Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
Godly image of myself? I have promoted the scientific method, not my own merits. Address my points if you want a discussion, don't be upset because I favor certain methodology.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
[MEGA] God
- Thread starter goatyoghurt
- Start date
- Status
Godly image of myself? I have promoted the scientific method, not my own merits. Address my points if you want a discussion, don't be upset because I favor certain methodology.
Psychedelic Gleam
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 979
Just reading a little bit of post-modern philosophy would really help you realize the absurdity of the certainty with which you think and argue your point. Unfortunately your perspective is a wee bit dated as far as contemporary philosophy goes...
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
Like I have said already, none of my claims are made with absolute certainty. Some ideas are just much more supported than others. Exactly how is it dated to say idea A seems to be true based on what we know and idea B is completely speculative without a shred of verifiable evidence? If I am not mistaken, that is still how people determine what is likely real or not.
MynameisnotDeja
Bluelight Crew
No, extraordinary claims require FAITH.
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."
Benjamin Franklin
"Faith is spiritualized imagination."
Henry Ward Beecher
"Humanity’s first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt."
Anonymous
MynameisnotDeja
Bluelight Crew
Damn, such a sad, bleak view of the Universe. I'm so glad that's not me.
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
And if you knew someone who could throw someone across the room with their thoughts, you shouldn't have any problem taping it. The fact that you can't produce the evidence tells me that it is simply a lie. Why else wouldn't you want and try to show people something amazing like that?
I mean, I could tell you that I shit pure gold bricks, but I would really hope you wouldn't believe such an extraordinary claim without some kind of proof from me. Then again, you might....
I mean, I could tell you that I shit pure gold bricks, but I would really hope you wouldn't believe such an extraordinary claim without some kind of proof from me. Then again, you might....
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was such a sad, bleak individual 8). Just because people won't accept any idea that is thrown at them doesen't mean they enjoy life any less than you do. On the contrary, I would consider an uninformed and ignorant position to be more sad and bleak.
And I love how you can throw in snide little comments about how I am bleak, sad and you are glad you aren't me but I get chastized for what I say. Sigh.
The Jesus Christ of History
There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century; a few are archaelogical finds. Together they reveal an enormous amount of information.
This is not to say that the New Testament alone is not a trustworthy source of information about Jesus. As a literary document, it provides better material than any other ancient classical writing. The New Testament has far more manuscript portions than other ancient texts, and the copies have proven much closer to the originals in both accuracy and date. In addition, no portions of the New Testament books are missing, while large amounts have been lost from other classical works. (Roman historians have especially suffered: about 75 percent of Livy’s and about 50 percent of Tacitus’s histories have disappeared.)
Still, the skeptics around you might be interested to know that at least 17 ancient written sources, representing a variety of persons and circumstances, confirm and complement biblical accounts of Jesus’ life. Here are some of those sources:
Ancient historians. The Roman historian Tacitus (as well as his contemporary Suetonius) provides significant information about Jesus and his followers. Writing around A.D. 115, Tacitus notes that Christ was killed at the hand of Pontius Pilate while Tiberius was emperor; that Christ’s teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion (Annals 15:44). In addition, a disputed passage by the Jewish historian Josephus tells of Jesus’ virtuous conduct, his choosing of disciples, his crucifixion and death under Pilate, and the disciples’ reported appearances of the risen Jesus three days later (Antiquities 18:3). Yet another historian, Thallus, relates a very early (ca. A.D. 52) report of the crucifixion, attributing the darkness which occurred at Jesus’ death to an eclipse of the sun.
Ancient politicians and social commentators. Roman government officials such as Pliny the Younger and even two Caesars, Trajan and Hadrian, wrote intriguing letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins. Pliny, for example, writing about A.D. 112, describes weekly gatherings of early Christians (of all ages and social classes) who met before dawn, singing and worshipping Christ as Deity, and agreeing not to sin. Pliny, who required Christians be killed unless they denied Christ and worshiped the gods and emperor, asserts that true believers would not recant (Letters X:96).
Other Gentile evaluations of Jesus and the early church were written by Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata and a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. Lucian wrote that Jesus taught the brotherhood of believers to deny other gods and to obey his laws. Christians, we are told, did not fear death because they were persuaded of their immortality: furthermore, they shared material possessions and frequently read from Scripture (The Death of Peregrine 11–13).
