Christians Time Travelling to the OT

Standman

PDN wrote: »

Er, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Jesus didn't write Exodus.

My apologies, you are correct! This is the verse where we have Jesus reiterating gods command:

Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

PDN wrote: »

Now you're totally changing the subject. There's a world of difference in believing that God gives and takes away life, and living under the morality of the Old Testament Law. Many people, for example, believe that when a baby dies that God "took the child home to heaven" - but that does not lead them to think it's OK for us to kill babies.

The point I was trying to make was that god is not above murdering children if he so wishes. I thought it was worth mentioning in case someone were to think that god would not condone the stoning to death of children.

PDN wrote: »

No wiggling necessary - just the reading of Scripture in context. In fact, why don't you try it? Go and read Exodus Chapter 21 - the whole chapter. It talks about the owning of slaves etc. and is quite obviously referring throughout to adults.

That is true, but it kind of leaves open a few loose ends. I mean, it doesn't in any way rule out the execution of children if they were to hit/curse their parents. Reading that chapter you would by no means be able to come to the conclusion that you must not execute a child if he curses or smites his parents.

Where in the chapter does it give guidelines as to what age-group these laws are to be applied? How old do you have to be to own a slave etc..?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

And Genesis 5:27 has Methuselah popping his sandals at 969 years.

Do you believe that this actually happened?

Yes I do.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Yes I do.

Well, if that's the case, you'd appear more consistent if you were less suspicious of other religions treating the passage of similar periods of time as unimportant.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, if that's the case, you'd appear more consistent if you were less suspicious of other religions treating the passage of similar periods of time as unimportant.

It's late at night, so I'll excuse such a contrived comparison.

There is a world of difference between:
a) Believing that someone lived a life span way in excess of what most people consider possible

and

b) Believing that someone born hundreds of years after an event is as likely to give an accurate account of that event as contemporary eye-witnesses.

Robin, if you really think there is any equivalency between those two positions then you have been spending too much time in the Creationism thread.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It's late at night, so I'll excuse such a contrived comparison.

There is a world of difference between:
a) Believing that someone lived a life span way in excess of what most people consider possible

and

b) Believing that someone born hundreds of years after an event is as likely to give an accurate account of that event as contemporary eye-witnesses.

Robin, if you really think there is any equivalency between those two positions then you have been spending too much time in the Creationism thread.

not really.

Both assertions (someone like Noah lived 900 years, Mohammad knows what really happened to Jesus) are rather implausible and require the acceptance of a supernatural element, in the case of the ancient people of the OT the idea that select humans can live for close to a thousand years, in the case of Mohammad that an angel from God arrived and told him things.

I don't mean to bash this point around and around, but it does seem rather inconsitent to so readily accept a range of supernatural events and yet seemingly reject off hand anothers. I'm not saying you should believe what Muslims do about Mohammad, but you have to admit PDN that comments such as "Think about it" could just as easily be applied to pretty much everything you believe as well. How you think there is a world of difference I have no idea

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

not really.

Both assertions (someone like Noah lived 900 years, Mohammad knows what really happened to Jesus) are rather implausible and require the acceptance of a supernatural element, in the case of the ancient people of the OT the idea that select humans can live for close to a thousand years, in the case of Mohammad that an angel from God arrived and told him things.

I don't mean to bash this point around and around, but it does seem rather inconsitent to so readily accept a range of supernatural events and yet seemingly reject off hand anothers. I'm not saying you should believe what Muslims do about Mohammad, but you have to admit PDN that comments such as "Think about it" could just as easily be applied to pretty much everything you believe as well. How you think there is a world of difference I have no idea

Indeed, the comment "think about it" could indeed be applied to many things that you or I believe. That is why I post on this board - to encourage people to think about these things more deeply instead of simply rejecting them out of hand because of your gripe against Christianity or theism in general.

So let's unpick your reasoning here.
Your argument can be summed up as follows:
a) PDN believes in something that Wicknight and Robin find implausible (Methusaleh living an amazingly long life).
b) PDN also argues that one claim to to accurately record certain events (the life of Jesus) is more plausible than another.
c) Therefore PDN is inconsistent.

Do you see how bone-headed that reasoning is? Let's frame it another way to demonstrate its absurdity:

a) Wicknight believes in something that PDN finds implausible (that the eye-witness accounts to the resurrection were a mass case of false memory syndrome).
b) Wicknight also argues that one theory of how human life developed (evolution) is more plausible than anther (creationism).
c) Therefore Wicknight is inconsistent.

In fact, using this logic, providing that I can find anything that another poster believes that I find implausible, therefore I can accuse them of inconsistency and imply that they are disqualified from assessing the plausibility or otherwise of anything else on any subject imaginable. Such tactics might work if you want to do some cheap grandstanding - but they will not fool any thoughtful reader of your posts.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, the comment "think about it" could indeed be applied to many things that you or I believe. That is why I post on this board - to encourage people to think about these things more deeply instead of simply rejecting them out of hand because of your gripe against Christianity or theism in general.

So let's unpick your reasoning here.
Your argument can be summed up as follows:
a) PDN believes in something that Wicknight and Robin find implausible (Methusaleh living an amazingly long life).
b) PDN also argues that one claim to to accurately record certain events (the life of Jesus) is more plausible than another.
c) Therefore PDN is inconsistent.

Do you see how bone-headed that reasoning is?

