FH:

"To put it crudely and bluntly, this 'Christ-myth' assertion would be similar to someone arguing that Isaac Newton didn't exist in history with the intent to reject gravity"

This is not similar at all. There is plenty of first-hand accounts of the existence of Newton. Not just from his own hand but from those around him and even records of daily life where he lived (e.g., newspapers). There is no such record of Jesus. All the historic evidence of his existence appears 2 have been written by writers who weren't even around when Jesus lived. That's hearsay. Is it untrue? Who knows?

This does not "prove" Jesus didn't exist. But the argument does suggest that the favorite bits of non-biblical corroborative evidence aren't sufficient to prove that he existed.

That's all it says.

-ol' 2long

AMM:

Sorry I didn't explain myself earlier. This quote from FH cap2res what I was alluding 2 rather better than I could have.

"But I rather suspect that while you claim to be interested in "facts" and "proof" (ala your interesting claims regarding "peer review," and Gould's speculations, among others), the reality is that you approach it the same way that Jim Walker and his fellow atheists approach it (from a bias, bordering on hatred, against religion in general and Christianity in specific). It's "understandable" that the bias exists, because it IS an "either/or" situation....either God exists or He doesn't. Either the world was Created or it wasn't(evolved)."

I'll say no more about this other than FH is way the frack off the mark. I'm not attacking anything, and I certainly don't hate Christians. I'm just asking for some rigor.

Thomas was my favorite disciple.

-ol' 2long

Okay, if that is so, then let's put up a few of those "confirmations" and see what they do, indeed, confirm or prove vis-a-vie evolutionary theory.




WAT, this a "a priori" circular reasoning. In the first place, "best" does not equal "only." In the second, it states that known natural law cannot be violated, yet evolutionists will argue strenuously for "open systems" and tossing out the Laws of Thermodynamics because they "prove" that evolution can't happen without outside "interference."
Significant problems are glossed over or ingnored and complex hypothesis are developed to "deal with" the incongruities. Occam's Razor is often ignored by evolutionists because it would deny evolution, so they look for "alternative" explanations.


hmmm....what would you consider the Quantum theory that all the universe was formed out of "nothing," a "bubble" in nothingness that somehow operated "outside of the scientific process and involved non-natural phenomena?"

Yes, I am talking about the "original ORIGIN", not the origin of Life, but even science is saying that there was a time when everything that IS was "created", "formed," "came into existance," out of nothing...."ex nihilo".

So the difference is NOT that things came into being "unnaturally" and came into being "out of nothing," the difference is in HOW it came to be and what we choose to believe on "faith." God "spoke" it into being out of nothing more than forming it according to his will and design, essentially out of Himself, and HE sustains it even unto today with His power is my belief. You argue for "natural processes" that didn't exist "back then" to govern the formation of Matter (which current science says cannot be destroyed or made into "nothing") from NOTHING, from where it did NOT exist to where is "sprang into existance." You may not equate that to "faith," but I see little difference in "ex nihilo" for either of them.

Once past the original ORIGIN, then we are faced with the origin of LIFE. That's another particularly sticky subject for scientists because a tenet of Biology is that "Life begets Life." But evolution must contend that life CAN and DID form randomly from non-living constituent parts AND maintained viablity and the ability to reproduce. NOT one shred of evidence for that, just pure speculation (called theory) and pure chosen belief (which I would, and do, call faith, belief in that which is unseen).



Tell me something, WAT, what do you suppose we might find IF we could ever break the supposedly impenetrable barrier of the Speed of Light? In some ways we already can. THOUGHT can travel faster than light, or so it seems even though thought involves the firing of neurons, etc. that do take place slower than "C." But what IF physically, like the Sound Barrier was once thought to be impenetrable, we could travel faster than light and "get past" relativity-type barriers that are postulated for speed of light travel?

What might we find "outside" normal time where the "universe" is passing slower that we are? Could something like a "day" in the life of the faster than light person be like a "thousand years" passing in the "normal universe? What would that FTL person look like to those of us in "normal slower than light" existence? If he went back to FTL speed, we could look for him all over the place, but he wouldn't be "seen."

Now you might argue that FTL travel is a "physical impossibility" given scientific principles of today. But this "physical impossibility" is ignored when it comes to the Origin of Life, let alone the complexities of higher forms of life and differentiations in Kinds.

