Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Al-a-cartism
Options
Comments
-
-
-
PDN wrote:Yes, Jesus was well aware of the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, so he deliberately got himself born there. I am delighted to see atheists & agnostics coming to this realisation. There is hope for some of you yet.
What about prophecies regarding the Jews?
Deuteronomy 28:64; Moses told the Israelites the Lord would scatter them from one end of the earth to the other. This happened!
Deuteronomy 28:65 ;The Jews were told wherever they went in the world they woul be persecuted. This happened!
Leviticus 26:33;The Jews were told after their dispersion their land (Israel) would become desolate, a waste land. This happened!
Isaiah 66:22; God promised to preserve His people no matter what they went through. This happened!
Isaiah 11:10-12; God foretold He would bring His people back to their own land. After world war one, we know the Jews began to return to their land. This happened in our life time! (Well some of us :rolleyes: )
Isaish 66:7-8; The Jews were promised that when they had regathered back in the land of Israel, a new nation would be born. In 1948, we saw the re-establishment of Israel as a nation. This happened!
Isaiah 35:1-7; God promised with the re-establishment of Israel the land would bloom and become fertile again.What was one a barren place is now blossoming. This happened!
Zephaniah 3:9; When the Jews were disparsed, they eventually lost their native tongue. It was prophesised in Zephaniah that when the Jews returned to their rightful land, their language would be restored. Today Jews in Isreal speak biblical hebrew. This happened!
Luke 21:24; Jesus said that one of the signs of his return would be the re-occupation of Jerusalem by the Jews. During the six day war of 1967-this happened!
Zechariah 12:6; Zechariah foretold that when the Jews were returned to their land, their army would be overwhelming. Israel had the third strongest army in the world;not bad for a tiny country which has only been recently established! This happened!
This stuff amazes me...0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
5uspect,
Sigh...
You so remind me of the people of Jesus day who saw many miracles and still didn't believe. This both puzzles and saddens me. You seem to have some biblical knowledge;do yourself a favour and keep on readin' it, will ya.
Splendour0 -
Advertisement
-
Splendour wrote:5uspect,
Sigh... You so remind me of the people of Jesus day who saw many miracles and still didn't believe. This both puzzles and saddens me. You seem to have some biblical knowledge;do yourself a favour and keep on readin' it, will ya.
Splendour
You don't seem to understand that this is precisely the point. Your book says that people saw such miracles. That may be enough for you to have faith but that in no way comes close to any logical standard.
I have never witnessed a miracle*, nor have I met the people from Jesus' day, tho you seem to have :rolleyes:. I am skeptical of dusty old books making all sort of vague claims that cannot be substantiated. No matter how much I read the bible it will never ever become any more trustworthy than anything I read unless it can provide verifiable evidence to support its claims.
You see my failure to simply accept what is written in your particular book and ignore what is written in many other scared books as "sad and puzzling". I cannot fathom this, what is puzzling about approaching the world in a rational way?
I find your delight that the suffering of millions of real people somehow proves the existence of your hypothetical loving God just as sad and puzzling.
*I define a miracle as a breach of a fundamental law of nature or Hume's balancing of probabilities.0 -
-
PDN wrote:Why do people who obviously know nothing about Biblical Studies or Theology keep posting such schoolboy howlers?
Schoolboy howler? You do make me laugh. You have your interpretation, but there is another equally valid. You present your interpretation as though it were fact, but all you have to back it up with is petty abuse of the poster.
Good work PDN.PDN wrote:My point is this. John does not suggest that the crowd were wrong in their accusation that Jesus deceived the people. Does this mean that he agreed with them? Of course not! John is recording a series of stupid comments knowing that even the worst educated reader of his Gospel would see them to be patently false.
Well he was obviously wrong then
I note that you didn't answer the question: does John state elsewhere in his gospel that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? 'll answer it for you... No. So how are we supposed to infer that the comments of the crowd re Jesus' birthplace were 'patently false' from John's silence? Does John assume that we read Matthew first before we started on him?
Incidentally, I take your insinuation that I'm even worse educated than the worst-educated of John's readers as a great compliment - kind of reminds me of Groucho Marx not wanting to join any club that would have him. I'm fairly certain I neither want nor need the kind of insider knowledge that is obviously required in order to grapple with these obscure in-jokes scattered obliquely throughout the word of god.