Certainly, but then that isn't my reasoning or the point that myself and Robin are trying to make.

a) PDN believes in the correctness of his religion's account of the life and supernatural ability of Jesus based on a believe that the correctness is ensured by a supernatural element (Jesus was the son of God, and those who recorded his life were inspired by God)

b) The Muslim poster believers in the correctness of his religion's account of the life of Jesus based on a belief that the correctness is ensured by a supernatural element (Mohammad communicated directly with an angel sent by God)

c) PDN told the Muslim poster to "think about it" and critiqued the Mohammad account as being the account of an illiterate Arab who lived 500 years after the life of Jesus thus being rather implausible, while ignoring the supernatural element and the correctness that it ensures.

The point is that you ignore the supernatural element of the Mohammand story while embracing the supernatural element (and the assurance of plausibility this brings) with your own story.

You have your own reasons for believing there is a supernatural element to the story of the life of Jesus, but then a Muslim has his/her reasons for believing the supernatural element of the experience of Mohammad is also correct.

And once a supernatural element is accepted pretty much anything is on the table.

That was Robin's point about the common response that God isn't limited that skeptics so often meet on this forum when challenging the plausibility of stories in the Bible.

As you often (correctly) point out Jesus paranormal events, such as rising from the dead are only highly implausible if one doesn't introduce the supernatural element of the a deity capable of doing things like rising people from the dead. Once introduced anyone rising from the dead becomes plausible. You, and other posters, include that supernatural element and then say that it is not at all implausible that Jesus could rise from the dead given the existence of that supernatural element (God).

To be consistent you should really also recognize that Muslims do exactly the same thing when discussing Mohammad.

To leave out the supernatural element and then to discuss the implausibility of Mohammad actually knowing what Jesus' life was like because he live 500 years later is the inconsistency.

I certainly appreciate that you don't believe Mohammad had a supernatural encounter with an angel set from God, but that is irrelevant to a Muslim who does. Arguing the implausibility of Mohammad's knowledge of Jesus without including the messenger from God is rather pointless, particularly when you so readily invoke similar supernatural elements when faced with critique of your own religion's paranormal stories.

This is a common issue that is often met on this forum, either between Christians and other religions, or even between say Catholics and non-Catholics, and I must say that I find it all puzzling.

Surely someone who so readily accepts a supernatural element increasing the plausibility of the various paranormal events their religion teaches actually happened would be far more considering of how the paranormal events in other religions (or branches of Christianity) come into play and how these paranormal events can be easily used to justify and explain other elements, just like in your own religion.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly, but then that isn't my reasoning or the point that myself and Robin are trying to make.

a) PDN believes in the correctness of his religion's account of the life and supernatural ability of Jesus based on a believe that the correctness is ensured by a supernatural element (Jesus was the son of God, and those who recorded his life were inspired by God)

b) The Muslim poster believers in the correctness of his religion's account of the life of Jesus based on a belief that the correctness is ensured by a supernatural element (Mohammad communicated directly with an angel sent by God)

c) PDN told the Muslim poster to "think about it" and critiqued the Mohammad account as being the account of an illiterate Arab who lived 500 years after the life of Jesus thus being rather implausible, while ignoring the supernatural element and the correctness that it ensures.

The point is that you ignore the supernatural element of the Mohammand story while embracing the supernatural element (and the assurance of plausibility this brings) with your own story.

Ehh, What?? The OP made a point that Jesus is a revered prophet in Islam, just that the Gospel accounts are false. So to make a point about the plausability of this being true has little to do with anything supernatural. The point, to me anyway, was simply stating that the Gospels were written by witnesses, or people close to the witnesses of the events. Then 550 years later ONE MAN 'Claims' that an angel came and informed him those accounts were false, and here's the final revelation.

Think about it.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Robin, if you really think there is any equivalency between those two positions then you have been spending too much time in the Creationism thread.

Come now, PDN, don't be so silly!

In comparison to the strenuous and continuous effort that must be needed to sustain the usual christian beliefs, for example, that a man could live to 969 years, or that somebody could die a frightful death, then come back to life and fly off into the sky, or that a women could have a child without having had sex, I'd have thought that the effort needed to believe that an illiterate merchant could write down something is comparatively, quite modest.

Can't say much more than "Think about it"!

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Ehh, What?? The OP made a point that Jesus is a revered prophet in Islam, just that the Gospel accounts are false. So to make a point about the plausability of this being true has little to do with anything supernatural.

Well, as hunnybunny said -

"The word was given to Mohommed through the angel Gabriel (same angel who told Mary she was expecting)"

and then later

"Maybe its all simply down to which version of the story of jesus do you believe more? the Bibles version or the Korans?"

Which prompted PDN comment about the believability of "the version that an illiterate Arab merchant says he received from an angel 550 years after the event"

Why would you not believe the version Mohammad received from God through the Angel Gabriell? Is God going to lie to Mohammad?

JimiTime wrote: »

The point, to me anyway, was simply stating that the Gospels were written by witnesses, or people close to the witnesses of the events. Then 550 years later ONE MAN 'Claims' that an angel came and informed him those accounts were false, and here's the final revelation.

That is exactly the point.

The Bible is written by people claiming to be witnesses to Jesus, who claim that he claimed to be the Son of God. They claim he did amazing things and then claim he came back from the dead.

All the things in the Bible are highly implausible to the point of ridiculousness unless one first introduces a supernatural deity that has the ability to make these things actually happen. Without that it is just a bunch of religious nuts making the same wacky claims as countless other cults about miracles and paranormal happenings.

The Quran was written by a man claiming to have received a revelation from God through a messenger in the form of an angel, which included the claims about about Jesus. That is highly implausible unless one introduces a supernatural deity that communicates with people through angels. Without that it is just a crazy guy who had weird hallucination in the desert.