No one anywhere has successfully "recreated" the original formation of life out of non-life. Many have tried, because it IS a bedrock principle of evolution, but none have been successful. Now there has been a LOT of mental power and scientific expertise expended in this effort, but even with all of that ON PURPOSE willpower directing the process, it still can't make life, let alone viable life, form out of non-life.

Sometimes I think that evolutionists would have a much easier time of things if they would follow Sherlock Holmesian reasoning that if you've eliminated all the possible reasons, that which remains, no matter how improbable, must be true. But then again, that IS what evolutionists try to do by eliminating the ONLY other other possible cause of origins. They can't "eliminate" by science, so they choose to ignore it and eliminate it by choice, thereby leaving the highly improbable random change and natural trial and error as the "best" (only) explanation. But let's face it, Christianity (and the Scripture) presents Jesus Christ as God, as the eternal Word WHO created all things. There IS a focal point that can be studied. But most even try to state, contrary to HISTORICAL proof, that Jesus was a myth and didn't really exist. So the "other possible" explanation for origins is NOT "proven wrong," it is summarily dismissed regardless of the evidence, in favor of a predetermined bias. That is NOT Holmesian reasoning either.

WAT, there are lots of things that are true even though they are "unconfirmable by the scientific process simply because it introduces and relies upon unnatural phenomena. Also, Creation cannot be disproven by the scientific process for the same reason."

Let's just take LOVE as one example. It cannot be scientifically quantified, yet no one would dare to claim that love did not exist simply because it's not confirmable by scientific processes. Oh sure, you could TRY to check the endorphin levels, the various hormonal levels, the various neurons firing, etc. when someone felt "love." But that only shows physical process and NOT the emotional and mental reality of LOVE. NOT all things ARE reduceable to the scientific method for analysis, but they are nonetheless still true.

Cool! He WAS a very smart man and it is your opinion that he knew what he was talking about. In some areas that is was certainly true, but it is equally true that in other areas he proferred speculation, guesswork, and opinion, just as we all do from time to time.

So yes, I guess I might seem a little arrogant at times to you. I am flattered to share some of Sagan's characteristics....I think.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

2Long - I did not say that you "hate" Christians, but you DID put up that link to a decidely "in your face" Atheist website that is fervently "antireligous." Generally, most of us cite sources of support because we agree with them, and you did say you liked what you read there.

I am asking for the same "rigor" you claim to want, in examinng the Historical record, in examining the Historicity of Jesus, not his diety.

2Long, whether or not Isaac Newton is "Good example" or not is irrelevant. What I was talking about is the process of Historical Criticism, of determining the Historicity of events, places, and people and the "usability" of the documents to establish Historicity.

There are three tests, three basic principles of historiography that C. Sanders lists and explains in Introduction to Research in English Literary History. They are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.

I would rather not get into a detailed explanation of all that as it is applied to the Scripture (it can be examined at length by anyone interested). Suffice it to say that the evidence FOR the historicity of the Scripture documents and the existence of Jesus are firmly established and not in doubt by any serious scholars. That does NOT speak at all to whether or not the writings were "inspired" and it does not speak to issue of WHO Jesus is, other than as man called Jesus who existed at that time and place and who was executed as the Bible states.

All the historic evidence of his existence appears 2 have been written by writers who weren't even around when Jesus lived. That's hearsay. Is it untrue? Who knows?

You might be surprised to see how many historical persons you might have to "toss out" if you apply your reasoning to the Historical Record and manuscripts that exist that speak of persons usually accepted as "having existed." Suffice it to say that several historical documents were written by writers who WERE around and/or who wrote from knowledge given to them by people who WERE contemporaneous with the time period under discussion.

Interesting 2Long. One of my favorites too. Especially the part when he looked at the proof and saw that it was real....and responded to the proof....."my LORD and my God!"

HE, Thomas, "settled" the matter for all of us "from Missouri-types" forever. HE was our "scientist" and "skeptic" on the scene whose testimony can be taken as truth.

He examined, he tested, he saw the theory proven, he accepted the truth without needing to know "exactly how" it was done, just that the empirical result was living and breathing in front of him in true physical form.

I love Thomas!

FH - I cannot take time to refute everything I'd like to in your previous response to me. You even drug out again the 2nd law ruse. If you do not accept the valid explanations given on this over and over and over then me re-stating them will add nothing. Suffice to say that creationists need some new arguments - like something, anything that can be considered science. Otherwise, stay away from science and teach your brand of origins elsewhere.

"OK!", you say, "Let us teach it as an elective or as a philosophy class in public schools!"