Non-Christian religious sources. The Talmud (an authoritative body of Jewish tradition), the Toledoth Jesu and several gnostic writings also offer relevant details about Jesus. One of the most interesting reports from this religious literature is the earliest reference to Jesus in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), which states that Jesus was “hanged” (compare Galatians 3:13 and Luke 23:39) on Passover eve after the Jews were going to stone him for sorcery and for leading Israel astray. The account adds that anyone who wished to defend Jesus could have done so, but no one volunteered.
Archaeological sources. Recent digs have provided key background information. One inscription, for example, indicates that a Judean census occurred during the reign of Emperor Augustus (23 B.C. – A.D. 14), lending credibility to Luke’s story of the Roman taxation which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. Other relevant finds include the skeleton of Yohanan, a first century crucifixion victim, which reveals the basic technique of such capital punishment, and the Nazareth Decree, a stone which gives details of Jewish burial. Both back up details of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial mentioned in the Gospels.
In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century. Noted historians such as Michael Grant and A. N. Sherwin-White explain that, compared to many ancient writings, these dates are quite early and close to the events themselves. Furthermore, these sources do not depend on the New Testament for their data. Numerous facts reported by Pliny, Lucian, the Talmud and others are recorded nowhere in the Gospels.
But, some might ask, “Don’t these ancient sources, unlike the New Testament, teach a non-supernatural Jesus?” Surprisingly, seven relate the belief in the deity of Jesus, and ten either state or imply his resurrection.
Post-New Testament Christian writings. Several non-New Testament Christian writings also relate details concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. Some of these works, such as Clement of Rome’s Corinthians and Ignatius’s seven epistles, are early (A.D. 95 – 115); significantly, these writers were close to apostolic sources.
From all of these non-Christian, archaeological and Christian sources (as well as oral traditions later recorded in the New Testament), we can glean well over 100 different details concerning the life, teachings, death and even the resurrection of Jesus. Almost every major facet of his ministry reported in the Gospels is recorded. The claim that we cannot know the historical Jesus is not true. Jesus’ life is one of the most substantiated in ancient history.
The question isnt did Jesus actually live, cause its been documented throughout history, even by Non-Christians on hundreds of occasions, so its clear that Jesus did live.
The question is, is he the son of God? If you can explain the many miracles he did, unless he was the David Coperfield of that time which I doubt that, if you beleive that you explain his death on the cross and ressurection. Id say he is the son of God..
THis is my opinion
There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century; a few are archaelogical finds. Together they reveal an enormous amount of information.
This is not to say that the New Testament alone is not a trustworthy source of information about Jesus. As a literary document, it provides better material than any other ancient classical writing. The New Testament has far more manuscript portions than other ancient texts, and the copies have proven much closer to the originals in both accuracy and date. In addition, no portions of the New Testament books are missing, while large amounts have been lost from other classical works. (Roman historians have especially suffered: about 75 percent of Livy’s and about 50 percent of Tacitus’s histories have disappeared.)
Still, the skeptics around you might be interested to know that at least 17 ancient written sources, representing a variety of persons and circumstances, confirm and complement biblical accounts of Jesus’ life. Here are some of those sources:
Ancient historians. The Roman historian Tacitus (as well as his contemporary Suetonius) provides significant information about Jesus and his followers. Writing around A.D. 115, Tacitus notes that Christ was killed at the hand of Pontius Pilate while Tiberius was emperor; that Christ’s teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion (Annals 15:44). In addition, a disputed passage by the Jewish historian Josephus tells of Jesus’ virtuous conduct, his choosing of disciples, his crucifixion and death under Pilate, and the disciples’ reported appearances of the risen Jesus three days later (Antiquities 18:3). Yet another historian, Thallus, relates a very early (ca. A.D. 52) report of the crucifixion, attributing the darkness which occurred at Jesus’ death to an eclipse of the sun.