Both stories are utter nonsense unless one already introduces an agent that allows them to be some what plausible (ie God).

The idea that a Christian (or Muslim) would introduce this agent to rationalize their own supernatural tales, but then not do the same when critiquing the claims of another religion, is rather ridiculous.

Say what you like about atheists, but we tend not to introduce supernatural explanations at any point, especially not for our own beliefs but then not for others.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well, as hunnybunny said -

"The word was given to Mohommed through the angel Gabriel (same angel who told Mary she was expecting)"

and then later

"Maybe its all simply down to which version of the story of jesus do you believe more? the Bibles version or the Korans?"

Which prompted PDN comment about the believability of "the version that an illiterate Arab merchant says he received from an angel 550 years after the event"

Which is a very fair point by PDN. We have multiple witnesses etc in the biblical account, and they were written down close to the event. 550 years later we have ONE MAN who CLAIMS that he recieved a revelation from God, which contradicts the biblical accounts. Thats the point that PDN makes. If you have the common ground of belief in God, then look at the plausability of the info you have.

Why would you not believe the version Mohammad received from God through the Angel Gabriell? Is God going to lie to Mohammad?

I don't believe God did send an angel to Mohammad. For a multitude of reasons.

That is exactly the point.

There is no point?

The Bible is written by people claiming to be witnesses to Jesus, who claim that he claimed to be the Son of God. They claim he did amazing things and then claim he came back from the dead.

Ok.

All the things in the Bible are highly implausible to the point of ridiculousness unless one first introduces a supernatural deity that has the ability to make these things actually happen.

Ok.

Without that it is just a bunch of religious nuts making the same wacky claims as countless other cults about miracles and paranormal happenings.

Ok.

The Quran was written by a man claiming to have received a revelation from God through a messenger in the form of an angel, which included the claims about about Jesus. That is highly implausible unless one introduces a supernatural deity that communicates with people through angels.

Absolutely.

Without that it is just a crazy guy who had weird hallucination in the desert.

Or a Liar. Or Satanic etc.

Both stories are utter nonsense unless one already introduces an agent that allows them to be some what plausible (ie God).

Ok

The idea that a Christian (or Muslim) would introduce this agent to rationalize their own supernatural tales, but then not do the same when critiquing the claims of another religion, is rather ridiculous.

Thats not what PDN did He didn't claim that it can't happen. Just questioned its plausability. Can we not question the claims of people like David Koresh etc? Is it inconsistant to claim they are not from God? You really are making a non-point, as did Robin.

Say what you like about atheists

There's so many varieties I wouldn't know where to start.:pac:

but we tend not to introduce supernatural explanations at any point,

Well Done.

especially not for our own beliefs but then not for others.

Which is not whats been done here neither. So.........

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Which is a very fair point by PDN. We have multiple witnesses etc in the biblical account, and they were written down close to the event.

You don't have multiple witness, you have people claiming there were multiple witnesses, and this claim was actually written down decades after the event by a person who never physically met Jesus.

This is before you get to the fact that you have the claim of a man rising himself from the dead, a totally implausible and by all medical understanding impossible occurrence.

JimiTime wrote: »

550 years later we have ONE MAN who CLAIMS that he recieved a revelation from God, which contradicts the biblical accounts.

Well yes, that is the point. Muslims believe that the New Testament, particularly the bits after Jesus' death, are a corruption of the true story of Jesus.

The correct, factual, story of Jesus is held in the Injil,, referred to in the Quran as one of the 5 books revealed by God.

Muslims find concepts like Jesus being the literal "son" of God ridiculous and heretical, which you have to admit is more in keeping with Jewish tradition than the Christian idea.

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats the point that PDN makes. If you have the common ground of belief in God, then look at the plausability of the info you have.

Are you saying that, assuming the existence of God, it is not plausible that the early Christians corrupted the original message of Jesus with fabrications and mistakes, and that an angel visited Mohammad in a cave in Arabia to point this out (among other things)

JimiTime wrote: »

Or a Liar. Or Satanic etc.

Well yes, but you can equally claim that about someone like Paul.

Is Mohammad more less likely to be a messenger of Satan than Paul was, or the men who wrote the Bible?

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not what PDN did He didn't claim that it can't happen. Just questioned its plausability.

He questioned the plausibility while ignoring the supernatural element.

Again are any of the supernatural things you believe about the New Testament more plausible than the supernatural things Muslims believe about Mohammad revelation?

JimiTime wrote: »

Can we not question the claims of people like David Koresh etc?

I would love for you to question the claims of people like David Koresh, Mohammand, L Ron Hubbard, the Pope, Jesus, Paul, Peter ....

The inconsistent bit is when you don't do that for your own beliefs, or criticize the implausibility of other religions when your own religion is steeped in equally implausible supernatural and paranormal events and explanations.

Are you honestly arguing that it is implausible that Mohammad was visited by a messenger from God but it is plausible that someone like Paul was visited by God himself?

How could a Christian possibly argue such a position with a straight face?

JimiTime wrote: »

Which is not whats been done here neither. So.........

That is exactly what is being done here.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

That is exactly what is being done here.

Its not, but I'm not going to argue.

Tar.Aldarion

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, the comment "think about it" could indeed be applied to many things that you or I believe. That is why I post on this board - to encourage people to think about these things more deeply instead of simply rejecting them out of hand because of your gripe against Christianity or theism in general.

