider
> also, that the Gospels themselves are often mutually contradictory, and
> subtly change th story each time. While the Church I am sure has an
> explanation for this, it is worth considering that there ar emany
> different
> accounts of Christ's life, all of which disagree at least subtly, adn none
> of
> which are demonstrably true.
> > As to your b), you're asking for impossible. Are you expecting the
> > authorities of the day to chronicle the events that took place in Judea
> > during Christ's ministry? Besides, there are 4 different, detailed
> > accounts of what had happened, followed by further testimonies of
> > certain influential Jewish theologian who started off as a menace to
> > Christians and ended up, after an encounter on the road to Damascus, to
> > be the greatest Christian expositor of Jewish scriptures. I'm talking
> > about Paul of course. On what basis all of this should be tossed out as
> > worthless lies? If there's such a basis, the accounts of Moses should be
> > tossed out just as well (which will destroy Christianity just as well as
> > Judaism).
> >
> The accounts of Moses are no more demonstrably true than the New
> testament.
> That does nto make them wrong, but it does mena that we will never no if
> they
> are true in a literal sense. I believe that is nto relevant, but that is
> separate. In fact, some parts of the Old testament are demonstrably false
> if
> interepreted literally, such as the ntire story fo creation. I do not
> believe
> it was intended to be interpretted literally and so I do nto hsave a
> problem
> with this. Nor did I say that the Gospels shoudl be tossed out. I merely
> pointed out that they have no evidentiary basis. As for the issue of
> records,
> many civilisations, including the Romans, kept astonishingly detailed
> records
> of heir activities. If Christ provoked such wide civil unrest as is
> claimes,
> then why is there no record? Again, I do not say this to dispute the truth
> of
> the new testament. I ahve no interest in doign so. I do not believe it is
> true, you do, end of story. I merely say this to demonstrate to you how
> from
> a historical perspective, its veracity could be doubted. I also realist
> that
> the smae arguments coudl be turned against the old testament.
> > > Please note, I am not saying that they are wrong, merely that their
> > > veracity, like that of almost any religious text, cannot be verified.
> >
> > I think I already said enough about verifying. It's a matter of what is
> > and what is not accepted. Ultimately though, all truth claims are
> > accepted on faith, i.e. you either believe a proposition or you don't.
> > Of course so called evidence can and often does play a role but at the
> > end of the day people either believe a proposition or they don't.
> >
> No. They know it is true or they don't, most of the time, and that is
> based on
> evidence. Unfortunately, in modern English, belief is a much misused word.
> > >> I'm not sure what you're referring to by "atrocities".
> > >
> > > crusades, forced conversions, spanish inquisition, 9/11, the middle
> east
> > > conflict, pogroms, religiosu wars between Catholics and Protestants,
> the
> > > list is almost endless.
> >
> > Well OK, murder is forbidden, as far as I know, everywhere on Earth,
> > yet, people still murder one another. Does it mean that the laws
> > forbidding murder are hypocritical? Or is it rather has to do with
> > people who disregard the law?
> It means that those who perpetrate murder to defend the state which
> forbade it
> are hypocrits. A very different concept. The law itself is not at all
> hypocritical, any more than religion is. I have actually already pointed
> this
> out though.
>
> > Nikolai
> Sasha
>
> --
> sounder mailing list
> sounder at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20061207/a411bb8b/attachment-0001.htm