Ancient politicians and social commentators. Roman government officials such as Pliny the Younger and even two Caesars, Trajan and Hadrian, wrote intriguing letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins. Pliny, for example, writing about A.D. 112, describes weekly gatherings of early Christians (of all ages and social classes) who met before dawn, singing and worshipping Christ as Deity, and agreeing not to sin. Pliny, who required Christians be killed unless they denied Christ and worshiped the gods and emperor, asserts that true believers would not recant (Letters X:96).
Other Gentile evaluations of Jesus and the early church were written by Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata and a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. Lucian wrote that Jesus taught the brotherhood of believers to deny other gods and to obey his laws. Christians, we are told, did not fear death because they were persuaded of their immortality: furthermore, they shared material possessions and frequently read from Scripture (The Death of Peregrine 11–13).
Non-Christian religious sources. The Talmud (an authoritative body of Jewish tradition), the Toledoth Jesu and several gnostic writings also offer relevant details about Jesus. One of the most interesting reports from this religious literature is the earliest reference to Jesus in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), which states that Jesus was “hanged” (compare Galatians 3:13 and Luke 23:39) on Passover eve after the Jews were going to stone him for sorcery and for leading Israel astray. The account adds that anyone who wished to defend Jesus could have done so, but no one volunteered.
Archaeological sources. Recent digs have provided key background information. One inscription, for example, indicates that a Judean census occurred during the reign of Emperor Augustus (23 B.C. – A.D. 14), lending credibility to Luke’s story of the Roman taxation which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. Other relevant finds include the skeleton of Yohanan, a first century crucifixion victim, which reveals the basic technique of such capital punishment, and the Nazareth Decree, a stone which gives details of Jewish burial. Both back up details of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial mentioned in the Gospels.
In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century. Noted historians such as Michael Grant and A. N. Sherwin-White explain that, compared to many ancient writings, these dates are quite early and close to the events themselves. Furthermore, these sources do not depend on the New Testament for their data. Numerous facts reported by Pliny, Lucian, the Talmud and others are recorded nowhere in the Gospels.
But, some might ask, “Don’t these ancient sources, unlike the New Testament, teach a non-supernatural Jesus?” Surprisingly, seven relate the belief in the deity of Jesus, and ten either state or imply his resurrection.
Post-New Testament Christian writings. Several non-New Testament Christian writings also relate details concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. Some of these works, such as Clement of Rome’s Corinthians and Ignatius’s seven epistles, are early (A.D. 95 – 115); significantly, these writers were close to apostolic sources.
From all of these non-Christian, archaeological and Christian sources (as well as oral traditions later recorded in the New Testament), we can glean well over 100 different details concerning the life, teachings, death and even the resurrection of Jesus. Almost every major facet of his ministry reported in the Gospels is recorded. The claim that we cannot know the historical Jesus is not true. Jesus’ life is one of the most substantiated in ancient history.
The question isnt did Jesus actually live, cause its been documented throughout history, even by Non-Christians on hundreds of occasions, so its clear that Jesus did live.
The question is, is he the son of God? If you can explain the many miracles he did, unless he was the David Coperfield of that time which I doubt that, if you beleive that you explain his death on the cross and ressurection. Id say he is the son of God..
THis is my opinion
MynameisnotDeja
Bluelight Crew
I wasn't referring to him. I was referring to the idea that there is something wrong with the concept of faith. Faith is what guides my life, it's everything to me. I am far from sad and bleak, my life is beautiful, I get absolutely everything I want in every way, I am blessed beyond words, but thanks for your concern. If you say you are happy, I'm happy for you. I don't mean to be mean, but you really come across like a condescending ass and if I came across with an attitude, that is why. I apologize, and like I said, good luck.
Everyone deserves respect. To not "dole it out" equally is stupid as it just highlights your own biases and prejudices.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
SececaRD said:
Please cite what you quote:
http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul/item/was-jesus-real
ebola
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
Benjamin Franlkin and Thomas Jefferson had a very big bone to pick with faith, so by implication you think they are bleak and sad. In fact, many great minds have considered faith a very weak cop out for an unintelligent idea. It has nothing to do with sadness/bleakness and everything to do with a system of rational beliefs.
Is this the first time your beliefs have been challenged? I mean, do you ever actually approach MD's or PhD's and make the same assertions you make here? Scrutinizing ideas is a healthy and normal part of developing ideas. That is how good ideas get advanced.
