Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "There is little to no chance that Jesus was a real human being, knowing that alone. "Your thoughts on Thallus and Josephus and their writings on...?"
The authenticity of Josephus' writings on Jesus are disputed quite heavily, and the consensus is that they are only partially authentic at most. In addition, there are few to no cross references in Josephus' other works, which does draw a bit of suspicion. Also, the name Jesus was a rather common name at the time of the new testament, so it wouldn't be surprising for a Jesus to be executed by Pontius Pilate.
As for Thallus, it is far more likely that Africanus met Phlegon; Eusebius quoted Thallus verbatim, which would reveal that Thallus did not mention Jesus at all; or that Thallus wrote about Jesus after the Gospels were written in the 2nd century; than it is for Thallus to have been the earliest witness to the crucifiction. There is evidence to support the first three, but none to support that Thallus was the earliest witness to anything the gospels reference.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: I, personally, don't think non-believers believe.."
I think they do, but......
....it is like being Colour blind; there is an inability or decreased ability to see colour. In the ..."
So you've lost your 'Santa Spot'?
cHriS wrote: "But since you know for sure that the FSM does not exist and so is not a belief but more a parody, the word Atheist does not apply when giving a name to someone who does not believe in a FSM. "You really seem to have an issue with the FSM....I have seen as much evidence for the FSM as I have for the christian deity, so they are equivalent. The only difference is the FSM is a more recent invention.
cHriS wrote: ".... you will be telling me next that there are no such things as angels."There is no evidence for them, so in the same way there is no good reason to believe in faeries, there is no good reason to believe in angels.
Shannon wrote: "Maybe most people live lives in which things are black and white and explained and scientifically proven or else they don't exist."I can understand why the stories you give are important and relevant to you, and how they lead to your position, but I expect you understand why they are also not seen as convincing to others of something supernatural? I am not saying you have not had those experiences, I am saying that by their very nature they are convincing only to you.
As for the " things are [...] explained and scientifically proven or else they don't exist." I would disagree and say things are either scientifically proven, or they aren't. Not that they don't exist. If something is not scientifically proven it could still be proven at a later time.
cHriS wrote: ".... and Jesus did exist. "So did Mohammed. Neither of which proves that they did what is claimed of them, or they were who they are claimed to be.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: We invented god .."...so he really does exist."
As real as every other fictional character we invented.
cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote:So sounds very chicken-or-the-egg circular argument to me".... are you suggesting that science hasn't sorted the chicken and egg thing yet.
.... and Jesus did exist."
As much as King Arthur did.
Mary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: We invented god .."...so he really does exist."
Yes, in the same way Harry Potter exists. I mean I can find a picture of Harry Potter, I can find books about him, I c..."
"Don't you know, Harry? You're a jesus allegory!'
Heather wrote: "The authenticity of Josephus' writings on Jesus are disputed quite heavily, and the consensus is that they are only partially authentic at most. In addition, there are few to no cross references in Josephus' other works, which does draw a bit of suspicion. Also, the name Jesus was a rather common name at the time of the new testament, so it wouldn't be surprising for a Jesus to be executed by Pontius Pilate.
As for Thallus, it is far more likely that Africanus met Phlegon; Eusebius quoted Thallus verbatim, which would reveal that Thallus did not mention Jesus at all; or that Thallus wrote about Jesus after the Gospels were written in the 2nd century; than it is for Thallus to have been the earliest witness to the crucifiction. There is evidence to support the first three, but none to support that Thallus was the earliest witness to anything the gospels reference. "
I've heard Thallus and Josephus mentioned Jesus but hadn't researched either.
Regarding Thallus and the information you mention regarding Africanus, Phlegon, etc.... That's from Wiki and a Richard Carrier piece. I just read the Carrier piece.
http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...
I'm somewhat put off by his use of the word "zombies" in the opening. I remember writing my thesis and being counseled to let the facts speak for themselves, in order to be taken seriously. But, .... Who knows? Maybe he's credible despite that and his obvious bias at the outset.