Nonetheless it's good to know that god does irony.0 -
rockbeer wrote:Schoolboy howler? You do make me laugh. You have your interpretation, but there is another equally valid. You present your interpretation as though it were fact, but all you have to back it up with is petty abuse of the poster.
Another interpretation? Yes. Equally valid? No.I note that you didn't answer the question: does John state elsewhere in his gospel that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? 'll answer it for you... No. So how are we supposed to infer that the comments of the crowd re Jesus' birthplace were 'patently false' from John's silence? Does John assume that we read Matthew first before we started on him?
It would be difficult for me to answer a question you hadn't asked yet. No, John neither says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem nor that he was not. It would be equally foolish, therefore, to cite John's Gospel as a source for or against Jesus being born in Bethlehem. Either is an argument from silence. Christians draw the information of Bethlehem as Christ's birthplace from the Synoptic Gospels and John neither denies nor confirms this information. The fact of Christ being born in Bethlehem was a very common feature of early Christian tradition, so it would not be strange for John to expect his readers to be familiar with it.Incidentally, I take your insinuation that I'm even worse educated than the worst-educated of John's readers as a great compliment - kind of reminds me of Groucho Marx not wanting to join any club that would have him. I'm fairly certain I neither want nor need the kind of insider knowledge that is obviously required in order to grapple with these obscure in-jokes scattered obliquely throughout the word of god.
I think most modern readers would be worse-educated than almost any male Jew in 1st Century Palestine when it comes to the Old Testament. After all, most of us can't even read John's Gospel in its original language. The Bible is full of jokes, irony, sarcasm, and some extraordinarily bad Hebrew puns. Of course knowledge of these is not necessary for the stated purpose of John's Gospel: Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31). However, such knowledge would be helpful if you really want to engage in any kind of meaningful theological debate.
This brings me back to the fact that you are entitled to hold different interpretations to that of biblical scholars, but that does not mean your interpretations are equally valid.
I, for example, know very little about science, but I am aware of my deficient knowledge and do not try to make confident assertions in scientific debates, particularly when I am addressing someone who is knowledgeable and academically qualified on the subject. I would most certainly come out with schoolboy howlers and would, quite rightly, be ridiculed by other posters. However, I repeatedly see posters on these boards coming up with statements that mangle every academically accepted principle of biblical interpretation. When corrected, they protest, "But my interpretation is equally as valid as yours." Or, if it is becoming apparent to everyone that they are totally misinterpreting Scripture, then the standard get out is: "Well, why didn't God make it easy enough for even me to understand." (All the time, of course, ignoring the fact that no-one really seeking truth would ever come up with such an interpretation, only someone who is looking for a stick with which to beat Christianity).
Ignorance of the Bible is extremely common today, and certainly nothing to be ashamed of if you do not even profess to be a Christian. However, if you are going to quote the Bible to try to score points against those who are better educated in Scripture than you, then you should be prepared for them to point out your mistakes and misinterpretations.0 -
Splendour wrote:5uspect,
Sigh... You so remind me of the people of Jesus day who saw many miracles and still didn't believe. This both puzzles and saddens me. You seem to have some biblical knowledge;do yourself a favour and keep on readin' it, will ya.
Splendour
Splendour do you accept all the other non-Judeo-Christian prophecies around the world that have also "come true" and in doing so prove the Christian religion as a fake?
I mean you cannot argue with prophecy....0 -
-
PDN wrote:It would be difficult for me to answer a question you hadn't asked yet.
In post #99 I asked "Does John suggest anywhere else in his gospel that the crowd were wrong?"
Not to worry, it's easy to overlook these things in the heat of debatePDN wrote:No, John neither says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem nor that he was not. It would be equally foolish, therefore, to cite John's Gospel as a source for or against Jesus being born in Bethlehem. Either is an argument from silence.
(This is getting a bit circular, but anyway...) No it isn't, that's the point. Yours is an argument from silence. But in the only reference to Jesus' birthplace in his gospel, John, as I've stated, explicitly encourages the reader to draw the inference that Jesus was from Galilee. Spin it how you like but the text is quite unambiguous: John even states that "there was a division among the people because of him" (verse 43) - implying quite clearly from the textual context that the division wasn't between people who thought he was from Galilee and those who thought he was from Bethlehem, but between those who thought it mattered that he was from Galilee and those who didn't. Are you saying that all those people, even the ones who supported his messianic claim, were too uninformed to know where he was from? It's unimaginable, if he had been from Bethlehem, that none of his supporters, or even Jesus himself, would have mentioned the fact since it would obviously have greatly helped his credibility to do so.