I am not even going to respond with an ad hominem in kind with yours. I would just like to comment that it is pretty funny everyone was on my ass about personal attacks but its perfectly OK for you to use them.
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
Everyone may deserve respect, but not every theory. If you actually read what I wrote I said that every theory does not deserve equal respect.
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
I have been just as disrespected as anyone else. Still, I won't apologize for being brutally candid about subjects. I will try to refrain from language that attacks the person instead of the ideas.
Psychedelic Gleam
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 979
Perhaps its the immense condescension with which you speak. Frankly you seem to have brought a great deal of emotion into this "debate" as you began to fling insults. I've reached the point where I no longer find the need to attack other's beliefs (though I find most to be utter nonsense) as I realize that these efforts to convert one another cause nothing but conflict/anger, thus I try to understand to the fullest where exactly everyone is coming from as that is FAR more interesting and worthwhile than attacking people as well as various beliefs and putting them on the defensive and shutting down full expression of experience/belief.
ThaiDie4
Bluelighter
Enlitx, let me ask you a question if you don't mind, not to fuel any sort of argument or anything, but rather to get a sense of your beliefs.
It's obvious that you rely heavily on scientific explanations of things... I do too, to an extent, although I am certainly not that advanced in science. I am a psychology major and I found cognitive psychology to be intresting, because we learned all about logical fallcies and the misuse of ancedotal stories to act as proof of something.
However, I also realise that everyone percieves things differently, and in many cases, the "reality" that one expierences is the only reality that really matters to them. I don't mean that to sound like "People who believe in God\Allah\etc. are crazy and just have wild imaginations"... that's not what I think. But I am fully aware that two people can look at the same event and have very different perceptions of it... so where is the the truth?
In physical matters, there is only one truth. For example, gravity pulls you to the earth... that is true (as far as we know it) and no matter what a person believes, they will hit the ground hard if they jump from a 3 story building. But in matters of spirituality, is it possible for their to be multiple truths?? Do you think that spirtuality is simply a matter of perception, and those who percieve a "God" live their lives by that God and those who don't, simply don't?
Now the matter of life after death, heaven or hell, and all that is different than what I'm discussing ^ Just to be clear. I'm talking about the mental state of relgion\spirtuality, not about any sort of physical manifestations of it.
*EDIT*
After re-reading this, I think I can explain my thoughts\question in a better way:
Ok, so the way I see it there are two realities... there is the "real" reality, what is actually out there, and then there is the subjective reality, the way in which we percieve it.
Again, which the example of gravity, this is something that is pretty much reality for everyone... you would be hard pressed to find a person who truely believed that the law of gravity does not exist. We can see it with our own eyes, and the general consensus across the population is that gravity exists.
Matters of spirtuality and religion I think are more subjective... people interpret events and expierences differently, and everyone has a unique idea of what religion is (if they believe it at all), and you cannot really prove or disprove it.
My question is, do you think its possible to follow life in a very scientific way, yet still be religious\spirtual?? Do you think that spirtuality is just a person's personal expierences and how they choose to interpret those, and therefore you can put stock in the laws of science yet believe in religion? Sometimes I think that God can exist to people, not necessarily in a physical state but rather in a mental state... because if I firmly believe in God, then that is real to me. It is not a universal view, but because its real to me, it is "real". < I say "I" in a hypothetical sense, as previously stated I am personally not religious.
gahhh i feel like no matter how much this makes sense in my head, I sound like im contridicting myself in certain areas when its written. I'd appriciate your opnion on this if you understand what I am getting at!
It's obvious that you rely heavily on scientific explanations of things... I do too, to an extent, although I am certainly not that advanced in science. I am a psychology major and I found cognitive psychology to be intresting, because we learned all about logical fallcies and the misuse of ancedotal stories to act as proof of something.
However, I also realise that everyone percieves things differently, and in many cases, the "reality" that one expierences is the only reality that really matters to them. I don't mean that to sound like "People who believe in God\Allah\etc. are crazy and just have wild imaginations"... that's not what I think. But I am fully aware that two people can look at the same event and have very different perceptions of it... so where is the the truth?