Yes, I was aware that Josephus, in many things, is found to be only partially authentic. Take his information on Masada, for example. Partially is something, though, in my mind ... especially given the challenges of time and not just with regard to this topic but other things from history.
Sadly, I just attempted to do an advanced Google search and was more than a bit disappointed. Granted, I didn't spend a ton of time and might at a later date. What did I find? Articles by religious scholars and professors at religious colleges. I question those. Horse in the race. And, articles by Atheists and Atheist organizations. Again, horses and races. Would so be lovely to find research that's unbiased.
Not sure about any of it. Thallus? I need to find someone who doesn't refer to "zombies" and someone who isn't affiliated with a religious institution to feel truly confident with the information. Will I ever? Same with Josephus.
Do find myself wondering....
Do these problems exist ... missing books, authors noting other authors, questions regarding dates and who might have added to which author's text, etc... with most of the writings of ancient history, or is it just an issue with the sources that mention Jesus?
If it's an issue with both, maybe many of the "famous" folk of history never existed, though I find that somewhat hard to fathom. Of course, history is definitely a tricky thing.
As for Thallus, it is far more likely that Africanus met Phlegon; Eusebius quoted Thallus verbatim, which would reveal that Thallus did not mention Jesus at all; or that Thallus wrote about Jesus after the Gospels were written in the 2nd century; than it is for Thallus to have been the earliest witness to the crucifiction. There is evidence to support the first three, but none to support that Thallus was the earliest witness to anything the gospels reference. "
I've heard Thallus and Josephus mentioned Jesus but hadn't researched either.
Regarding Thallus and the information you mention regarding Africanus, Phlegon, etc.... That's from Wiki and a Richard Carrier piece. I just read the Carrier piece.
http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...
I'm somewhat put off by his use of the word "zombies" in the opening. I remember writing my thesis and being counseled to let the facts speak for themselves, in order to be taken seriously. But, .... Who knows? Maybe he's credible despite that and his obvious bias at the outset.
Yes, I was aware that Josephus, in many things, is found to be only partially authentic. Take his information on Masada, for example. Partially is something, though, in my mind ... especially given the challenges of time and not just with regard to this topic but other things from history.
Sadly, I just attempted to do an advanced Google search and was more than a bit disappointed. Granted, I didn't spend a ton of time and might at a later date. What did I find? Articles by religious scholars and professors at religious colleges. I question those. Horse in the race. And, articles by Atheists and Atheist organizations. Again, horses and races. Would so be lovely to find research that's unbiased.
Not sure about any of it. Thallus? I need to find someone who doesn't refer to "zombies" and someone who isn't affiliated with a religious institution to feel truly confident with the information. Will I ever? Same with Josephus.
Do find myself wondering....
Do these problems exist ... missing books, authors noting other authors, questions regarding dates and who might have added to which author's text, etc... with most of the writings of ancient history, or is it just an issue with the sources that mention Jesus?
If it's an issue with both, maybe many of the "famous" folk of history never existed, though I find that somewhat hard to fathom. Of course, history is definitely a tricky thing.
I'm still weeding my way through this thread but I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the comments here. I'm a cultural anthropologist and I love seeing people discuss religion.
cerebus wrote: "I expect you understand why they are also not seen as convincing to others of something supernatural? I am not saying you have not had those experiences, I am saying that by their very nature they are convincing only to you."