Since your defence relies entirely on external context rather than the text itself, it's really down to you to demonstrate: that John knew Jesus was from Bethlehem; that it was common knowledge that Jesus was from Bethlehem (asserting this as a fact isn't a demonstration, merely an opinion); and that he was writing an inner-sanctum document for an audience who he could have expected to get his little joke rather than a document for general consumption in which such an inference would be undesirable. You could further support your case by demonstrating that John used the assumption of prior or specialist knowledge of his subject matter on the part of his audience as a common literary device. If you have the evidence it shouldn't be a problem.
For you to argue, as you seem to be, from the assumption that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that therefore John must have known it, is the most blatant example of circular reasoning.PDN wrote:Christians draw the information of Bethlehem as Christ's birthplace from the Synoptic Gospels and John neither denies nor confirms this information. The fact of Christ being born in Bethlehem was a very common feature of early Christian tradition
Was it? Paul doesn't mention it in the epistles. Neither does 'Mark'. Both of these texts pre-date Matthew & Luke. Given that the 'miraculous' circumstances of Jesus' birth and the purported Bethlehem location are so central to his messianic credentials, you would expect them to at least refer to it in passing. In my view this striking absence lends credence to the suggestion that the Bethlehem birthplace was added to the myth later.
Finally, you have argued that we can infer nothing from silence, but I can't agree. Wouldn't you consider it strange if 50 percent of the contemporary (the gospels are emphatically not contemporary but they are the closest thing we have) historical documentation relating to September 2001 failed to mention 9/11?
Anyway, we're getting bogged down here. These are only some of the problems with the Bethlehem birth scenario. I haven't even mentioned the historical improbability of the purported census. Or the irreconcilable differences between Matthew and Luke over where Mary & Joseph actually lived. Or the possible significance of the epithet "Jesus of Nazareth" (possible confusion with "Nazarene" notwithstanding). Or the total absence of any independent historical corroboration of any of the details of Jesus' life outside of the gospels, despite the flourishing literary culture of the middle east at that time and the numerous active Roman historians. Or the plethora of Jesuses and Christs likely to have been in the frame at that time. Or the vast time lag between Jesus' life & death and the writing of the gospels.
There's so much room for doubt here that it would be objectively absurd to state beyond doubt that he was born in Bethlehem. The claim only makes sense if you're wedded to the mythology.PDN wrote:I think most modern readers would be worse-educated than almost any male Jew in 1st Century Palestine when it comes to the Old Testament. After all, most of us can't even read John's Gospel in its original language. The Bible is full of jokes, irony, sarcasm, and some extraordinarily bad Hebrew puns. Of course knowledge of these is not necessary for the stated purpose of John's Gospel: Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31). However, such knowledge would be helpful if you really want to engage in any kind of meaningful theological debate.
It's interesting to note that John feels the need to cite Jesus' miracles explicitly as evidence of his divinity, but not his pre-ordained Bethlehem birthplace. By your reasoning, he needn't have bothered to spell these out either.
I'm not denying that you obviously have far greater knowledge of scripture than me. Perhaps you would like to give people a guideline as to exactly what level of knowledge they should try to obtain before having the temerity to volunteer an opinion in your presence.PDN wrote:This brings me back to the fact that you are entitled to hold different interpretations to that of biblical scholars, but that does not mean your interpretations are equally valid.
By the way, it isn't just me who extrapolates doubt over Jesus' birth from John 7. I can provide references if you like, all of which you will no doubt attempt to discredit.PDN wrote:I, for example, know very little about science, but I am aware of my deficient knowledge and do not try to make confident assertions in scientific debates, particularly when I am addressing someone who is knowledgeable and academically qualified on the subject. I would most certainly come out with schoolboy howlers and would, quite rightly, be ridiculed by other posters.
