<strong>"Pascal's wager" says that to believe in God is the best bet because if God exists, you'll go to heaven and avoid hell. If you don't believe in God, you might lose all this. If God does not exist, you'll have nothing to lose. So it's better to believe in God than not to.</strong><hr></blockquote>I've always wondered if God would know that you used this reasoning, and you would lose points.
"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, you knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness.
But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...<hr></blockquote>
For a long paper written about the wager look <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/"; target="_blank">here.</a> It is very long and drawn out, but I know some would want my source. I did not read it all, it was just too much for 10pm.
Yes, the Blue Meanie has also heard the stories about Jesus travelling in the East and the Bible originally containing references to reincarnation which were ruthlessly censored by the early Church Â? with, as you say, only a few subtle references surviving. (Jesus tells his followers at one point that they will have to be born again. Hmmm, wonder what he meant by that? ) Samantha Joanne Ollendale is also officially broadcasting on The Blue Meanie's wavelength :cool: <hr></blockquote>
Well I am going to reply to the Born-Again reference. Jesus was not speaking of a physical rebirth, but instead a spiritual one. In fact here is one passage that speaks of this. John 3:1-8
[quote]1Â*Â*Â*Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2Â*Â*Â*He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3Â*Â*Â*In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4Â*Â*Â*"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Â*Â*Â*Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6Â*Â*Â*Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [2] gives birth to spirit.
7Â*Â*Â*You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.'
8Â*Â*Â*The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."<hr></blockquote>
In another passage of scripture reincarnation is completely ruled out thus:
[quote]27Â*Â*Â*Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
28Â*Â*Â*so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.<hr></blockquote> Hebrews 9:27-28
what happened to the millions of people who died before Jesus died to take away their sins? They wouldn't know to wait that he was coming a second time to take them to heaven?
Isn't it only 140,000 people who will be saved anyway?
<strong>I've always wondered if God would know that you used this reasoning, and you would lose points.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know about the outcome, but a more interesting question is can you still consider yourself a Christian if you are merely betting on the team?
Are you a Christian if you live in a "Christian" way, or do you have to have absolute faith?
Consider this rhetorical, I suspect people may have been driven mad trying to figure all this stuff out.
I have come to see things with a new light this weekend: After getting Apache, CGI, PHP, Movable Type and QuickTime Streaming Server installed on an OS X box, and switching a whole bunch of stuff to XHTML and CSS, I've come to the opinion that either there is no god, or there is a devil.
A broad outline of the life of Martin Luther King would be just great for a high school paper. It would probably be very accurate, because it would be based on material written by others which would cite contemporary evidence. Try writing a history book about Martin Luther King without providing that evidence and see if you're taken seriously.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That goes to a debate over theories of knowledge and questions of epistemological bias.
[quote]<strong>... The Romans were incredibly fastidious in keeping records, and yet no contemporary evidence can be found, despite these apparently remarkable events occurring under their rule in Judea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They kept records about every intinerant preacher and the identity of those they executed?
[quote]<strong>Also, it's important to remember that 1st century people didn't rely on the written word to the same extent we do today. They may not have started writing things down until they began to feel a need.
Not true. The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians kept incredibly detailed records of events.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes they did but that still doesn't mean that they relied on the written word the way we do.
[quote]<strong>What are your sources for this potted history?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find your description amusing but confusing. What's so potted about it? What do you think caused the Jewish diaspora? The gefilte fish was fresher in Antioch?
[quote]<strong>The over-abundance of texts to support biblical events was mostly generated centuries after the events, and from very, very limited source material.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The over-abundance of texts allows us to discount passages that are found in some texts and not found in others and intuit what the source material said.
[quote]<strong>Can you point me towards some of the non-biblical texts and archeological finds supporting the events of the New Testament?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I question the value of this portion of his text because in 10 minutes I was able to adequately disprove or cast in doubt all the conclusions he had drawn just by going to the passages in question and reading them. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But you didn't do that - that's the whole point I was trying to make. What about the censored passage from the Gospel of Mark and the historically verified Councils of Hippo and Carthage the authors referred to?
