Spirituality
25 Apr 19
29 Apr 19
@kellyjay saidI've not been following that thread, so had not seen the link or the video to which you refer.
Page 1 is the Bible trust worthy, I thought I shared that earlier but either way if you watch her I think you will get something out of it. One way or another. 😉
29 Apr 19
@moonbus saidDid KJ say that Abraham doubted it was God that appeared to him? If so, KJ would be in error.
I think KJ failed to read my supposition, that he would not doubt that it was really God who appeared to him and told him something incredible.
I think that if and when God 'appears' to someone there would be no room for doubt. 2 Chronicles 20:7 says that God was Abraham's friend. Amazes me that God considers himself a friend of a mere man.
Anyway, I'm not trying to make an argument.
29 Apr 19
@moonbus saidWhat does that text say.
I suppose Abraham had a moment of doubt when what appeared to him to be God told him to slit his son's throat. Nonetheless, he overcame his doubt and submitted to what must have seemed to him to be an abomination, and he took his son out fully intending to slit his throat. And now you're saying you would not accept God appearing to you? You would reject an epiphany in preference to what?
29 Apr 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt was not asked about your analogy it was asked if you were told truth and you rejected it saying you knew better. Would you now own your position, and then could be held accountable for your stand, righteously?
I genuinely do not understand that sentence or how it addresses my dark room analogy.
29 Apr 19
@kellyjay saidLet me try again to pose the question which the OP addresses.
What does that text say.
Suppose, imagine, hypothetically, what if ... got that? ... God appeared to you and you did not doubt it was really truly God, the same God who appeared to Abraham ... got that ? ... NO DOUBT ... and God said "There's no hell, no lake of fire, no eternal torture, even for atheists." Got that? God Himself, not a hallucination or a pretend-demon in disguise, tells you in plain language, or direct thought transfer or however you want to imagine it, that God so loves mankind that he's forgiven even atheists, there are no bad consequences even for atheists. Hypothetically. Just imagine, ok.
Now, can you give me any reason to believe all the things you believe? Can you give me a compelling reason to accept your religion?
@moonbus saidI really hate to horn in on your debate with KJ, but I'm compelled to address your questions.
Let me try again to pose the question which the OP addresses.
Suppose, imagine, hypothetically, what if ... got that? ... God appeared to you and you did not doubt it was really truly God, the same God who appeared to Abraham ... got that ? ... NO DOUBT ... and God said "There's no hell, no lake of fire, no eternal torture, even for atheists." Got that? God Himself, not a ...[text shortened]... to believe all the things you believe? Can you give me a compelling reason to accept your religion?
God has appeared. In the person of Jesus Christ, and he said hell is real. I know you question the text, but just maybe you should heed your own doubts and consider what Jesus said when he said that not one of his words will pass away until they're all fulfilled.
Jesus rose from the dead. That should be a compelling reason enough to accept the faith. Unless, of course, you have no doubt that Jesus was lying.
29 Apr 19
@secondson saidI am trying to address the OP, not the Biblical story in particular, and to ascertain whether there are compelling reasons to believe something which is radically against reason and experience, other than fear of punishment for not believing. Christianity presents itself as one example; the OP postulated Sasquatch as another example. Sasquatch is maybe not a very serious example, I grant; it could just as well have been Zeus or Quetztlquoatl or space aliens -- the question is still worth asking, what has a religion got to offer beyond relief from fear of punishment?
I really hate to horn in on your debate with KJ, but I'm compelled to address your questions.
God has appeared. In the person of Jesus Christ, and he said hell is real. I know you question the text, but just maybe you should heed your own doubts and consider what Jesus said when he said that not one of his words will pass away until they're all fulfilled.
Jesus rose f ...[text shortened]... elling reason enough to accept the faith. Unless, of course, you have no doubt that Jesus was lying.
In answer to your question, do I think Jesus was lying? No, I think a lot of supernatural hooey was superimposed upon a possibly real historical figure, posthumously. I think there was probably a Greek military expedition to Troy, too, and a lot of supernatural hooey was added later about gods and goddesses. For dramatic effect, in both cases, and to lend the stories a weight and poignancy they would not otherwise have evoked.
Improbable, you say, that people could have been duped for the last 2,000 years by 'fake news'? Less improbable than that a man rose from the dead.
@moonbus saidA claim that has strong historical backing. Unlike today keeping control of the copies of the gospel and attempting to alter them would have been impossible. They were spread to far and wide in different languages to have changes made in one place and not another, and not get noticed.
I am trying to address the OP, not the Biblical story in particular, and to ascertain whether there are compelling reasons to believe something which is radically against reason and experience, other than fear of punishment for not believing. Christianity presents itself as one example; the OP postulated Sasquatch as another example. Sasquatch is maybe not a very serious exam ...[text shortened]... duped for the last 2,000 years by 'fake news'? Less improbable than that a man rose from the dead.