Mmmm.... Convincing to me and most of the people who know me. For example, a couple years ago, one of my great-aunts wasn't feeling well and went to the hospital. They admitted her and started doing tests. My mother called and told me. I told her ... she's dead already. She's filled with it. Filled with cancer. My mother said my aunt wanted me to go up and see her that night. I wouldn't. I knew I couldn't hide what I felt I knew. My mother walked in the room and my aunt said, "Where's Shannon? I knew I'd know when Shannon looked at me. The doctors said they'll know tomorrow, but I wanted to know tonight. I knew she'd know." Of course, my not being there was a clue to some. (By the way, I wasn't 100% certain and always wonder and never want to do something or say something that might lead people in a certain direction. What if, for example, I felt someone was fine and they didn't seek medical help, etc...) The next day, the doctors told her she had a mass of cancer which encompassed part of her liver, spleen and something else. She died a couple weeks later.
Here's the thing, and I think it's important.
I didn't share what I did, knowing I might be handily ridiculed or not, in order to make some claim for religion or to convince people of the supernatural. I really didn't.
I shared for two reasons.
First, many non-believers here claim to honestly be curious as to why people believe. Is that true? Non-believers who claim to honestly be curious?
Well, this is one of the reasons I believe. I know I experience something that can't be proven, scientifically. I have not one clue what it might be. Where does it come from? Etc.... I really and truly don't know if it has something to do with all things spiritual or something else. Hey, I remember seeing a program on PBS years and years ago. They were doing some special photography or X-ray that showed a silver looking light around living things. I remember they did a leaf. Then, they cut the leaf in half and it had the full shimmer for a bit and were trying to connect it, somehow, to amputees and the phantom pain, etc.... It wasn't something funky, like colors of auras. It had to do with energy and the energy that surrounds human things. It was up-and-up science. I remember thinking, maybe that's it ... in part. Maybe I somehow pick up on energy that is too much or too little. In part, meaning, when I feel things when I'm actually near someone vs. picking up on it from states away. Maybe energy output is different with people who are sick or angry or .... So, seriously, I don't know.
Second, it was to put forward the idea that people don't have all the answers. People, often, speak and write as if their word is the only word and the answer. Well, I wonder .... I've no desire for you or Shanna or Mary to say, "Whoa, I now believe in God." Actually, that would rather make me feel I needed to bathe. I'd feel horrid, in truth, if people who felt so strongly about something were convinced that there was a God based on my above stories, especially since I don't know the impetus. That would be wrong on so many levels. What I would like, though maybe won't ever see, is people dialing down all of the ... it is or it isn't ... type statements. Ultimately, on some things, we don't have a flipping clue. I include my experience in that. And, ... if I'm living proof that something exists that hasn't been proven to exist via science, I'm guessing other things MIGHT also exist.
That's all.
Mmmm.... Convincing to me and most of the people who know me. For example, a couple years ago, one of my great-aunts wasn't feeling well and went to the hospital. They admitted her and started doing tests. My mother called and told me. I told her ... she's dead already. She's filled with it. Filled with cancer. My mother said my aunt wanted me to go up and see her that night. I wouldn't. I knew I couldn't hide what I felt I knew. My mother walked in the room and my aunt said, "Where's Shannon? I knew I'd know when Shannon looked at me. The doctors said they'll know tomorrow, but I wanted to know tonight. I knew she'd know." Of course, my not being there was a clue to some. (By the way, I wasn't 100% certain and always wonder and never want to do something or say something that might lead people in a certain direction. What if, for example, I felt someone was fine and they didn't seek medical help, etc...) The next day, the doctors told her she had a mass of cancer which encompassed part of her liver, spleen and something else. She died a couple weeks later.
Here's the thing, and I think it's important.
I didn't share what I did, knowing I might be handily ridiculed or not, in order to make some claim for religion or to convince people of the supernatural. I really didn't.
I shared for two reasons.
First, many non-believers here claim to honestly be curious as to why people believe. Is that true? Non-believers who claim to honestly be curious?