Hope that you are right, if you are wrong you will have eternity to think about it and no chance to change what has happened. If I am wrong however and you are right what harm has occurred? I am not missing out on anything. You on the other hand may be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I got you to admit you might be wrong. That's something!
Christ only lied if you believe that the Bible is literally true, and as you'll have gathered by now I don't. There is too much evidence otherwise IMHO.
And I also cannot believe that a supposed God of love would condemn someone to eternal whatever just for not believing in something. That's a not a God of love. Surely a person's qualities and deeds are far far more important than whether they believe in some dogma or creed? I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one, Noah mate!
The NT has an enormous amount of textual and archeological data supporting it. Because of this, it is probable that we have not lost any of the original text.
What about that passage from the Gospel of Mark I quoted earlier roger_ramjet me old mucker? Pretty solid evidence that we have lost some of the original text, if you ask The Blue Meanie....
<strong>I've always wondered if God would know that you used this reasoning, and you would lose points.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is of course all based on the assumption that a supposed God of love would condemn someone to Hell just for not believing in something - an idea that makes no sense to that lost cause The Blue Meanie....
<strong>That goes to a debate over theories of knowledge and questions of epistemological bias.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that authors writing history as fact (Just as scientists writing theory as fact) have to provide some sort of verification. I could easily write a piece about Hitler vacationing on Maui in 1935, but without contemporary records of his stay (hotel bills, notes in his diary, a plane ticket) nobody would believe me.
I accept it would be more than a little difficult to find similar evidence for the existence of Jesus (Hmm, isn't it convenient Joseph and Mary stayed in a stable - no credit card traces from a hotel... ), we have nothing credible in archaeology, something which is required for historical texts.
[quote]<strong>They kept records about every intinerant preacher and the identity of those they executed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But by all accounts... well, the biblical accounts... he had quite an impact. He wasn't just an everyday occurrence, even to the Romans.
[quote]<strong>Yes they did but that still doesn't mean that they relied on the written word the way we do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think they did. From the earliest cave drawings, it would appear that the written word (or scrawled bison) has been used to record historic events. We have Roman, Greek and Egyptian records detailing so many events. Of course, it's difficult to prove many of them ever happened).
[quote]<strong>I find your description amusing but confusing. What's so potted about it? What do you think caused the Jewish diaspora? The gefilte fish was fresher in Antioch?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hehe, nothing so deep, and the term wasn't meant to offend. I was just suggesting that your brief history of events was taken from religious texts, not historical ones.
[quote]<strong>The over-abundance of texts allows us to discount passages that are found in some texts and not found in others and intuit what the source material said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By that token, you're judging the worthiness of passages by my rule - if it's not adequately proven, it's not valid.
Thank you for the links. Interesting reading. Of course, none of it is valid as contemporary collaborative evidence of events in the bible, merely that the locations and civil procedures are accurately portrayed. You'd expect the same of any novel set in today's world.
Where are the direct links to the characters and events? How does evidence that Romans would crucify certain criminals validate the story of Jesus' crucifixion?
I have to admit I giggled a little at the last <a href="http://www.christianstudycenter.com/archeology/nazinscript.htm"; target="_blank">link</a> - not at the fact a Roman decree about bodysnatching is used as proof of the disappearance of Jesus' body from the tomb, not at the fact that it supposes the towns of Jerusalem and Nazareth were involved, not at the fact the decree isn't accurately dated, not at the fact it uses "Bible scholars" to support claims, but at the fact the decree mentions "gods". How wrong those crazy Romans were, huh?
And to go back to an old point, because The Blue Meanie just reminded me:
[quote]<strong>The NT has an enormous amount of textual and archeological data supporting it. Because of this, it is probable that we have not lost any of the original text.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not what we've lost that concerns me, it's what has been added.
Well, Noah, I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one too I don't see anything in the first quoted passage that demonstrates that Jesus was not referring to physical reincarnation. On the other hand, there is little to demonstrate that he was, beyond the words 'born again' themselves. I fully concede that this is just one interpretation. The second passage merely demonstrates that Paul did not believe in reincarnation. I also think you're missing the point I was trying to make - that there is evidence for the Bible having been heavily edited and censored in the first few centuries AD. You can't quote an censored text to prove that it hasn't been censored. That doesnt' make sense.