Nope. It won't happen.

Unless - it's presented with balance along with the innumerable other "alternatives" out there.

Do you understand where that will take you? Will you for a second acknowledge that your particular "alternative" is but one of many? Why should yours be chosen over others?

How would you like your explanation one day, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster the next? Hmmmmmm? You referred to this un-practicality earlier as a red herring. I don't understand that view, but regardless of what you may call it, it's the very real problem you will be confronted with. I don't think Evangelicals will like it one bit - it will backfire loudly. They're WAY better off not trying to force their 6-day views down everyone's throat who long ago visited the Grand Canyon. I think cynics out there secretly hope for the Evangelicals to win a case (a battle) so that they will lose what follows (the war). How do you know that God isn't controlling the repeated lost court cases just so Evangelicals won't untimately be doomed to obscurity?

Looking back over previous posts, I now see better why you were so insistent on calling my acceptance of evolution as a "Faith." This is so you can wedge your Faith onto the same playing field in science. Evangelicals would rather play semantics than practice real science. They are forced to because they have no science.

Regarding the "big bang", I think it's accurate to say that science makes NO CLAIM that this is fully understood. Far from it. Science (physisits) noodle all the time trying to come up with explanations for what might have occurred within the constraints of things they understand - natural phenomena. NO ONE understands the supernatural or what your God may have done. (And what about other gods who may have been involved? How do you know there's only one? Because the Bible says so?) If a God or gods were involved, so be it! Science is not looking for them for they cannot "exist" in the natural realm. Think of this as acknowledgement of their possibility! What about this is so hard for you to accept? It seems right in line with everything you say.

I'm surprised you didn't tackle my "morals" comments. Please re-consider this because I'm interested in your reactions. But I think the following question boils down my views succintly: Considering a self proclaimed "Christian" (or a person claiming to be of any popularly known faith) and a self proclaimed "secularist" (like myself), what predictions can we make for their future behavior? i.e., what morals will they display through their actions?

WAT

FH, there are many names for what MM spoke of. Religion arises in all cultures in all history that we are aware of (perhaps I am not aware of a culture that does not include religion). I believe that is it a universal human trait to seek for a -- and to be able to find -- connection to a Higher Power. I do not ascribe to the Scriptural belief that Christ is the only path.

Christian theologists and philosophers, as well as Christ Himself, have hit on many great truths and have contributed tremendously to the cause that Christ espouses. There are also, of course, those who preach in His name who cause great strife and harm. This is, I believe, true of all religions.

My experience is that religions that abhor fanaticism, proselytizing, and "our way is the only way" tend to focus more on the individual's "right relationship" with their Higher Power, and because of that, they tend to have better success in actually finding that Relationship. Some Christian sects take this approach and others do not. I do not find them to be co-equal.

You also asked about "no religion." Though "no religion" (in the sense of not belonging to a formal religion) can also be an ethical course to finding the Relationship that MM speaks of, to do so requires a great deal of discipline and an immense understanding of the nature of existence. Some people can do that without a formal structure in which to work, but my experience is that most do better with a more structured approach. Hence, "no religion" is not, in my view, co-equal with having a religion.

My own religious beliefs are somewhat varied. I've studied Buddhism (particularly Tibetan) and Judaism, and know a very small amount about several other religions. I am a member of a Reform synagogue, but have not yet converted to Judaism.

I know. And God and I talk regularly. She says Hi. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Actually, for an excellent treatise on the science, biochemical, hormonal, neuronal, emotional, and mental realities of love, you might want to read Why We Love by Helen Fisher. It is one of the best books I've read in a very long time.

bump

JustJ, you can choose whatever belief you wish. Neither I nor anyone else said that Jesus "is the only path." Keep the Commandments perfectly, and anyone can "make it" on their own. Unfortunately, the Scripture is also quite clear that NONE can, and that God knew that and chose to provide the ONE way back Himself. It is God who has said that the Messiah is the only way, but people are free, as they always have been, to choose whether or not they will accept that provision of God. If you'll pardon the crudity, He has done His part, now it's in our lap to accept or reject.

FH - thank you for saying it this tersely.

Translation: "You can choose any path you want, but unless it's the same as mine, it's the wrong path and you are going to heII."

This arrogance creates the tension provided by the Evangelical Jihad.

We will not let you take over our schools, we will not let you take over our government. Go be with yourselves and leave the rest of us alone. Time will tell if either of us has chosen the wrong path - if there even IS a path.