You really are a deeply patronizing individual at times, PDN. And you have an unattractive habit of parading your qualifications in a derisory attempt to add weight to your opinions, rather than relying on evidence and well-reasoned argument. Talking of schoolboy howlers, this is all a bit reminiscent of the playground too. I'm sure you indeed have great and extensive knowledge, but since we're essentially analyzing a compendium of semi-historical semi-fiction it's not quite the same as a science debate. I am, incidentally, academically qualified in both history and literary criticism, for what it's worth, but would never present this fact in support of my opinions or to try and suggest that they are of inherently greater validity than a less educated individual's. No one would deny that your extensive contextual knowledge gives you a strong foundation for your opinions, but this is heavily counterbalanced by your presumption of the outcome. It doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are if you put yourself in the position of having to interpret all the evidence to suit your hypothesis. To claim that your education gives you a monopoly on the 'true' interpretation, and to try to equate the arcane art of biblical interpretation with the verifiable rationality of science, are laughable.
Anyway, if I'm too academically lightweight for you to be worth debating with you can always stop.PDN wrote:However, I repeatedly see posters on these boards coming up with statements that mangle every academically accepted principle of biblical interpretation.
Are you suggesting my comments re John 7 "mangle every academically accepted principle of biblical interpretation"? Or are you exaggerating for effect?
There are certainly scholars out there far more knowledgeable than I who share my interpretation. A.N. Wilson for example remarks that "the Fourth Gospel very specifically states that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem." I'm sure you'll disagree with Wilson, but will you accuse him of committing a schoolboy howler?PDN wrote:When corrected, they protest, "But my interpretation is equally as valid as yours." Or, if it is becoming apparent to everyone that they are totally misinterpreting Scripture, then the standard get out is: "Well, why didn't God make it easy enough for even me to understand." (All the time, of course, ignoring the fact that no-one really seeking truth would ever come up with such an interpretation, only someone who is looking for a stick with which to beat Christianity).
There's that old paranoia again Why is it that whenever somebody offers some evidence of inconsistency or contradiction in scripture, it's never a valid observation but always "a stick with which to beat christianity". That standpoint makes worthwhile discussion kind of difficult. It's like George Bush declaring any criticism of his government by definition unpatriotic and unamerican. It seems that to you there is no valid criticism of anything in scripture because as soon as one is offered you just cry foul.PDN wrote:Ignorance of the Bible is extremely common today, and certainly nothing to be ashamed of if you do not even profess to be a Christian. However, if you are going to quote the Bible to try to score points against those who are better educated in Scripture than you, then you should be prepared for them to point out your mistakes and misinterpretations.
I'm not ashamed. And I don't have any problem with you offering a counter-argument; if you provide cogent reasons and evidence I'll give it serious consideration. I'm also well aware of the deficiencies in my knowledge and open to new information. But to claim that you are "correcting" me just by disagreeing with me doesn't really work. People are quite capable of examining your arguments and working out for themselves whether they're valid or of relevance. Having a vast amount of knowledge doesn't always make you right, it's also a question of what you do with it. You aren't my RE teacher, PDN, just a religious guy with a good sense of humour that I enjoy arguing with on the Internet. But there's little point in us engaging in any kind of discussion if you're just going to pull rank whenever somebody says something you disagree with. I think most people here respect the depth of your Biblical knowledge. I know I do, and I learn stuff from you all the time, but that doesn't mean I will automatically defer to your interpretations.
I'm not trying to score points. We're having a discussion about selective interpretation of scripture, and it's highly relevant to that discussion to point out that there are a variety of different possible interpretations of the gospels. Surely even you can see that.0 -
rockbeer wrote:In post #99 I asked "Does John suggest anywhere else in his gospel that the crowd were wrong?"
Not to worry, it's easy to overlook these things in the heat of debate
You are indeed correct. I had not seen that & I apologise.Was it? Paul doesn't mention it in the epistles. Neither does 'Mark'. Both of these texts pre-date Matthew & Luke. Given that the 'miraculous' circumstances of Jesus' birth and the purported Bethlehem location are so central to his messianic credentials, you would expect them to at least refer to it in passing. In my view this striking absence lends credence to the suggestion that the Bethlehem birthplace was added to the myth later.
Finally, you have argued that we can infer nothing from silence, but I can't agree. Wouldn't you consider it strange if 50 percent of the contemporary (the gospels are emphatically not contemporary but they are the closest thing we have) historical documentation relating to September 2001 failed to mention 9/11?