Well, this is one of the reasons I believe. I know I experience something that can't be proven, scientifically. I have not one clue what it might be. Where does it come from? Etc.... I really and truly don't know if it has something to do with all things spiritual or something else. Hey, I remember seeing a program on PBS years and years ago. They were doing some special photography or X-ray that showed a silver looking light around living things. I remember they did a leaf. Then, they cut the leaf in half and it had the full shimmer for a bit and were trying to connect it, somehow, to amputees and the phantom pain, etc.... It wasn't something funky, like colors of auras. It had to do with energy and the energy that surrounds human things. It was up-and-up science. I remember thinking, maybe that's it ... in part. Maybe I somehow pick up on energy that is too much or too little. In part, meaning, when I feel things when I'm actually near someone vs. picking up on it from states away. Maybe energy output is different with people who are sick or angry or .... So, seriously, I don't know.
Second, it was to put forward the idea that people don't have all the answers. People, often, speak and write as if their word is the only word and the answer. Well, I wonder .... I've no desire for you or Shanna or Mary to say, "Whoa, I now believe in God." Actually, that would rather make me feel I needed to bathe. I'd feel horrid, in truth, if people who felt so strongly about something were convinced that there was a God based on my above stories, especially since I don't know the impetus. That would be wrong on so many levels. What I would like, though maybe won't ever see, is people dialing down all of the ... it is or it isn't ... type statements. Ultimately, on some things, we don't have a flipping clue. I include my experience in that. And, ... if I'm living proof that something exists that hasn't been proven to exist via science, I'm guessing other things MIGHT also exist.
That's all.
cerebus wrote: "Not that they don't exist. If something is not scientifically proven it could still be proven at a later time."
I've seen several people make the argument that if something hasn't been proven, it doesn't exist. Hence my words. Glad to hear you're not in that camp. I'd say the above is a more responsible stance.
I've seen several people make the argument that if something hasn't been proven, it doesn't exist. Hence my words. Glad to hear you're not in that camp. I'd say the above is a more responsible stance.
Leslie wrote: "I'm still weeding my way through this thread but I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the comments here. I'm a cultural anthropologist and I love seeing people discuss religion."That's really cool. I'm looking at specializing in archaeology for my Bachelor's degree; once I go to grad school I'd like to specialize in historical archaeology with an emphasis on restoration techniques. Glad to see someone else in the anthropology field reading and (perhaps eventually) contributing.
Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "I expect you understand why they are also not seen as convincing to others of something supernatural? I am not saying you have not had those experiences, I am saying that by their v..."Ok, fair point, it is possible that your experiences are evidence for some, it was a generalisation too far to say otherwise....What I should say, and again I mean it with no disrespect, that I assume you can see why some would not see it as sufficient evidence (but at the same time I am not assuming you thought it was or would be).
Better yet, which would you rather have exist cashews or orange juice? China or Japan? Magnetism or Surface Tension? Or even better yet-plaid or striped shirts?
Geoffrey wrote: "Better yet, which would you rather have exist cashews or orange juice? China or Japan? Magnetism or Surface Tension? Or even better yet-plaid or striped shirts?"Trolls or no trolls?
Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "The authenticity of Josephus' writings on Jesus are disputed quite heavily, and the consensus is that they are only partially authentic at most. In addition, there are few to no cro..."Unfortunately, there's always going to be something of a bias because people are inherently biased (myself included) and the subject of Middle Eastern history is divided pretty majorly between religious and atheistic scholars. This is one of the reasons I'm looking more at specializing in either Native American history or English history; I am far too biased to deal with the Middle East and am afraid said bias would interfere with my studies. It doesn't help that people like Simcha Jacobovici ruin it for me with jumping to conclusions too soon and hunting for what I consider to be ludicrous things like Noah's ark.
You are right in that we may find a new manuscript or an older version of one of the manuscripts we know of, and that may shed light; heck, we know The Iliad and The Odyssey are most likely part of a four part series and that the other two were lost by fire or conquerors. For right now, we really don't know; it's one of the more interesting challenges of archaeology and why I chose the field.
Shanna wrote:Evidence? ..."
Bible
Mary wrote: In what capacity? As a man who was a prophet, just like thousands of other prophets at that time.