In physical matters, there is only one truth. For example, gravity pulls you to the earth... that is true (as far as we know it) and no matter what a person believes, they will hit the ground hard if they jump from a 3 story building. But in matters of spirituality, is it possible for their to be multiple truths?? Do you think that spirtuality is simply a matter of perception, and those who percieve a "God" live their lives by that God and those who don't, simply don't?
Now the matter of life after death, heaven or hell, and all that is different than what I'm discussing ^ Just to be clear. I'm talking about the mental state of relgion\spirtuality, not about any sort of physical manifestations of it.
*EDIT*
After re-reading this, I think I can explain my thoughts\question in a better way:
Ok, so the way I see it there are two realities... there is the "real" reality, what is actually out there, and then there is the subjective reality, the way in which we percieve it.
Again, which the example of gravity, this is something that is pretty much reality for everyone... you would be hard pressed to find a person who truely believed that the law of gravity does not exist. We can see it with our own eyes, and the general consensus across the population is that gravity exists.
Matters of spirtuality and religion I think are more subjective... people interpret events and expierences differently, and everyone has a unique idea of what religion is (if they believe it at all), and you cannot really prove or disprove it.
My question is, do you think its possible to follow life in a very scientific way, yet still be religious\spirtual?? Do you think that spirtuality is just a person's personal expierences and how they choose to interpret those, and therefore you can put stock in the laws of science yet believe in religion? Sometimes I think that God can exist to people, not necessarily in a physical state but rather in a mental state... because if I firmly believe in God, then that is real to me. It is not a universal view, but because its real to me, it is "real". < I say "I" in a hypothetical sense, as previously stated I am personally not religious.
gahhh i feel like no matter how much this makes sense in my head, I sound like im contridicting myself in certain areas when its written. I'd appriciate your opnion on this if you understand what I am getting at!
Last edited:
MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,549
Agreed with all but the part in parentheses.
Enlitx, please understand that for many people, having a worldview based on solid and irrefutable logic isn't the goal; having a worldview that renders life purposeful and full of connectedness is. You can personally choose not to agree with or relate to this. But you can't make others value and prioritize as you do, and I'm hard pressed to see the point in trying.
That's the great thing about metaphysics -- it's truly a mystery to all of us, because it's by definition beyond the physical and observable. What's really 'out there' or 'behind all this' is really anyone's guess. Getting territorial about one's metaphysics is kind of like two little kids bickering about whose future car is better.
Yeah sure, I admit that it's quite possible that what we scientifically observe is literally all there is, and that our attempts to conclude otherwise amount to no more than wishful thinking and self-delusion. But since this isn't ultimately provable, I see nothing obligating me or anyone else to conclude this. (If it's true and I don't believe it, is No-God going do damn me to Nonexistent-Hell?) So I've chosen to keep my mind open to other possibilities, if only for the reason that they're more fun, exciting, and appealing. This doesn't mean I reject well-founded science for solving perfectly physical, practical problems in my day to day life. I just feel no obligation to extend this approach to metaphysics.
Psychedelic Gleam
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 979
Funny how the lunatic fantasies of science fiction authors often turn out to be visionary works with deep insight into the progression/evolution of humankind. Perhaps metaphysical visions are visions of the true evolutionary potential of man. I often imagine/feel that to a certain degree the technological evolution of our species is heading towards (has already) acted as a fulfillment of the metaphysical dreams of thousands of years.
Science IS NOT THERE to inspire, to provide "meaning", to add depth, or purpose to individuals lives. Rather science is yet another tool of human consciousness, it exists in our head not outside, just like any other cognitive tool. I feel that there is this mistake made by many individuals to assume that objective reality has primacy over the individual lived subjective experience. Many assume that those with inclinations towards the metaphysical are ignorant and disinterested in what science has to say, which is absolutely false, and frankly I experience little dissonance between my metaphysical beliefs and scientific rationalistic adherence towards practical matters.
My comment about utter nonsense is more in regards to the true lack of clarity or interaction most people have with their spirituality, how it is ascribed and their is any lack of depth to their beliefs, lots of buzz words but once you cut through those most individuals have no clue what they are talking about.
- Status