And I also cannot believe that a supposed God of love would condemn someone to eternal whatever just for not believing in something. That's a not a God of love. Surely a person's qualities and deeds are far far more important than whether they believe in some dogma or creed? I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one, Noah mate![/QB]<hr></blockquote>
People continue to pound on this as if we deserve to go to heaven out of the box. You know, if your parents really loved you they would never punish you no matter how bad you were so long as you were usually good. right?
It is not the religion that it is importnat to believe in. It is the Man. Without the Man there is no forgiveness of sins. If you are sinful, and that does not mean murder 1, that could just be yelling at your wife in anger, you do not go to heaven. It is not that God does not love you enough. It is that he cannot abide sin, and if you are in sin you are not in heaven.
<strong>I've always wondered if God would know that you used this reasoning, and you would lose points.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the only thing you are doing is making a bet and there is no sincerity then it would be God's call. My guess is you would be SOL. God will not be mocked and would see right through an insincere conversion. If you only said it and did not mean it and did not really accept it only you and God would know for sure though.
Read "We Don't Die" and see what you think of the tests described before dismissing it out of hand.</strong>
Well, Meanie, I borrowed the book from the library, read a few pages and scanned through the book a little bit. It looks to me he's using classic cold reading techniques employeed by magicians around the world.
All these mediums require their subjects to answer questions and never to ask any. They will say that that is the only way their powers work. The questions are vague at the beginning. The subject will provide answers which help the medium figure out more specific details of the subject's loved one, if not, outright give the medium specific details of their loved one. The medium then repeats this information as if they got it from the "those who've gone to the other side". The subject is always amazed.
This is the way John Edward does it. If they are psychic mediums, why do they need input from their subjects?
Read "We Don't Die" and see what you think of the tests described before dismissing it out of hand.</strong>
Well, Meanie, I borrowed the book from the library, read a few pages and scanned through the book a little bit. It looks to me he's using classic cold reading techniques employeed by magicians around the world.
All these mediums require their subjects to answer questions and never to ask any. They will say that that is the only way their powers work. The questions are vague at the beginning. The subject will provide answers which help the medium figure out more specific details of the subject's loved one, if not, outright give the medium specific details of their loved one. The medium then repeats this information as if they got it from the "those who've gone to the other side". The subject is always amazed.
This is the way John Edward does it. If they are psychic mediums, why do they need input from their subjects?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
THT - I realise I am not going to convince you to believe something you clearly don't want to believe, but with respect, if you've only read a few pages and "scanned through the book a little bit", that's hardly an adequate basis on which to come to such a dismissive judgement. If you had actually read the book (to which there are two sequels) you would be aware that George Anderson does not require "input" from his subjects and does not ask questions. He just asks his subjects to acknowledge statements with a "yes" or "no", and goes out of his way to tell them not to reveal any personal information - not even their names in most instances. There is no way he could use a sequence of "yes" and "no"s to produce very specific details such as names, personal matters, personality characteristics, family secrets, etc, ? as he does at every reading quoted ?through a process of elimination without the readings lasting for weeks on end - an obvious absurdity. Several sceptical scientists referred to later in the book acknowledge this point and are forced to come up with ever wilder explanations to account for the accuracy of the readings. There are many instances quoted in the book and its sequels in which Anderson insists on a particular point in the face of the subject's intitial denials - only for him to subsequently be proved correct. People have gone to see him in disguise and Anderson's readings have still been correct. He has passed laboratory tests....I could go on...
If you had actually read the book (to which there are two sequels) you would be aware that George Anderson does not require "input" from his subjects and does not ask questions. He just asks his subjects to acknowledge statements with a "yes" or "no", and goes out of his way to tell them not to reveal any personal information - not even their names in most instances.</strong>
Err, I consider "yes" or "no" to be input. I know he states that his subjects should only answer yes or no. My contention is that his subjects shouldn't have to say anything at all, ie, give no input. The subject should sit there silent. The room should sit there silent.