So let's unpick your reasoning here.
Your argument can be summed up as follows:
a) PDN believes in something that Wicknight and Robin find implausible (Methusaleh living an amazingly long life).
b) PDN also argues that one claim to to accurately record certain events (the life of Jesus) is more plausible than another.
c) Therefore PDN is inconsistent.

Do you see how bone-headed that reasoning is? Let's frame it another way to demonstrate its absurdity:

a) Wicknight believes in something that PDN finds implausible (that the eye-witness accounts to the resurrection were a mass case of false memory syndrome).
b) Wicknight also argues that one theory of how human life developed (evolution) is more plausible than anther (creationism).
c) Therefore Wicknight is inconsistent.

In fact, using this logic, providing that I can find anything that another poster believes that I find implausible, therefore I can accuse them of inconsistency and imply that they are disqualified from assessing the plausibility or otherwise of anything else on any subject imaginable. Such tactics might work if you want to do some cheap grandstanding - but they will not fool any thoughtful reader of your posts.

That's not what they are saying at all, you shouldn't use that logic beause it is wrong. It's very simple stuff wiknight is saying. The think about it post you made was quite harsh to the islamic religion. It could be said of any religion.
Is communion really the flesh and blood? How did noah build an arc we could not even make today. think about it and so on.
You can't just believe in some miracles whilst dismissing others like that. Gabriel clearly appeared in chritianity but did not is islam? It's more unlikely for an angel to appear to an arab merchant than for a women to be impregnated by god? and so on.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not, but I'm not going to argue.

Could you have decided not to argue before post 62 :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

That's not what they are saying at all, you shouldn't use that logic beause it is wrong. It's very simple stuff wiknight is saying. The think about it post you made was quite harsh to the islamic religion. It could be said of any religion.
Is communion really the flesh and blood? How did noah build an arc we could not even make today. think about it and so on.
You can't just believe in some miracles whilst dismissing others like that. Gabriel clearly appeared in chritianity but did not is islam? It's more unlikely for an angel to appear to an arab merchant than for a women to be impregnated by god? and so on.

Is it really so hard to grasp the point? The bit you are forgetting, is that Islam does not just come up with a new religion, but says says things about Jesus etc, that contradict accounts recorded by eye-witnesses etc. John was an eye witness. Peter was an eye witness. Matthew was an eye witness. Peter etc gave creedence to Paul also. So there are a group of people. Then Mohammad comes along 550 years later, and says he was visited by an Angel and that all those events were hogwash. No-one is trying to say that an Angel could visit someone and give them such a thing, but examining the claim, I would say its alot less reliable. You or wicknight or robin or whoever can argue that they are both as plausible or whatever. But its certainly NOT inconsistant to have an opinion about someones claim being false, just because there are supernatural beliefs in ones own faith.

Using your rationale, I could write a book such as 'Conversations with God' which contradicts the bible, and PDN would be being Inconsistant by dismissing it.

I suppose its just atheist Vs Christian. I certainly see you all as unreasonable in this instance.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Could you have decided not to argue before post 62 :rolleyes:

Yes I could have. But then i keep forgetting how stupid it is to enter into 'discussion' with you. Should have known by the absence of a response by PDN, that I shouldn't waste my time alright



oh yeah the rolleyes :rolleyes: Nearlly forgot that most essential ingredient.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

But its certainly NOT inconsistant to have an opinion about someones claim being false, just because there are supernatural beliefs in ones own faith.

Nobody has said that, at least not in the posts that I've read.

What me and wiki are pointing out is that it's a bit silly to say that the supernatural claims of other religions are clearly bogus while glossing the possible bogosity of the supernatural claims of one's own religion.

Or to put it another way and maybe, a simpler way, your own attitude to islamic claims of supernatural interference in mankind is much the same as mine -- we both agree that it's pretty unlikely. Only that I retain a similar level of disbelief for similar christian claims for supernatural interference and that seems to be the bit that christians have problems with.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Nobody has said that, at least not in the posts that I've read.

What me and wiki are pointing out is that it's a bit silly to say that the supernatural claims of other religions are clearly bogus while glossing the possible bogosity of the supernatural claims of one's own religion.

Or to put it another way and maybe, a simpler way, your own attitude to islamic claims of supernatural interference in mankind is much the same as mine -- we both agree that it's pretty unlikely. Only that I retain a similar level of disbelief for similar christian claims for supernatural interference and that seems to be the bit that christians have problems with.

But this just confirms that you are making a point based on something that wasn't actually claimed. The supernatural element is not the problem.

Its a claim by Mohamad, one mans claim, that the original recordings of Jesus' ministry are bogus. Could God send an angel to do such a thing? Yes. But the only evidence is the claim of Mohamad that this occured. Whereas with the gospel accounts, we have several people giving eyewitness accounts, or second hand accounts. These accounts can be also shown to be consistant with OT prophesy etc etc. Now I suppose one could take Mohamad at his word and believe him, like David Koresh etc. But the word of eyewitnesses (plural) etc, would seem to be more plausible than the word of one man who lived 550 years later, who makes the unsupported claim that all those previous accounts were bogus. Unsupported of course unless you believe God did send an angel. On inspection though, I'm certain no Angel of God visited him. I see no evidence to suggest such a corruption in the NT neither. So I would use it as a source of wisdom for weeding out false prophets such as Mohamad, David Koresh, or whoever.

Now again, you are free to disagree, but you are not correct in saying that its inconsistant.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Now I suppose one could take Mohamad at his word and believe him, like David Koresh etc.

Do you take Paul at his word that he saw a supernatural vision of Jesus and was converted to the cause?