Mary wrote: You cannot prove he is god/son of god/holy spirit.
That is where belief comes in. Jesus did exist and he was a prophet and maybe that's all he was, fair enough. But to argue that he did not exist is a weak atheist ploy, because by trying to convince others that Jesus did not exist somehow then diminishes the belief that he was who he said he was and so adds credence to their argument that there is no creator.
Mary wrote: That is not proof of a creator"
There may be a creator regardless of religion, it doesn't do to confuse the two.
cerebus wrote: So you've lost your 'Santa Spot'?..."...not so daft, this god spot, according to science anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sci...
Travis wrote: As much as King Arthur did. ."As much as Tiberius Caeser did.
cerebus wrote: cHriS wrote: ".... and Jesus did exist. "So did Mohammed. Neither of which proves that they did what is claimed of them, or they were who they are claimed to be.
."
So proving my point Jesus, according to cerebus and me did exist.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote:Evidence? ..."
Bible"
Rejected for reasons already gone over ad nauseum
cerebus wrote: "Ok, fair point, it is possible that your experiences are evidence for some, it was a generalisation too far to say otherwise....What I should say, and again I mean it with no disrespect, that I assume you can see why some would not see it as sufficient evidence (but at the same time I am not assuming you thought it was or would be). "
Just to be clear, .... Evidence of what?
Evidence of something unexplained and unproven or evidence of God or Great Spirit?
Hoping you have the former in your head versus the latter ... since that's what I've been writing about.
Wanted to verify.
And, yes, I can totally see that others would think I was ... full of crap, deluded, simply seeking attention, etc.... That is, after all, how most people think and respond, in my experience. I've dealt with that all of my life, right? Given how hung up on honesty I am, it's rather a hard thing, but I've dealt with it. Yes, I understand. And, yes .... I've known people who have made similar claims. I never treat them as some have treated and treat me, but the fact that they might not be on the up-and-up is in the back of my mind ... until something happens to prove their claims.
Having said that, prove their claims ... I don't think it proves God exists, in and of itself. I think ... Dang! Someone like me. Holy crap! That's so cool! I'm not alone. That's what I think. I think that someone else has this unexplained and unproven thing.
I think it's important to be cautious but open-minded ... not closed to things that I can't prove ... just because. When I think about it, it's not very scientific ... going into a thing thinking or knowing it isn't true and doesn't exist. Maybe it exists and maybe it doesn't. How would one ever find out ... if one always goes into the thing with preconceived notions? I wonder what it would be like, walking around like that and experiencing the world in that way. Living with this as I have, that's a foreign concept. I get that some people do. I just can't imagine, personally, taking that approach to life ... but understand that some can't imagine being open-minded to things unproven; that would go against their beliefs.
Just to be clear, .... Evidence of what?
Evidence of something unexplained and unproven or evidence of God or Great Spirit?
Hoping you have the former in your head versus the latter ... since that's what I've been writing about.
Wanted to verify.
And, yes, I can totally see that others would think I was ... full of crap, deluded, simply seeking attention, etc.... That is, after all, how most people think and respond, in my experience. I've dealt with that all of my life, right? Given how hung up on honesty I am, it's rather a hard thing, but I've dealt with it. Yes, I understand. And, yes .... I've known people who have made similar claims. I never treat them as some have treated and treat me, but the fact that they might not be on the up-and-up is in the back of my mind ... until something happens to prove their claims.
Having said that, prove their claims ... I don't think it proves God exists, in and of itself. I think ... Dang! Someone like me. Holy crap! That's so cool! I'm not alone. That's what I think. I think that someone else has this unexplained and unproven thing.