The Bethlehem prophecy is just one among many which apply to Jesus. Matthew mentions many of these prophecies because his Gospel was written in order to convince a Jewish readership that Jesus was the Messiah. There are many other prophecies that Matthew mentions which are not referred to by John, Mark or Paul. Each writer selected what was relevant to their purpose.
Your 9/11 illustration is comparing apples with oranges since the fact of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, while recorded in Matthew & Luke, is hardly essential to believing the Gospel message. It would be more apt to ask if it would be strange for 50% of the contemporary documentation of 11/9/01 to omit the name of the flight school where Mohammed Attah learned to fly.It's interesting to note that John feels the need to cite Jesus' miracles explicitly as evidence of his divinity, but not his pre-ordained Bethlehem birthplace. By your reasoning, he needn't have bothered to spell these out either.
Of course John omits many miracles. John's Gospel is structured around seven particular miraculous signs that are especially significant in pointing to aspects of Christ's person and ministry.You really are a deeply patronizing individual at times, PDN. And you have an unattractive habit of parading your qualifications in a derisory attempt to add weight to your opinions, rather than relying on evidence and well-reasoned argument.
That, I guess, goes to show how far I am from achieving my goal of being more like Jesus. However, I don't think I have a monopoly of appearing patronising or unattractive on these boards.I am, incidentally, academically qualified in both history and literary criticism, for what it's worth, but would never present this fact in support of my opinions or to try and suggest that they are of inherently greater validity than a less educated individual's.
But I think that is something that is worth mentioning. When discussing history, for example, I will consider your contributions more closely than some of the ramblings I have encountered from other posters. Also, as an amateur history buff with no formal qualifications in that field, I will be more careful to check my sources if I am discussing history with you.There are certainly scholars out there far more knowledgeable than I who share my interpretation. A.N. Wilson for example remarks that "the Fourth Gospel very specifically states that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem." I'm sure you'll disagree with Wilson, but will you accuse him of committing a schoolboy howler?
Wilson is always entertaining, and his less than flattering biography of CS Lewis is probably responsible for my lack of enthusiasm for Lewis. However, he is certainly not immune to committing the odd schoolboy howler. Wasn't it Wilson who wrote a biography of Betjeman that included a fake letter from the poet to an old lover called Eva de Harben (an anagram of Ever Been Had?) The letter contained an acrostic that read AN Wilson is a ****. So, I would not rule out Wilson committing a schoolboy howler.
However, in any discussion we should be prepared to listen to evidence that will cause us to modify our views. There have been one or two scholars (William Ramsay springs to mind from the 19th Century) who have indeed argued that Christ wasn't born in Bethlehem and who have claimed to see hints of this, but not proof, in John's Gospel. If, for example, you wanted to argue that some people are of the opinion that John did not believe Christ to be born in Bethlehem, then that would be accurate. However, to try to say that John's Gospel certainly denies (or, as Wilson says, specifically states) the Bethlehem birth account is, in my opinion, proposterous.There's that old paranoia again Why is it that whenever somebody offers some evidence of inconsistency or contradiction in scripture, it's never a valid observation but always "a stick with which to beat christianity". That standpoint makes worthwhile discussion kind of difficult. It's like George Bush declaring any criticism of his government by definition unpatriotic and unamerican. It seems that to you there is no valid criticism of anything in scripture because as soon as one is offered you just cry foul.
It's not a case of crying foul at all. My point was simply that it is reasonable to expect God to give a revelation whereby any sincere seeker can find the truth. It is not reasonable to expect God to give a revelation that will prevent anyone from deliberately taking a negative interpretation.
(That's worded clumsily, I know, but my flight is boarding so I'll just post it anyway).0 -
PDN wrote:You are indeed correct. I had not seen that & I apologise.
Thanks, no problemPDN wrote:The Bethlehem prophecy is just one among many which apply to Jesus. Matthew mentions many of these prophecies because his Gospel was written in order to convince a Jewish readership that Jesus was the Messiah. There are many other prophecies that Matthew mentions which are not referred to by John, Mark or Paul. Each writer selected what was relevant to their purpose.
What in your opinion was John's purpose? Would he have been writing to convince anyone, or was he writing for the already-initiated?PDN wrote:Your 9/11 illustration is comparing apples with oranges since the fact of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, while recorded in Matthew & Luke, is hardly essential to believing the Gospel message. It would be more apt to ask if it would be strange for 50% of the contemporary documentation of 11/9/01 to omit the name of the flight school where Mohammed Attah learned to fly.