Do you take Paul at his word when he claimed there were 500 witnesses to the supernatural appearance of Jesus?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you take Paul at his word that he saw a supernatural vision of Jesus and was converted to the cause?

Do you take Paul at his word when he claimed there were 500 witnesses to the supernatural appearance of Jesus?

Again, I'm not here to argue the plausability. I'm merely pointing out that its not inconsistant to be skeptical about Mohamads claims, while believing those of others. As I said, Its nothing to do with the supernatural element. Its about weighing up the info. Now you are free to come to your own conclusions with the info, but its not inconsistant to favour the evidence of one over another. If PDN's point was 'As if an Angel would visit Mohamad', then you'd have a point. I would however, give PDN credit as a smart man, as I'm sure you know yourself. It seemed fairly obvious, that he didn't take exception that God could send an angel to do this. Rather, he seemed to be saying that it was very unlikely on his weighing up the available evidence. Again, you can conclude differently, but PDN is NOT being inconsistant in seeing things in this manner. Seriously, I don't think I could be any clearer, and I think if there is a continuation of the inconsistancy accusation, that I'll have to just bow out in disagreement. I originally thought that my posting would clear up a misunderstanding you guys had about PDN's post.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Now you are free to come to your own conclusions with the info, but its not inconsistant to favour the evidence of one over another.

As Robin has already explained to you, that isn't what people were saying.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

As Robin has already explained to you, that isn't what people were saying.

But thats what PDN did when you called him inconsistant. You thought he meant it was implausible that a supernatural event took place. His answer had alot more to it. He presented two stories, and implied which one sounded more valid. Again I say, you guys strawmanned his point and attacked him as being inconsistant. To Reiterate, He didn't say that the mohamad event could not happen. He implied based on the available info, that it is highly unlikely the Mohamad acount is true. Is this being inconsistant to you? If not, then fine, you misunderstood the point originally. If you think it is being inconsistant, then I vehemently disagree.

PDN wrote:

So which version is most likely to be correct?

a) The version that was written down by eye-witnesses, by followers of Jesus, and by close associates of those followers. The version that was written and widely circulated within 50 years or so of His life and death.

b) The version that an illiterate Arab merchant says he received from an angel 550 years after the event.

Think about it.

I really don't see the problem.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Nobody has said that, at least not in the posts that I've read.

What me and wiki are pointing out is that it's a bit silly to say that the supernatural claims of other religions are clearly bogus while glossing the possible bogosity of the supernatural claims of one's own religion.

Or to put it another way and maybe, a simpler way, your own attitude to islamic claims of supernatural interference in mankind is much the same as mine -- we both agree that it's pretty unlikely. Only that I retain a similar level of disbelief for similar christian claims for supernatural interference and that seems to be the bit that christians have problems with.

What I simply said was that we are faced with two competing claims about Jesus, (both of which require a belief in the supernatural in order to be accepted in their entirety). It is reasonable to compare those two claims to see which is more plausible (of course you can reject both of them, but that is another matter as I was addressing the OP who was asking which one she should believe).

Given that both Muslims and Christians do accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, it is reasonable for them to use a number of criteria for assessing the probability of each option being accurate. The number of eye-witnesses and the distance in time from the events in question are reasonable criteria.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

He implied based on the available info, that it is highly unlikely the Mohamad acount is true. Is this being inconsistant to you?

Yes, considering that it is also highly unlikely that any of the Jesus stories are true either. That doesn't stop you believing in all of them, and the Muslims have their own reasons for believing Mohammad was visited by an angel.

To condescendingly tell Muslims to "think about it" with regard to the revelations of Mohammad is being quite inconsistent about how one approaches the supernatural, or how one invokes the supernatural to justify their own faith.

In defending PDN are you honestly arguing that it is some how more rational to believe that your religion's holy figure was executed, died and then rose from the dead to appear to a bunch of fisher men and farmers (accounts recorded by a man who's claim of authority in this matter was that he received a vision of said holy figure on a road) than it is that an angel from God appeared to the Muslim's holy figure?

If the supernatural elements of the Jesus story, the implausible bits, are ignored then you don't have an accurate history of Jesus in the New Testament. One has to accept the supernatural bits (the miracles, the son of God, the resurrection) to believe that the NT accurately records Jesus' story.

JimiTime wrote: »

I really don't see the problem.

Well that is probably because you are a Christians and have already stated that you don't believe an angel visited Mohammad.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The number of eye-witnesses and the distance in time from the events in question are reasonable criteria.

Not in comparison to a revelation from God!

The number of eye witnesses are irrelevant, God doesn't lie nor is he wrong. If a million people said they saw something and God said otherwise God would be right.

The distance in time from the event is irrelevant, God doesn't forget things. If it was a million years from now God would still get the details correct when explaining them to Mohammad.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not in comparison to a revelation from God!

The number of eye witnesses are irrelevant, God doesn't lie nor is he wrong. If a million people said they saw something and God said otherwise God would be right.

The distance in time from the event is irrelevant, God doesn't forget things. If it was a million years from now God would still get the details correct when explaining them to Mohammad.

Your (probably deliberate) misrepresentation of what Christians believe is starting to smell like trolling.

It's all very well to speak of God revealing things to Paul or to Mohammed. But each of us has to assess the evidence and decide for ourselves whether it is really God speaking to someone or not. So, if a cultist claims that God told him the Holocaust never occurred then most of us will reject that because we think it highly unlikely that all the eyewitnesses to the Holocaust were wrong. The weighing of evidence, be it archaeological or literary, is entirely consistent with a belief in the supernatural.