I think it's important to be cautious but open-minded ... not closed to things that I can't prove ... just because. When I think about it, it's not very scientific ... going into a thing thinking or knowing it isn't true and doesn't exist. Maybe it exists and maybe it doesn't. How would one ever find out ... if one always goes into the thing with preconceived notions? I wonder what it would be like, walking around like that and experiencing the world in that way. Living with this as I have, that's a foreign concept. I get that some people do. I just can't imagine, personally, taking that approach to life ... but understand that some can't imagine being open-minded to things unproven; that would go against their beliefs.
Shanna. No problem, you are free to reject anything you want to. It does not alter things.
Heather wrote: "Unfortunately, there's always going to be something of a bias because people are inherently biased (myself included)"
Yes, though.... I think there's a difference between professors at religious colleges and Atheists writing about the topic and someone who is neither. Would love it if someone, who isn't tied to the church or American Atheists, etc..., would delve into the topic. Wouldn't that be lovely? Maybe they have. I just need to find it ... if I have the time to search long enough to find it.
Yes, though.... I think there's a difference between professors at religious colleges and Atheists writing about the topic and someone who is neither. Would love it if someone, who isn't tied to the church or American Atheists, etc..., would delve into the topic. Wouldn't that be lovely? Maybe they have. I just need to find it ... if I have the time to search long enough to find it.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna. No problem, you are free to reject anything you want to. It does not alter things."Bible is not proof of it's own claims, circular reasoning....
Cerebus ... It occurs to me that I've a question. You know how some non-believers here have said they're genuinely interested in the reasons one would believe? You know how non-believers here ask questions that, initially, are phrased in a way that promotes great interest and the desire to understand one's beliefs and reasons for believing?
Do you think that's on the up-and-up?
You might feel you can only speak for yourself. Your choice. Do you think non-believers really and truly care about that? Care about trying to understand? Or, do you think it's more about putting down all things spiritual or religious? Is it somewhere in the middle?
You see, .... I offered the above and discussed the fact that I offered it to show one of the reasons I'm open to believing in something unproven and used that ... not to prove God but to suggest people not write as definitively and, perhaps, be a bit open to the idea that some things (not necessarily God) exist despite not being proven. Yet, when I said all of that and clarified, you continue to talk about this not providing evidence ... whether to anyone alive or the majority. That really wasn't the point. So, it sort of makes me wonder. Is there any true desire to understand? Or, is it about saying ... there's no evidence? Or, is there a middle ground there?
Do you think that's on the up-and-up?
You might feel you can only speak for yourself. Your choice. Do you think non-believers really and truly care about that? Care about trying to understand? Or, do you think it's more about putting down all things spiritual or religious? Is it somewhere in the middle?
You see, .... I offered the above and discussed the fact that I offered it to show one of the reasons I'm open to believing in something unproven and used that ... not to prove God but to suggest people not write as definitively and, perhaps, be a bit open to the idea that some things (not necessarily God) exist despite not being proven. Yet, when I said all of that and clarified, you continue to talk about this not providing evidence ... whether to anyone alive or the majority. That really wasn't the point. So, it sort of makes me wonder. Is there any true desire to understand? Or, is it about saying ... there's no evidence? Or, is there a middle ground there?
Why must there be a question of an or? The author himself has pointed out again and again that both are very important tools for human civilization, science shows us what we can do and religion what we should. Human society will fall into chaos if it is forced to exist without either.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: As much as King Arthur did. ."As much as Tiberius Caeser did."
more like as much as Santa Claus did.
Heather wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "The authenticity of Josephus' writings on Jesus are disputed quite heavily, and the consensus is that they are only partially authentic at most. In addition, there a..."Did not know that about the Iliad. Interesting.
Do we know what the other two books were about?
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote:Evidence? ..."
Bible"
do you have a secondary source?
Geoffrey wrote: "Better yet, which would you rather have exist cashews or orange juice? China or Japan? Magnetism or Surface Tension? Or even better yet-plaid or striped shirts?"I can see your other examples, but orange juice and cashews?
shouldn't it be a choice between two beverages or two kinds of snack foods?