Indeed the analogy could be refined - but to extend your modification a little further, it would indeed be curious if 50% of the serious historical literature devoted to an in-depth analysis of 11/09/01 failed to mention the flying school.
Which to drift OT for a moment reminds me of the most chilling thing I heard about those events - which was that apparently when the hi-jackers were learning to fly, they showed no interest whatsoever in learning how to land. Just one of those little details which made little impression on anyone at the time, but which took on huge significance after events had unfolded.PDN wrote:That, I guess, goes to show how far I am from achieving my goal of being more like Jesus. However, I don't think I have a monopoly of appearing patronising or unattractive on these boards.
No indeed, we all have our failings. Sorry to single you out, I just get annoyed when people talk to me as though I'd never read a book.PDN wrote:Wilson is always entertaining, and his less than flattering biography of CS Lewis is probably responsible for my lack of enthusiasm for Lewis. However, he is certainly not immune to committing the odd schoolboy howler. Wasn't it Wilson who wrote a biography of Betjeman that included a fake letter from the poet to an old lover called Eva de Harben (an anagram of Ever Been Had?) The letter contained an acrostic that read AN Wilson is a ****. So, I would not rule out Wilson committing a schoolboy howler.
I'd forgotten that Wilson story
It is a bit of a shocker, especially the acrostic. Talk about rubbing salt into the wounds. But I suppose we all have our moments.
The point I was trying to make is: would you take the same view if someone with more serious credentials than me presented the same argument? I just felt you were trying to dismiss my hypothesis on the grounds of what you consider to be my ignorance, rather than on its own merits. Or at least to highlight my supposed ignorance in order to back up your counter-argument.PDN wrote:However, in any discussion we should be prepared to listen to evidence that will cause us to modify our views. There have been one or two scholars (William Ramsay springs to mind from the 19th Century) who have indeed argued that Christ wasn't born in Bethlehem and who have claimed to see hints of this, but not proof, in John's Gospel. If, for example, you wanted to argue that some people are of the opinion that John did not believe Christ to be born in Bethlehem, then that would be accurate. However, to try to say that John's Gospel certainly denies (or, as Wilson says, specifically states) the Bethlehem birth account is, in my opinion, proposterous.
Having listened to your assessment, I probably wouldn't go as far as Wilson. I will concede that there are conflicting ways to interpret the text, however, I think it is equally preposterous for you to argue that my interpretation cannot be correct.PDN wrote:It's not a case of crying foul at all. My point was simply that it is reasonable to expect God to give a revelation whereby any sincere seeker can find the truth. It is not reasonable to expect God to give a revelation that will prevent anyone from deliberately taking a negative interpretation.
(That's worded clumsily, I know, but my flight is boarding so I'll just post it anyway).
But how therefore can we argue against scripture in any meaningful way? If, as you say, God has allowed ambiguity to feature in his revelation, the implication is that we need to already have faith up front in order to interpret it 'correctly'. Maybe this was god's intention, but you must concede that he will rarely convert a rational and objective reader that way.
By your argument, god seems as intent on circular reasoning as most christians.0 -
Wicknight wrote:For example -
Buddha prophecies the following for his return -
1 He shall appear in the West.
2. He shall appear at a time when religion shall be waning, when the world is imperiled [sic] and convulsed in turmoil.
3. He will have golden hair or red hair.
4. He will complete the work of Gautama Buddha and bring in a new golden age of man by making possible the attainment of spiritual freedom by all beings.
5. Although the date of his advent is variously forecast, the nearest date places it 2,500 years after Gautama Buddha - or roughly 1950
L Ron Hubbard fulfilled this prophecy, thus proving that Scientology is the extension of the original message of Buddha and that Scientology is therefore the true religion.
You cannot argue with that, its is fact. If Scientology wasn't the true religion it could not fulfill the prophecy.
How can one argue that Hubbard just happened to get himself born in time to form a religion 2,500 after Buddha. He cannot control when he is born, and it is too freaky to be a coincidence.
I hate to burst your li'l bubble here Wicknight, but Scientology has got nothing to do with Buddhism at all. Ron L. Hubbard is quoted as saying, 'The best way to make a million dollars is to start a new religion'- and so he did! He took bits from various religions and came up with Scientology.