Thread successfully derailed.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Your (probably deliberate) misrepresentation of what Christians believe is starting to smell like trolling.

Please point out where I misrepresented what Christians believe in that previous post, a post concerned almost exclusively with what Muslims believe

"Trolling" and "misrepresenting" seem to be your default settings ...

PDN wrote: »

It's all very well to speak of God revealing things to Paul or to Mohammed. But each of us has to assess the evidence and decide for ourselves whether it is really God speaking to someone or not.

And considering the high implausibility of nearly everything you believe in relation to the resurrection of Jesus and his reappearance it is rather inconsistent of you to have a go at the implausibility of what Muslims believe in relation to the revelation of the angel to Mohammad.

You believe Jesus was executed, came back and people saw him come back and other people recorded that they did and that these recordings were accurate. Fine, so do lots of people

Muslims believe that Mohammad went to a cave where an angel messenger from God informed him of a great many things, including that the above is incorrect. Again fine, lots of people do.

But to suggest that one of these beliefs is some how nonsense (think about it!) while the other is some how perfectly rational and believable, is inconsistent and silly

PDN wrote: »

So, if a cultist claims that God told him the Holocaust never occurred then most of us will reject that because we think it highly unlikely that all the eyewitnesses to the Holocaust were wrong.

Well yes, but then the holocaust wasn't a dead man rising from the dead and then walking on water now was it.

Are you seriously arguing that your belief in that is some how more rational and plausible and justifiable than an angel appearing to Mohammad?

Should this be obvious to a Muslim who just thinks about it for a minute?

JimiTime

WN, I officially think you are a moron. Talk about stubborn, Bloody hell!!

Accepting impending ban with pride,
Jimi.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

WN, I officially think you are a moron.

Accepting impending ban with pride,
Jimi.

Possibly, but then you still haven't figured out a way of explaining why I'm wrong yet.

I think Tar summed it up best -


The think about it post you made was quite harsh to the islamic religion. It could be said of any religion.
...
You can't just believe in some miracles whilst dismissing others like that. Gabriel clearly appeared in chritianity but did not is islam? It's more unlikely for an angel to appear to an arab merchant than for a women to be impregnated by god? and so on.

btw i have no wish for you to get banned. This may seem like a cloaked complement but you calling me a moron has no ability to insult me.

Standman

I understand where they two lads are coming from, if a lot of people say one thing happened and then one person who happens to be illiterate says another thing happened, logically enough you'd be inclined to believe the majority. Add to that it was centuries later that the mohammed incident occurred and it seems like a no brainer. I think that the reason this argument continues endlessly is because to wicknight both stories are just as improbable without any external evidence so it doesn't really matter how many people say it really happened.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Possibly, but then you still haven't figured out a way of explaining why I'm wrong yet.

Again, its not about being right or wrong. Its about weighing up something, and coming to a conclusion. You think its all cr@p. Fair enough. Those of us who believe in God, weigh up things with God in mind. Muslims obviously have their reasons, which Christians obviously find wrong. I mean, its not flippin rocket science!

I think Tar summed it up best -


The think about it post you made was quite harsh to the islamic religion. It could be said of any religion.
...
You can't just believe in some miracles whilst dismissing others like that. Gabriel clearly appeared in chritianity but did not is islam? It's more unlikely for an angel to appear to an arab merchant than for a women to be impregnated by god? and so on.

Completely misses the point, as has been explained a few times now. Of course one can believe one miricle and dismiss another. Its about weighing things up, and deciding what sounds more plausible. In fact it has to be done. You can't believe both! If I think Mohammad is a false prophet, i'm hardly going to give him any respect, as i believe he's mislead millions!

btw i have no wish for you to get banned.

But I may get matyrdom for it:pac:

This may seem like a cloaked complement but you calling me a moron has no ability to insult me.

I'm sure it doesn't, sticks and stones and all that, especially coming from someone you don't know. Though you did say you loved me on the other thread:pac:

Zombrex

Standman wrote: »

because to wicknight both stories are just as improbable without any external evidence so it doesn't really matter how many people say it really happened.

Exactly. The idea that 500 people (or the claim of 500 people) seeing a dead man walking around some how makes that quite reasonable and plausible, but one man seeing an angel from God isn't, is ridiculous.

Both PDN and Wolfsbane know that is not the reason they believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead. There are plenty of more plausible miracles witnessed by far more people that they no doubt don't accept. It might be something they apply retroactively to justify the resurrection (I believe Jesus came back from the dead and also we have the eye witness accounts)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

You think its all cr@p. Fair enough. Those of us who believe in God, weigh up things with God in mind. Muslims obviously have their reasons, which Christians obviously find wrong. I mean, its not flippin rocket science!

You guys do invoke God, weigh up things with God in mind. It is the only way to make the stories of Jesus plausible. As I said, men can't come back to life unless one invokes God.

So why would anyone expect a Muslim to weigh things up without God in mind?

Why would PDN say "an illiterate Arab who live 550 years after the event ... think about it" instead of "an illiterate Arab who live 550 years after the event and who received a detailed revelation from God ... think about it"

For Muslims there is little to think about. Mohammad had a message from God. The fact that it was 550 years later is irrelevant. The fact that he didn't know Jesus is irrelevant. They invoke God to make their stories of Jesus plausible just like you do.

Again that is the inconsistency, invoking God for one's own religion but expecting someone else not to.

I don't mean to make this out into a massive crime or anything. It is simply an example of the compartmentalised thinking that we atheists always go on about. My original comments were simple and about the angel and I would have thought that would have been enough for PDN (and yourself) to have got the point straight away. This discussion has dragged on because yourself and PDN seem determined to fight this tooth and nail.