<strong>There is no way he could use a sequence of "yes" and "no"s to produce very specific details such as names, personal matters, personality characteristics, family secrets, etc, ? as he does at every reading quoted ?through a process of elimination without the readings lasting for weeks on end - an obvious absurdity.</strong>
I played this game a few weeks ago wherein a nametag with the name of something from the beach or ocean (lobster, surfer, starfish, etc.) was stickered on our backs. There was a group of about twenty of us. The object of the game was to find out what thing from the beach or ocean you were by asking questions to other members of the group. Only yes or no answers could be given. Everyone of us figured out what we were. It's not that hard.
When I get home, let's look at the very first reading given in the book.
<strong>Several sceptical scientists referred to later in the book acknowledge this point and are forced to come up with ever wilder explanations to account for the accuracy of the readings.</strong>
Scientist aren't immune to being fooled. They are fooled by there own data embarrassingly enough, let alone being fooled by someone elses stuff.
Well, I'm a bit late on this one, but I'll throw my ante into the pot and play a hand or two...
To The Blue Meanie's questions:
1) Yes.
2) I don't know. It's not my decision, anyway. I suspect God will be fairly inclusive, but I'm in no position to argue with Him.
Why I choose to believe:
First of all, faith is a choice. It is not something forced on you. You must go get it. I choose it because it offers hope. Without faith, life is utterly without meaning. Without God or an afterlife, I am no different from a rock. My existence is no more meaningful than its.
Without God, there is no accounting for behavior. It doesn't matter if I'm good or bad. It doesn't matter if I volunteer to help the homeless or AIDS patients, or anything else. It doesn't matter if I beat my wife, sell drugs, abuse children, or anything else, either. Why? Because the universe is doomed. It is eventually going to die. Either the "Big Crunch" or the thermodynamic heat death. It may take 100 trillion years, but eventually all traces of our solar system, the earth and every living thing (including humans) will disappear. My behavior (and anyone else's) is ultimately irrelevant because the universe ends up the same no matter what. We can make life more pleasant or less pleasant while we're here, but so what? Why should I do anything to help you? You're just another rock, like me. So I may as well be totally selfish and do what pleases me at the expense of everyone else - what difference does it make?
God, however, gives my life meaning. I choose to believe that there is more to life than "The One Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins". I choose to believe God has something wonderful, beyond my comprehension, planned for me after my death. I can't gain this wonderful thing on my own, however. I need some help. Christ's death and resurrection paid the price for me to gain this paradise. All I need to do is accept the ticket he bought for me and I'm in. As Christ goes to work inside me, he changes me so that I want to do good things for others as a way of showing His love in the world. I want to make the world a better place, to be a "little piece of Jesus" in the world and help relieve the suffering and misery.
So my "proof" of the existence of God is that nearly everyone has this deep desire to make the world a better place for everyone else. Why? It is utterly illogical - it's grab the most for yourself first without God around. God has put a little piece of Himself in each of us. We can embrace or ignore it as we wish. If you want to find God, just look inside yourself. He's with you constantly.
Now to Belle and the dating of the NT books:
The Gospels were the last books of the NT to be written. Mark is generally considered to be the first one written, sometime from 65-75 AD. 90% of Mark appears in Matthew verbatim, and about 75% appears in Luke verbatim, so it seems they had Mark as a source. Matt and Luke also share about 250 lines or so that are not found in Mark, so it is generally presumed there was another source, called "Q" (from German "quelle" = "source"), which was apparently a collection of sayings of Jesus.
The earliest book of the NT is 1 Thessalonians, generally dated to 50 AD. Tacitus writes of Nero's persecutions after the great fire in Rome of 64 AD of the "Chrestianoi" (Christians) who were blamed for it by Nero. So by the early 60s AD, there were enough Christians in Rome to form a group large enough to pick on - and who were distinguishing themselves from the Jews. Paul's letter to the Romans is dated to the winter of 57/58 AD (that's known pretty accurately), and he addresses a Roman Christian community that is apparently pretty sizable by then. He says he had been wishing to visit them "for many years" at that point. Additionally, Acts 18:1-3 says that when Paul got to Corinth for the first time (~50 AD) there were Jewish-Christian refugees from Rome there already. So the establishment of the Christian community in Rome can be plausibly dated to the mid-40s AD - only about 10 years after Jesus death and resurrection. I can dig out more details if you want them.