In the spirit of cherry-picking that chris has just displayed, I think we should all congratulate chris on his announcement of his conversion to Islam.....after your previous pronouncements I feel it is big of you to acknowledge your new belief.
@shannon, I said in my original response that I can understand how your experiences have led you to your position, and that I am not belittling them. I was asking, and had assumed but appreciate the dangers of assumption, whether you similarly accepted why those same incidents, as powerful and meaningful as they are to you, do not serve to act as proof to others. I also pointed out that I had not assumed that you intended them to act as proof. My question is simply, as powerful and meaningful as those incidents are to you (and from your replies, those who know you), do you understand why they are not proof to others? Do you feel that if they are not proof to others that they are somehow missing the point, or are deliberately obtuse? Or do you understand why we do not see them as proof of a deity; why they are insufficient to change our view that there is no evidence of a deity?
@chris, will your conversion to Islam be followed by yet another name change? I think it's only fair to let us know in advance this time.....the last one was a little....duplicitous?
Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "The authenticity of Josephus' writings on Jesus are disputed quite heavily, and the consensus is that they are only partially authentic at most. In a..."We are missing volumes one and three. Volume one covered the lead up and beginning of the Trojan War, and volume three covered the end of the Trojan War.
Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "Unfortunately, there's always going to be something of a bias because people are inherently biased (myself included)"Yes, though.... I think there's a difference between professo..."
This is true. The challenge is, a lot of scholars are atheists, and the few that aren't are generally historians. In my field, for example, atheists are in the majority. In fact, the Point of Inquiry podcast just had an anthropologist about a month ago who studies terrorists and other extremists; his atheism gives him a sort of neutral zone, if you will, as does his training as an anthropologist, which teaches to not outwardly judge the population you are studying.
cerebus wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Better yet, which would you rather have exist cashews or orange juice? China or Japan? Magnetism or Surface Tension? Or even better yet-plaid or striped shirts?"Trolls or no trolls?"
Actually I am not a troll. I have posted hundreds of messages on this website. But the question is ridiculous. My posting spotlighted that.
Geoffrey wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Better yet, which would you rather have exist cashews or orange juice? China or Japan? Magnetism or Surface Tension? Or even better yet-plaid or striped shirts?"Tr..."
Why is it ridiculous?
Heather wrote: "Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "The authenticity of Josephus' writings on Jesus are disputed quite heavily, and the consensus is that they are only partially authenti..."Interesting. I always thought from the stories that we had the whole saga covered. Didn't know there had been more out there.
Great opportunity for some aspiring writer to fill in those lost chapters.
cerebus wrote: "My question is simply, as powerful and meaningful as those incidents are to you (and from your replies, those who know you), do you understand why they are not proof to others? Do you feel that if they are not proof to others that they are somehow missing the point, or are deliberately obtuse? "
I'm going to ask again. This is important, ... for several reasons.
Proof of what?
I know what I wrote and what I clarified. In order to answer your question, I need to know what you're talking about.
Proof of God's existence?
Proof of something that is unproven?
In addition, you don't need to tell me you're not trying to be disrespectful. I know that. I know with a fair amount of certainty when posts are disrespectful. You've not been disrespectful in these. When I said, ... I've lived this my whole life and have been treated, sometimes, badly as a result ... I wasn't referencing you. I was referencing life experience and acknowledging the fact that I'm well aware that some, especially those who haven't seen this verified, thought me to be seeking attention, lying, or unhinged. Therefore, yes, I've experienced people not taking it as proof of my veracity or something that is unexplained and I understand that all too well. And, as I said, people have made similar claims; I've not known if they were true until the were proven credible. So, yeah...