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course one can believe one miricle and dismiss another.

Again that isn't the point.

It is not one personally dismissing a miracle themselves, it is expecting others of a different religion to dismiss their miracles while not dismissing your own when discussing which religion has the correct version of events.

If you are not following the objection to what PDN wrote, it was the line about the illiterate Arab 550 years later and the "think about it" comment. What does PDN think a Muslim should think about?

When discussing who has the correct version of Jesus life, why would a Muslim be expected to dismiss the angel from God while being expected to consider the Christian witnesses to the resurrection?

That is the point myself and Robin were trying to make to PDN straight after his comments, a point that was apparently lost.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm sure it doesn't, sticks and stones and all that, especially coming from someone you don't know. Though you did say you loved me on the other thread:pac:

Meant every word :pac:

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

So why would anyone expect a Muslim to weigh things up without God in mind

No one is expecting Muslims to do that. No one asked a Muslim to do that. In fact my comment was not directed at a Muslim at all, but rather at someone who believes in God but is unsure which religion to follow. It is entirely reasonable to ask such a person to consider which version sounds more plausible.

You, Wicknight, appear to be arguing that if someone is a theist then, if they are consistent, they should treat all reports of miracles as equally plausible since anything is possible with God. That is sheer nonsense.

I don't mean to make this out into a massive crime or anything. It is simply an example of the compartmentalised thinking that we atheists always go on about. My original comments were simple and about the angel and I would have thought that would have been enough for PDN (and yourself) to have got the point straight away. This discussion has dragged on because yourself and PDN seem determined to fight this tooth and nail.

We're dragging it out because your point is wrong and your reasoning is false.

I am happy for any religion to invoke God, but an interested observer is entitled to compare the plausibility of different religious claims. If a supernatural claim has eye-witness support (eg the Resurrection) then, all other things being equal, that claim is more plausible than one with no eye-witness support (eg some of Joseph Smith's claims). If a claim actually contradicts the testimony of all eye-witnesses (eg Mohammed's version of Jesus' life) then, all other things being equal, that claim is less plausible.

It is not one personally dismissing a miracle themselves, it is expecting others of a different religion to dismiss their miracles while not dismissing your own when discussing which religion has the correct version of events.

If you are not following the objection to what PDN wrote, it was the line about the illiterate Arab 550 years later and the "think about it" comment. What does PDN think a Muslim should think about?

Once again, I didn't actually ask a Muslim to think about anything.

Even if I had done so, it would not be inconsistent of me. If two religions are making mutually contradictory claims then it is reasonable to try to assess which is more likely to be correct. Only a half-wit, or apparently an atheist, would say, "Since both are invoking God they are equally plausible and all supporting evidence is irrelevant".

When discussing who has the correct version of Jesus life, why would a Muslim be expected to dismiss the angel from God while being expected to consider the Christian witnesses to the resurrection?

Yet again, my comment was not directed at a Muslim. Neither do I expect Muslims to dismiss their ideas about the angel. However, both Christians and Muslims should be prepared to compare their beliefs and, while dismissing nothing out of hand, ask which is more plausible.

That is the point myself and Robin were trying to make to PDN straight after his comments, a point that was apparently lost.

It was lost because it was a poor point and was poorly made.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It is entirely reasonable to ask such a person to consider which version sounds more plausible.

It certainly is, but one would have expected you to put forward an accurate version for them to consider. You didn't, deliberately cased doubt on the angel central to the Muslim side, and that is the part of you being inconsistent.

I appreciate you don't believe the angel existed, but that isn't a reason to remove it as implausible from the consideration when you, as you say, are asking someone who is thinking about both religions.

I know hunnybunny isn't a Muslim btw. He is considering both sides and you are presenting him with a one sided view point. The point about the "why would a Muslim.." is to view your position from a Muslim side, something you seem incapable of doing.

PDN wrote: »

You, Wicknight, appear to be arguing that if someone is a theist then, if they are consistent, they should treat all reports of miracles as equally plausible since anything is possible with God. That is sheer nonsense.

No, I'm arguing that if a person is genuinely interested in presenting versions of history from two competing religious view points for the consideration of someone they should present the miracles of both sides, not just their own.

To argue that your miracles are some how plausible but the other sides aren't so well we'll just leave them out is nonsense.

"The version that was written down by eye-witnesses, by followers of Jesus, and by close associates of those followers" is only plausible if one accepts that it is plausible that Jesus resurrected himself and then started appearing to his followers. It requires an acceptance of a supernatural event to be in anyway plausible. Without that it is nonsense. It is far more plausible that 500 people were simply wrong (or 500 witnesses were made up in the first place)

So why cast doubt on the supernatural event of the other side, the visit of the angel?

"The version that an illiterate Arab merchant says he received from an angel 550 years after the event."

Which is why the very first comment I made after your "think about it" was to present the position with the angel introduced back as a fact in the story, as Muslims believe (in the same way that Christians believe the resurrection is a fact).

PDN wrote: »

I am happy for any religion to invoke God, but an interested observer is entitled to compare the plausibility of different religious claims.

Yes but you aren't presenting the plausibility of the different religious claims. You had already decided that the angel claim of Mohammad wasn't plausible.

Again, that is the inconsistent part.

Seriously, what part of this do you not get. You did not present an accurate view of the Muslim position. You presented the Muslim position from the point of view of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Muslim position!

You invoke miracles in your own position and then don't when expressing the Muslim one.

You then fall back on the excuse that you don't believe the Muslim miracle. I know that! But you were presenting both sides to a third party.