<strong>Without God, there is no accounting for behavior. It doesn't matter if I'm good or bad. It doesn't matter if I volunteer to help the homeless or AIDS patients, or anything else. It doesn't matter if I beat my wife, sell drugs, abuse children, or anything else, either. Why? Because the universe is doomed.</strong><hr></blockquote>We kind of got into this issue a few pages ago in this thread, but I'm glad you brought it up again. I personally believe a non-Heaven universe is, if anything, more consistent with making the world a better place. This is all there is, so why not try to make the best of it?
If there's an afterlife, getting there is really the goal. This life doesn't matter as much, compared to a universe without an afterlife.
But, it depends on how you get to heaven. If you get to heaven by doing good deeds, then fine. You have to help the homeless and the people with AIDS and be nice to everyone, and then you get to go to heaven.
But my understanding is that in most Christians' view, this is really not the way to get to heaven. You get to heaven by believing in God and Jesus. The good deeds may then follow, but if they don't, it's OK, because you're still going to heaven.
Comments
<strong>"Pascal's wager" says that to believe in God is the best bet because if God exists, you'll go to heaven and avoid hell. If you don't believe in God, you might lose all this. If God does not exist, you'll have nothing to lose. So it's better to believe in God than not to.</strong><hr></blockquote>I've always wondered if God would know that you used this reasoning, and you would lose points.
[quote]
"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, you knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness.
But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...<hr></blockquote>
For a long paper written about the wager look <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/"; target="_blank">here.</a> It is very long and drawn out, but I know some would want my source. I did not read it all, it was just too much for 10pm.
Yes, the Blue Meanie has also heard the stories about Jesus travelling in the East and the Bible originally containing references to reincarnation which were ruthlessly censored by the early Church Â? with, as you say, only a few subtle references surviving. (Jesus tells his followers at one point that they will have to be born again. Hmmm, wonder what he meant by that?
Well I am going to reply to the Born-Again reference. Jesus was not speaking of a physical rebirth, but instead a spiritual one. In fact here is one passage that speaks of this. John 3:1-8
[quote]1Â*Â*Â*Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2Â*Â*Â*He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3Â*Â*Â*In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4Â*Â*Â*"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Â*Â*Â*Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6Â*Â*Â*Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [2] gives birth to spirit.
7Â*Â*Â*You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.'
8Â*Â*Â*The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+3&language=english&version=NIV"; target="_blank">Full Text here.</a>
In another passage of scripture reincarnation is completely ruled out thus:
[quote]27Â*Â*Â*Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
28Â*Â*Â*so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.<hr></blockquote> Hebrews 9:27-28
<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=HEB+9&language=english&version=NIV"; target="_blank">Full Text here.</a>
Isn't it only 140,000 people who will be saved anyway?
<strong>I've always wondered if God would know that you used this reasoning, and you would lose points.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know about the outcome, but a more interesting question is can you still consider yourself a Christian if you are merely betting on the team?
Are you a Christian if you live in a "Christian" way, or do you have to have absolute faith?
Consider this rhetorical, I suspect people may have been driven mad trying to figure all this stuff out.
I have come to see things with a new light this weekend: After getting Apache, CGI, PHP, Movable Type and QuickTime Streaming Server installed on an OS X box, and switching a whole bunch of stuff to XHTML and CSS, I've come to the opinion that either there is no god, or there is a devil.
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<strong>
A broad outline of the life of Martin Luther King would be just great for a high school paper. It would probably be very accurate, because it would be based on material written by others which would cite contemporary evidence. Try writing a history book about Martin Luther King without providing that evidence and see if you're taken seriously.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That goes to a debate over theories of knowledge and questions of epistemological bias.