If I seem at all frustrated, it's likely as a result of people attempting to be the authors of my posts and intentions ... claiming I'm using this to prove God when I'm not. I don't know if you're doing that as you've not answered the question ... proof of what. Further, given my life experiences, I can't understand struggle with what some hold as true. The idea that something doesn't exist if it hasn't been proven and I'm not just talking about God. I know that's sometimes accurate, maybe often times; I know people believe things, without proof, that aren't real. Yup. I also know some things, that haven't been proven, are real, which makes me more open to such possibilities. I have a hard time, given that I've been this way since I can remember, understanding going through life without being open to possibilities. As part of that, I can't understand that some wouldn't even be willing, even just a bit willing, to question and investigate, especially when the people involved value questioning and investigation. Again, I'm not just talking God. I'm talking about things that aren't understood, explained and proven. I have a feeling it depends, right? Not just upon personal interest but upon whether or not something is "acceptable" or question and investigation. I wouldn't call that obtuse. I just can't wrap my brain around it.
Further, I'm still wondering ... I don't think you answered ... do people really, honestly want to understand belief ... or is that just something that's said here ... before one goes in for telling people they're off base?
I'm going to ask again. This is important, ... for several reasons.
Proof of what?
I know what I wrote and what I clarified. In order to answer your question, I need to know what you're talking about.
Proof of God's existence?
Proof of something that is unproven?
In addition, you don't need to tell me you're not trying to be disrespectful. I know that. I know with a fair amount of certainty when posts are disrespectful. You've not been disrespectful in these. When I said, ... I've lived this my whole life and have been treated, sometimes, badly as a result ... I wasn't referencing you. I was referencing life experience and acknowledging the fact that I'm well aware that some, especially those who haven't seen this verified, thought me to be seeking attention, lying, or unhinged. Therefore, yes, I've experienced people not taking it as proof of my veracity or something that is unexplained and I understand that all too well. And, as I said, people have made similar claims; I've not known if they were true until the were proven credible. So, yeah...
If I seem at all frustrated, it's likely as a result of people attempting to be the authors of my posts and intentions ... claiming I'm using this to prove God when I'm not. I don't know if you're doing that as you've not answered the question ... proof of what. Further, given my life experiences, I can't understand struggle with what some hold as true. The idea that something doesn't exist if it hasn't been proven and I'm not just talking about God. I know that's sometimes accurate, maybe often times; I know people believe things, without proof, that aren't real. Yup. I also know some things, that haven't been proven, are real, which makes me more open to such possibilities. I have a hard time, given that I've been this way since I can remember, understanding going through life without being open to possibilities. As part of that, I can't understand that some wouldn't even be willing, even just a bit willing, to question and investigate, especially when the people involved value questioning and investigation. Again, I'm not just talking God. I'm talking about things that aren't understood, explained and proven. I have a feeling it depends, right? Not just upon personal interest but upon whether or not something is "acceptable" or question and investigation. I wouldn't call that obtuse. I just can't wrap my brain around it.
Further, I'm still wondering ... I don't think you answered ... do people really, honestly want to understand belief ... or is that just something that's said here ... before one goes in for telling people they're off base?
The conundrum is but a false issue generated by faulty Protestant theology that has not resolved the dialectical. But guess what, there is none.
cerebus wrote:I think it's only fair to let us know in advance this time.....the last one was a little....duplicitous? ?"
You say that now, having made such a large freudian slip. Does this reveal a repressed belief of yours I wonder?
I made no slip, I made a point you chose to ignore in order to try to score a point. You cherry picked, I returned the favour. In doing so I wondered if you were retuning to your old cs ways...
cerebus wrote: In the spirit of cherry-picking that chris has just displayed, I think we should all congratulate chris on his announcement of his conversion to Islam.....after your previous pronouncements I feel it is big of you to acknowledge your new belief. ..."
....again I can only say, and without wanting to rub salt into your wounds, :) what a large freudian slip you made in message 10859.
Ah, the old cs is back.....
Shanna wrote: Bible is not proof of it's own claims, circular reasoning....The bible claims nothing, it is an inanimate object.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Your thoughts on Thallus and Josephus and their writings on...?