PDN wrote: »

If a supernatural claim has eye-witness support (eg the Resurrection) then, all other things being equal, that claim is more plausible than one with no eye-witness support (eg some of Joseph Smith's claims).

No, all things being equal neither claim is believable

The whole point is that things aren't equal.

No one in right mind would say "Oh, Paul says 500 witnesses. Well all things being equal I accept a man came back to life then"

You have reasons for believing the accuracy of the New Testament that have nothing to do with the 500 witnesses. And the Muslims have all their reasons for believing the accuracy of the Quaran.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

[...] we are faced with two competing claims about Jesus, (both of which require a belief in the supernatural in order to be accepted in their entirety). It is reasonable to compare those two claims to see which is more plausible [...]

There's a certain amount of confusion here, since two separate, but related, points are being argued.

I think it's fairly obvious to most people that the NT's claims contains more words than the conflicting text in the koran, and these words are (probably) written by more authors than the koran's text. Neither wicknight or myself disagree with you about this. Where we do disagree is in how to assign weight to what you claim is evidence.

It really is quite naive to to believe a claim (as you appear to) simply because it's documented at greater length or by a greater number of people than any competing claim, or by any surviving rebuttal. For the very simple reason that you will then have to explain why you don't believe the much better attested and much better supported claims of other religious people like Sai Baba and many others, who have also (for example) claimed to bring the dead back to life, perform miracles, be born of virgins, live to great age and so on.

And indeed, with this logic, you'd also find yourself believing the 9/11 conspiracy movement -- these people have produced vast quantities of meticulously documented rubbish. And so on for crop circles, UFO's, "alternative" medicine and so on and so on. I presume you do not subscribe to any of these fringe beliefs.

And even more problematical for the religious believer than the matter of the amount or form of any physical evidence, is the much simpler point that if one is going to permit oneself to accept that supernatural events events occur, then by any reasonable standard of argument, one cannot refuse others -- such as muslims -- the same luxury when they choose to assert that supernatural events support them in their belief.

And that's the rather glaring inconsistency that religious people have so much difficulty in noticing.

.

Asiaprod

JimiTime wrote: »

WN, I officially think you are a moron. Talk about stubborn, Bloody hell!!

Accepting impending ban with pride,
Jimi.

I think one person being crucified or martyred is quite enough. There are no morons on this thread Jimi. There are people who disagree with you. Please remember that and act according to the tenets of your faith; turn the other cheek. This is a heated debate, I would ask all to act with decorum, please.
Asia

JimiTime

Asiaprod wrote: »

There are just people who disagree with you.

While the moron comment was out of place, I disagree with your line above. But hey ho.

Please remember that and act according to the tenets of your faith; turn the other cheek.

If you are asking me to turn the other cheek, you are implying I've been attacked first.:p
Anyway, you know not me nor my faith, so best off not trying to lecture me in it. The telling off for my poor decorum will suffice. I say this in the nicest possible way btw.

This is a heated debate, I would ask all to act with decorum, please.
Asia

I indeed was out of line, and apologise for expressing my feelings in such an unbecoming manor.

Asiaprod

JimiTime wrote: »

Anyway, you know not me nor my faith, so best off not trying to lecture me in it. The telling off for my poor decorum will suffice. I say this in the nicest possible way btw.

Would never dream of it:P

I indeed was out of line, and apologise for expressing my feelings in such an unbecoming manor.

Thank you:).

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

There's a certain amount of confusion here, since two separate, but related, points are being argued.

I think it's fairly obvious to most people that the NT's claims contains more words than the conflicting text in the koran, and these words are (probably) written by more authors than the koran's text. Neither wicknight or myself disagree with you about this. Where we do disagree is in how to assign weight to what you claim is evidence.

It really is quite naive to to believe a claim (as you appear to) simply because it's documented at greater length or by a greater number of people than any competing claim, or by any surviving rebuttal. For the very simple reason that you will then have to explain why you don't believe the much better attested and much better supported claims of other religious people like Sai Baba and many others, who have also (for example) claimed to bring the dead back to life, perform miracles, be born of virgins, live to great age and so on.

And indeed, with this logic, you'd also find yourself believing the 9/11 conspiracy movement -- these people have produced vast quantities of meticulously documented rubbish. And so on for crop circles, UFO's, "alternative" medicine and so on and so on. I presume you do not subscribe to any of these fringe beliefs.

And even more problematical for the religious believer than the matter of the amount or form of any physical evidence, is the much simpler point that if one is going to permit oneself to accept that supernatural events events occur, then by any reasonable standard of argument, one cannot refuse others -- such as muslims -- the same luxury when they choose to assert that supernatural events support them in their belief.

And that's the rather glaring inconsistency that religious people have so much difficulty in noticing.

.

I sympathise with the thrust of the above. Historical facts are very difficult to prove, especially from nearly 2000 years ago. The further in time from the event, the less weight contemporary witness carries, as we cannot interview them or even folk who spoke to them. We have written records of the gospel witnesses, but these too cannot be cross-examined. In fact, the records are copies of the original documents, so are open to questioning as to their accuracy.

So is the Christians case based on the level of proof history provides? Mostly not. There is some weight to the records: their acceptance in the face of severe persecution; their continuance over so long a time. But the real basis for the Christian's acceptance of the Bible is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. When we read or hear the Bible, God bears witness in our hearts that this is the word of God.
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

While the moron comment was out of place, I disagree with your line above. But hey ho.

Burn him! Burn him! .... er ... I mean .... Ban him! Ban him!