[quote]<strong>... The Romans were incredibly fastidious in keeping records, and yet no contemporary evidence can be found, despite these apparently remarkable events occurring under their rule in Judea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They kept records about every intinerant preacher and the identity of those they executed?
[quote]<strong>Also, it's important to remember that 1st century people didn't rely on the written word to the same extent we do today. They may not have started writing things down until they began to feel a need.
Not true. The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians kept incredibly detailed records of events.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes they did but that still doesn't mean that they relied on the written word the way we do.
[quote]<strong>What are your sources for this potted history?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find your description amusing but confusing. What's so potted about it? What do you think caused the Jewish diaspora? The gefilte fish was fresher in Antioch?
[quote]<strong>The over-abundance of texts to support biblical events was mostly generated centuries after the events, and from very, very limited source material.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The over-abundance of texts allows us to discount passages that are found in some texts and not found in others and intuit what the source material said.
[quote]<strong>Can you point me towards some of the non-biblical texts and archeological finds supporting the events of the New Testament?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/actsarcheology.html"; target="_blank">Archaeology and The Book of Acts</a>
<a href="http://www.christianstudycenter.com/archeology/nazinscript.htm"; target="_blank">THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION</a>
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-nt.html"; target="_blank">Archaeology and the New Testament</a>
<strong>
I question the value of this portion of his text because in 10 minutes I was able to adequately disprove or cast in doubt all the conclusions he had drawn just by going to the passages in question and reading them. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But you didn't do that - that's the whole point I was trying to make. What about the censored passage from the Gospel of Mark and the historically verified Councils of Hippo and Carthage the authors referred to?
<strong>
Hope that you are right, if you are wrong you will have eternity to think about it and no chance to change what has happened. If I am wrong however and you are right what harm has occurred? I am not missing out on anything. You on the other hand may be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I got you to admit you might be wrong. That's something!
Christ only lied if you believe that the Bible is literally true, and as you'll have gathered by now
And I also cannot believe that a supposed God of love would condemn someone to eternal whatever just for not believing in something. That's a not a God of love. Surely a person's qualities and deeds are far far more important than whether they believe in some dogma or creed? I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one, Noah mate!
<strong>
The NT has an enormous amount of textual and archeological data supporting it. Because of this, it is probable that we have not lost any of the original text.
[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about that passage from the Gospel of Mark I quoted earlier roger_ramjet me old mucker? Pretty solid evidence that we have lost some of the original text, if you ask The Blue Meanie....
<strong>I've always wondered if God would know that you used this reasoning, and you would lose points.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is of course all based on the assumption that a supposed God of love would condemn someone to Hell just for not believing in something - an idea that makes no sense to that lost cause The Blue Meanie....
<strong>That goes to a debate over theories of knowledge and questions of epistemological bias.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that authors writing history as fact (Just as scientists writing theory as fact) have to provide some sort of verification. I could easily write a piece about Hitler vacationing on Maui in 1935, but without contemporary records of his stay (hotel bills, notes in his diary, a plane ticket) nobody would believe me.
I accept it would be more than a little difficult to find similar evidence for the existence of Jesus (Hmm, isn't it convenient Joseph and Mary stayed in a stable - no credit card traces from a hotel...
[quote]<strong>They kept records about every intinerant preacher and the identity of those they executed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But by all accounts... well, the biblical accounts... he had quite an impact. He wasn't just an everyday occurrence, even to the Romans.
[quote]<strong>Yes they did but that still doesn't mean that they relied on the written word the way we do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think they did. From the earliest cave drawings, it would appear that the written word (or scrawled bison) has been used to record historic events. We have Roman, Greek and Egyptian records detailing so many events. Of course, it's difficult to prove many of them ever happened).
[quote]<strong>I find your description amusing but confusing. What's so potted about it? What do you think caused the Jewish diaspora? The gefilte fish was fresher in Antioch?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hehe, nothing so deep, and the term wasn't meant to offend. I was just suggesting that your brief history of events was taken from religious texts, not historical ones.