Am afraid poor ole Ronnie is dead and gone and the only 'enlightenment' has been that of the Scientologist's bank balances.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Splendour wrote:I hate to burst your li'l bubble here Wicknight, but Scientology has got nothing to do with Buddhism at all. Ron L. Hubbard is quoted as saying, 'The best way to make a million dollars is to start a new religion'- and so he did! He took bits from various religions and came up with Scientology.
Am afraid poor ole Ronnie is dead and gone and the only 'enlightenment' has been that of the Scientologist's bank balances.
Plus, of course, Hubbard was born during the 20th Century which, far from being a time when "religion shall be waning" was the time of the greatest worldwide explosion of faith in human history (unless we think the Buddha was as hopelessly insular as some posters around here ). 0 -
-
-
-
Splendour wrote:I hate to burst your li'l bubble here Wicknight, but Scientology has got nothing to do with Buddhism at all. Ron L. Hubbard is quoted as saying, 'The best way to make a million dollars is to start a new religion'- and so he did! He took bits from various religions and came up with Scientology.
Am afraid poor ole Ronnie is dead and gone and the only 'enlightenment' has been that of the Scientologist's bank balances.
Exactly. Its nonesense. Now we're making progress.0 -
-
-
-
5uspect wrote:You don't seem to understand that this is precisely the point. Your book says that people saw such miracles. That may be enough for you to have faith but that in no way comes close to any logical standard.
I have never witnessed a miracle*, nor have I met the people from Jesus' day, tho you seem to have :rolleyes:. I am skeptical of dusty old books making all sort of vague claims that cannot be substantiated. No matter how much I read the bible it will never ever become any more trustworthy than anything I read unless it can provide verifiable evidence to support its claims.You see my failure to simply accept what is written in your particular book and ignore what is written in many other scared books as "sad and puzzling". I cannot fathom this, what is puzzling about approaching the world in a rational way?
I find your delight that the suffering of millions of real people somehow proves the existence of your hypothetical loving God just as sad and puzzling.
*I define a miracle as a breach of a fundamental law of nature or Hume's balancing of probabilities.
The sad and puzzling part for me is that if you did witness great miracles,as did many in Jesus day,even then there is no guarantee you would believe. Moses performed many miracles whilst trying to get the Israelites away from the Pharaoh which where most definitely a breach of Hume's balancing of possibilities, yet still Pharaoh would not accept the divine nature of God.
Your scepticism is perfectly unerstandable and natural. Believe me, there are many parts of the bible I still struggle with. But then there are many parts to which my eyes have been opened and which make complete sense.
If you want to read something 'logical' in the bible, try Romans.
Romans 1-12 has answers to questions philosophers and great thinkers have pondered since time began.The 'what's it all about' dilemma is answered there 0 -
Advertisement
-
Splendour wrote:
Your scepticism is perfectly unerstandable and natural. Believe me, there are many parts of the bible I still struggle with. But then there are many parts to which my eyes have been opened and which make complete sense.
You're still not getting it. there is nothing in the Bible other than words. There are no experiments that I can perform to test its claims or verify its truth. Its about faith which is something as a skeptic I try not to have. You're asking me to "believe you". If I told you that I know a whale gave birth to a frog, just believe me, you'd want evidence. Why is the Bible any different?Splendour wrote:If you want to read something 'logical' in the bible, try Romans.
Romans 1-12 has answers to questions philosophers and great thinkers have pondered since time began.The 'what's it all about' dilemma is answered there
Thats all nice but it doesn't answer anything in a worthwhile way.
Its only concerned with the sins and eternal life of humans.
It goes on and on about adultery and pleasing God. When it talks about evil it suggests that people not be vengeful as "Vengeance is mine"
"20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."
I find this attitude to be full of smugness. Thou shalt be artificially nice to those you consider wicked but you secretly know that they're damned by your God.
This is why I made the point about your delight in the suffering of millions for your various prophesies. There seems to be no genuine compassion for those you consider evil, be it atheists or homosexuals or in the case of some religions women and everything they can or cannot do. It seems to be purely a selfish aim to appease your god and do as he says or else so you can go to the great gig in the sky. Maybe this is why many Christians cannot understand morality without god.
Here is some proper philosophy.
This is a photo of earth taken by Voyager 1 as it passed out of the solar system. The planet occupies less than a single pixel.
And here is how it moved Carl Sagan.0
Advertisement