@kellyjay saidYou realize that for someone not already disposed to believe that God or gods exist and had anything to say to man, the Bible (even in its original unaltered form) is not evidence for such things or proof of the truth of any supernatural claims; no more so than the Bhagavad Gita is evidence for (or proof of) the existence of a real Arjuna and a real Krishna, or the Book of Mormon for the existence of real golden tablets allegedly found by Joseph Smith under a rock in NY or the existence of the angel Moroni who allegedly taught Smith to translate an unknown language into English. Such works are evidence not of what happened, but of what various prophets wanted people to believe.
A claim that has strong historical backing. Unlike today keeping control of the copies of the gospel and attempting to alter them would have been impossible. They were spread to far and wide in different languages to have changes made in one place and not another, and not get noticed.
@moonbus saidThe construction of the cult of personality centred on a mythologized version of a Mithras-like "Jesus" appears to have started about 20 years after he was executed and further fiddled-with during the subsequent centuries during which competing/dissenting strands and sects were overrun or eliminated. There is pretty strong evidence that Paul ~ who never met "Jesus" and yet wrote over a quarter of the NT ~ was working in service of the Romans' anti-Jewish agenda.
In answer to your question, do I think Jesus was lying? No, I think a lot of supernatural hooey was superimposed upon a possibly real historical figure, posthumously.
30 Apr 19
2 edits
@fmf saidWell, that certainly opens a can of worms.
The construction of the cult of personality centred on a mythologized version of a Mithras-like "Jesus" appears to have started about 20 years after he was executed and further fiddled-with during the subsequent centuries during which competing/dissenting strands and sects were overrun or eliminated. There is pretty strong evidence that Paul ~ who never met "Jesus" and yet wrote over a quarter of the NT ~ was working in service of the Romans' anti-Jewish agenda.
If I could have been a fly on the wall at any point in history, I'd have wanted to be present at the Council of Nicea when the Roman bishops decided which scrolls to canonize and which to eliminate. They had an obvious political motive for favouring gospels which said, allegedly from God Incarnate Himself, 'upon this rock I will build my church' -- referring to Peter, who founded the church at Rome. Constantine had just declared Christianity the state religion, after centuries of persecution, so the bishops were keen to consolidate their newly-won status as spiritual regents to the most powerful man on Earth. No mystery there, why they would have favoured any gospel which confirmed their authority. That was the moment when a certain group of people got control of the narrative.
Personally, I find the gospel of Thomas most edifying (reprinted with trans. and commentary in the Nag Hamadi Library). It begins 'those who understand the meaning of Jesus's teaching have already attained the Kingdom of God.' Get it? Understanding the teaching is all you need; there is no supernaturalism, no virgin birth, no resurrection, no miracles, no life after death, no lake of fire waiting for unbelievers. Just understand the teaching ('love God and love thy neighbour as thyself' ), and you have attained the blessed state, here, now. No mystery why the bishops suppressed that gospel: it would have rendered the authority of the church at Rome null and void. What a happy piece of luck that some traces of early alternative Christianies survived.
30 Apr 19
@moonbus saidDid you watch the lecture? The text and your argument here are all addressed. I can attempt to answer you, but it will not be as well as she covers it. She makes a strong presentation on the validity of the text and afterwards, says that only does one thing validates the text not the context.
You realize that for someone not already disposed to believe that God or gods exist and had anything to say to man, the Bible (even in its original unaltered form) is not evidence for such things or proof of the truth of any supernatural claims; no more so than the Bhagavad Gita is evidence for (or proof of) the existence of a real Arjuna and a real Krishna, or the Book of Mo ...[text shortened]... evidence not of what happened, but of what various prophets wanted people to believe.
The other people and text you point out I would suggest you compare them with the same type of scrutiny as you the Bible. Were the writings as historically accurate then look at the context with respect to the times, culture, people, and all other tests you can apply. I've not looked into Joseph Smith's writings, but didn't they just come to Joseph Smith, and the tablets he claimed were the cause for his text where never seen by anyone else? Compared to scripture I'd say his writings have a lot to be desired.
I was most impressed with the explanation for miracles in the lecture. She quoted C.S. Lewis, paraphrasing him, if you added 10 dollars to you drawer one night, and 10 dollars to it the next night, and when you go get it its gone. Would you assume the laws of arithmetic were broken or the laws of Texas (where I am)? The universe is setup for us to be able to see what it is we except and when something not normal occurs it is supposed to be a shock to us. Those are the time God tweaks things to get our attention.
30 Apr 19
@moonbus saidI'd say you really need to look into why the books were chosen and not, people who did it were concern with the text being valid not control. If Thomas is edifying to you because it dismisses things you don't like, than I would think you are more concern about you than the text.
Well, that certainly opens a can of worms.
If I could have been a fly on the wall at any point in history, I'd have wanted to be present at the Council of Nicea when the Roman bishops decided which scrolls to canonize and which to eliminate. They had an obvious political motive for favouring gospels which said, allegedly from God Incarnate Himself, 'upon this rock I will b ...[text shortened]... ll and void. What a happy piece of luck that some traces of early alternative Christianies survived.