[quote]<strong>The over-abundance of texts allows us to discount passages that are found in some texts and not found in others and intuit what the source material said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By that token, you're judging the worthiness of passages by my rule - if it's not adequately proven, it's not valid.
Thank you for the links. Interesting reading. Of course, none of it is valid as contemporary collaborative evidence of events in the bible, merely that the locations and civil procedures are accurately portrayed. You'd expect the same of any novel set in today's world.
Where are the direct links to the characters and events? How does evidence that Romans would crucify certain criminals validate the story of Jesus' crucifixion?
I have to admit I giggled a little at the last <a href="http://www.christianstudycenter.com/archeology/nazinscript.htm"; target="_blank">link</a> - not at the fact a Roman decree about bodysnatching is used as proof of the disappearance of Jesus' body from the tomb, not at the fact that it supposes the towns of Jerusalem and Nazareth were involved, not at the fact the decree isn't accurately dated, not at the fact it uses "Bible scholars" to support claims, but at the fact the decree mentions "gods".
And to go back to an old point, because The Blue Meanie just reminded me:
[quote]<strong>The NT has an enormous amount of textual and archeological data supporting it. Because of this, it is probable that we have not lost any of the original text.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not what we've lost that concerns me, it's what has been added.
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<strong> Hebrews 9:27-28
<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=HEB+9&language=english&version=NIV"; target="_blank">Full Text here.</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Noah, I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one too
And I also cannot believe that a supposed God of love would condemn someone to eternal whatever just for not believing in something. That's a not a God of love. Surely a person's qualities and deeds are far far more important than whether they believe in some dogma or creed? I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one, Noah mate![/QB]<hr></blockquote>
People continue to pound on this as if we deserve to go to heaven out of the box. You know, if your parents really loved you they would never punish you no matter how bad you were so long as you were usually good. right?
It is not the religion that it is importnat to believe in. It is the Man. Without the Man there is no forgiveness of sins. If you are sinful, and that does not mean murder 1, that could just be yelling at your wife in anger, you do not go to heaven. It is not that God does not love you enough. It is that he cannot abide sin, and if you are in sin you are not in heaven.
<strong>I've always wondered if God would know that you used this reasoning, and you would lose points.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the only thing you are doing is making a bet and there is no sincerity then it would be God's call. My guess is you would be SOL. God will not be mocked and would see right through an insincere conversion. If you only said it and did not mean it and did not really accept it only you and God would know for sure though.
Read "We Don't Die" and see what you think of the tests described before dismissing it out of hand.</strong>
Well, Meanie, I borrowed the book from the library, read a few pages and scanned through the book a little bit. It looks to me he's using classic cold reading techniques employeed by magicians around the world.
All these mediums require their subjects to answer questions and never to ask any. They will say that that is the only way their powers work. The questions are vague at the beginning. The subject will provide answers which help the medium figure out more specific details of the subject's loved one, if not, outright give the medium specific details of their loved one. The medium then repeats this information as if they got it from the "those who've gone to the other side". The subject is always amazed.
This is the way John Edward does it. If they are psychic mediums, why do they need input from their subjects?
<strong>[qb]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
Read "We Don't Die" and see what you think of the tests described before dismissing it out of hand.</strong>
Well, Meanie, I borrowed the book from the library, read a few pages and scanned through the book a little bit. It looks to me he's using classic cold reading techniques employeed by magicians around the world.
All these mediums require their subjects to answer questions and never to ask any. They will say that that is the only way their powers work. The questions are vague at the beginning. The subject will provide answers which help the medium figure out more specific details of the subject's loved one, if not, outright give the medium specific details of their loved one. The medium then repeats this information as if they got it from the "those who've gone to the other side". The subject is always amazed.