WAT

FH,

Again, as I mentioned on page 3 or 4... please explain to me how there is no harm intended in this thread. Explain to me how one person can say that another person's beliefs are wrong and not intend harm. Explain to me how this discussion/debate is enlightening anyone.

You say you've never said there is "one path"... indeed you have, over and over again. You've said that path is Jesus. Am I missing something?

At least make that concession, please!

You use the Bible as your source. I love the Bible. It's poetic and lovely, a history book of sorts, a storybook of sorts... filled with poetry and parables and facts...

I don't believe it is all literal... some of it, yes, but not all. And becuase of that, it isn't my yardstick for my own belief. My yardstick is my relationship with God.

I have respect for other beliefs. I have respect for no beliefs. I especially have respect for good people striving to do good works on earth... moral people... who do 'the right things' not because they are afraid of going to H E L L, but because in their souls they know "it" (whatever "it" is) the right thing to do.

I understand the Christian concept of wanting to tell others "The Good News" becuase we love humanity and want all to go to heaven. I really do. My grandmother was a perfect example of a Christian most would *want* to follow, for she lived her life being giving, loving, and praising God. I have no doubt that WAT, JustJ and 2long would have had great respect and caring for my grandmother had she crossed their path. Not one of them would have felt the desire to CHANGE the other... choosing to co-exist in harmony instead.

Wars have begun in the name of God, even in the name of Christ... some literal wars, and some "wars" that don't look like wars at all: church divisions, shunning those who aren't like "us", this thread... so much pain, so much division. In healthy debate, there is no attack. There is only difference of opinion.

Is this who Christ was? Is? I don't think so.

A different view of what the Tanach has to say about atonement for not keeping the Commandments is given in:
http://www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html

WAT,

Come on, you have been around here for awhile and you can do better than this...


I am disappointed.

It isnt what he said, eluded to nor meant. And you should know that. He said very clearly that it isnt he, nor Mortarman, nor any other Christian that made the rules. He also didnt say that it is any of our jobs to take away your choice not to believe in this. What he said was that no matter your or my belief, that what is true will come out.

On OUR schools...it is OUR schools. All of ours. Last I checked my pay stub, I was still paying for them. Last I checked my voter registration card, then I am a citizen. So to say to leave our hands off YOUR schools really is rather arrogant.

In reality, this Republic was formed in away to let the people decide. Let the people decide. if the people of Arizona want to teach that aliens are real...let them. it is their schools. If the people of Kansas vote for and get the schools to teach Creationism, then let them. it is their schools. If the people of Massachusetts want to teach socialism and Communism are better economic systems than capitalism, then let them. it is their schools. If the people of Vermont want to teach that Willie Wonka is god, then let them. It is their schools.

Last I checked, it is the people that formed this government. It is the peopel that decide what this government can and cannot do. And it is the people that decide what their nation and states will look like. As a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have NO RIGHT to tell the people of Kansas or anywhere else in the Union what they do with their schools. Neither does Washington, DC. It is their schools. But I also say that no one outside of my state has a right to say anything about what we do in our schools.

Within Virginia, if the majority here decide that our schools will teach Spanish as a second language, then guess what? We will and rightly so. Doesnt mean North Carolina has to, though. But if we decide to teach Creationism, then it is our right to do so.

The people are not controlled by the government. The government is controlled by the people. I am the master of my government...it is NOT my master.

By saying that Christians should stay out of YOUR schools, you are doing exactly what you accused FH of doing. You are trying to squelch debate and also squelch the political process. If I lived in vermont and they voted to have Willie Wonka as god taught in the schools, I would have two choices. Get enough people there to vote that siliness out...or move to a state where they taught what I believe to be true. If I dont believe communism should be taught as a viable alternative to capitalism, then I can leave Massachusetts and go to where they teach as I believe.

You see...choices!

Which is all that FH was saying. There are choices. And with choices, come consequences. Good and bad. All FH was saying was that Jesus has stated what the consequences of doing it our way are. But we are free to choose.

In His arms.

nbII:

"I have no doubt that WAT, JustJ and 2long would have had great respect and caring for my grandmother had she crossed their path."

I'm sure she was "cool people." I have known many like that. One gal was a 97 yr old Navajo woman about 35 years ago. Couldn't speak a word of English. But we communicated in other ways.

-ol' 2long

2add:

I had a neighbor at our previous house, in his late 70's, who I got a lot of my cute sayings from (like my favorite: "He could afford 2 burn a wet mule"). He was a devout southern Baptist.

But except for asking me, once, just after we'd moved in2 that house, if we'd like 2 go 2 church with him, he never bothered me about our different beliefs again. Nor I him.

We literally used 2 swap stories - about life, cars, houses, politics, and even religion - over the fence between our yards.

He died of cancer about 11 years ago. I still miss him sometimes.

-ol' 2long

NewB...FH is more than capable to answering these questions. But I thought I would jump in also and help. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Let me ask you a question. There are people that say the Holocaust never happened. Even with the bones. Even with the camps. Even with the eye witnesses. That is still their belief. Now, would I be causing them harm by telling them that they are wrong, that what they believe isnt the truth. And showing them the evidence that supports them being wrong? Is that being harmful to them? Or to their beliefs? You see a wrong belief, whether or not is felt sincerely, is still wrong. FH has not attacked any person here. But, just as I would say that the person that says the Holocaust didnt exist is wrong...I also have seen and know the truth about Jesus. I know Him, just as the eye witness to the Holocaust knew those that were murdered. That person can prove that his murdered friend existed, that he said and did many of the things that this man claims. And for someone to come along and say "I dont believe your friend existed..." or "I dont believe he was killed in a Nazi death camp"...what is that man supposed to do. Is he supposed to say "Well sir, I can respect your belief. Even though I know the truth, your truth is just as valid and viable."

It is not arrogant for that man to say that he knows the truth. neither is it arrogant, for those of us that know Jesus personally...to say that we know He is who we say He is.

Not all "truth" is truth. Not all beliefs are viable. FH has just stated, while each can believe WHATEVER they want...that their beliefs may still be wrong. I mean, I have believed wrong things in my life. I believed my wife would never cheat on me. She did. I held a wrong belief about my wife. I was wrong!

Anyway, I hope you get the point.


Yes...and he stated it in his post. There really are two paths. The first past has been here since the beginning. it is that we keep God's commmandments, every one of them, perfectly. Fro mbirth. Not ONE mistake. Not one sin. Anyone that can do that, will enter Heaven without having to go thru Jesus. Good luck with that one!

The seond option is to let the one man that did lead a perfect life from birth, be the one that takes your sins and restore you to perfection. So, what he was saying is that there really is two paths. The first one, only Jesus has been able to take. All of the rest of man has not been able to do that. The second, the one of Jesus...was due to a loving God nto wanting us to be left in the no-win situation we put ourselves in. We have choices. Either dont sin starting at conception. Or accept Jesus' sacrifice for us. Those are the only two paths to Heaven. All other paths lead elsewhere.


But wait a minute. Who is Jesus then to you? You see, Jesus said that this book of stories was the actual Word of God. So, was Jesus a liar?


I also have respect for people and doing right. I have respect for them to choose any belief they want. I do not, however, respect untrue and/or wrong beliefs. Just as I said above about the Holocaust. I may respect the guy that doesnt want to believe it happened...respect his right to believe that. But to respect his belief it didnt happen? Nope.


I, nor FH I suspect, want to change ANYONE. Because of our relationship with Jesus, we KNOW we cannot change ONE person. Not one! I have never said that I could, nor have I ever tried. I know what I am called to do though. And that I can never back down from. I am to tell of this man that I know, and what He has done for every one of us. I dont do so because of the threat of He!! for that unbeliever. Not entirely. My belief in Jesus isnt because I didnt want to go to He!!. It is because someone one day introduced me to Him. And I realized who He is, and that I wanted Him in my life. Now...and after my death. I realize what great pain He went thru for me...and all I can say is "thank you." I realize that I am no better than the person that rejects him...that I have failed Him just as everyone else has. But I realized that He still loves me nonetheless and accepts me because I have accepted Him.


Of course not. FH nor I have ever claimed He is like that. But again...how is this thread a war? And who is engaging in the war? I have not engaged in a war here...neither has FH by what I read. Last I thought...it was a discussion.

Just because some people who SAY that they are Christians do things in the name of God...doesnt mean they are Christians...nor that they do so in the name of God.

I have actually wanted to get away fro mthe word Christian. The reason is because too many define Christian as a religion...and it is not. So, I would rather defien what I am talking about here in the context of my relationship with this Man I know. The relationship with Jesus. Not some list of rules, or mankind getting involved and screwing things up. Just who Jesus is and what He has done...and is still doing.

FH....any thoughts?

In His arms.