This is the way John Edward does it. If they are psychic mediums, why do they need input from their subjects?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
THT - I realise I am not going to convince you to believe something you clearly don't want to believe, but with respect, if you've only read a few pages and "scanned through the book a little bit", that's hardly an adequate basis on which to come to such a dismissive judgement. If you had actually read the book (to which there are two sequels) you would be aware that George Anderson does not require "input" from his subjects and does not ask questions. He just asks his subjects to acknowledge statements with a "yes" or "no", and goes out of his way to tell them not to reveal any personal information - not even their names in most instances. There is no way he could use a sequence of "yes" and "no"s to produce very specific details such as names, personal matters, personality characteristics, family secrets, etc, ? as he does at every reading quoted ?through a process of elimination without the readings lasting for weeks on end - an obvious absurdity. Several sceptical scientists referred to later in the book acknowledge this point and are forced to come up with ever wilder explanations to account for the accuracy of the readings. There are many instances quoted in the book and its sequels in which Anderson insists on a particular point in the face of the subject's intitial denials - only for him to subsequently be proved correct. People have gone to see him in disguise and Anderson's readings have still been correct. He has passed laboratory tests....I could go on...
If you had actually read the book (to which there are two sequels) you would be aware that George Anderson does not require "input" from his subjects and does not ask questions. He just asks his subjects to acknowledge statements with a "yes" or "no", and goes out of his way to tell them not to reveal any personal information - not even their names in most instances.</strong>
Err, I consider "yes" or "no" to be input. I know he states that his subjects should only answer yes or no. My contention is that his subjects shouldn't have to say anything at all, ie, give no input. The subject should sit there silent. The room should sit there silent.
<strong>There is no way he could use a sequence of "yes" and "no"s to produce very specific details such as names, personal matters, personality characteristics, family secrets, etc, ? as he does at every reading quoted ?through a process of elimination without the readings lasting for weeks on end - an obvious absurdity.</strong>
I played this game a few weeks ago wherein a nametag with the name of something from the beach or ocean (lobster, surfer, starfish, etc.) was stickered on our backs. There was a group of about twenty of us. The object of the game was to find out what thing from the beach or ocean you were by asking questions to other members of the group. Only yes or no answers could be given. Everyone of us figured out what we were. It's not that hard.
When I get home, let's look at the very first reading given in the book.
<strong>Several sceptical scientists referred to later in the book acknowledge this point and are forced to come up with ever wilder explanations to account for the accuracy of the readings.</strong>
Scientist aren't immune to being fooled. They are fooled by there own data embarrassingly enough, let alone being fooled by someone elses stuff.
To The Blue Meanie's questions:
1) Yes.
2) I don't know. It's not my decision, anyway. I suspect God will be fairly inclusive, but I'm in no position to argue with Him.
Why I choose to believe:
First of all, faith is a choice. It is not something forced on you. You must go get it. I choose it because it offers hope. Without faith, life is utterly without meaning. Without God or an afterlife, I am no different from a rock. My existence is no more meaningful than its.
Without God, there is no accounting for behavior. It doesn't matter if I'm good or bad. It doesn't matter if I volunteer to help the homeless or AIDS patients, or anything else. It doesn't matter if I beat my wife, sell drugs, abuse children, or anything else, either. Why? Because the universe is doomed. It is eventually going to die. Either the "Big Crunch" or the thermodynamic heat death. It may take 100 trillion years, but eventually all traces of our solar system, the earth and every living thing (including humans) will disappear. My behavior (and anyone else's) is ultimately irrelevant because the universe ends up the same no matter what. We can make life more pleasant or less pleasant while we're here, but so what? Why should I do anything to help you? You're just another rock, like me. So I may as well be totally selfish and do what pleases me at the expense of everyone else - what difference does it make?
God, however, gives my life meaning. I choose to believe that there is more to life than "The One Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins". I choose to believe God has something wonderful, beyond my comprehension, planned for me after my death. I can't gain this wonderful thing on my own, however. I need some help. Christ's death and resurrection paid the price for me to gain this paradise. All I need to do is accept the ticket he bought for me and I'm in. As Christ goes to work inside me, he changes me so that I want to do good things for others as a way of showing His love in the world. I want to make the world a better place, to be a "little piece of Jesus" in the world and help relieve the suffering and misery.
So my "proof" of the existence of God is that nearly everyone has this deep desire to make the world a better place for everyone else. Why? It is utterly illogical - it's grab the most for yourself first without God around. God has put a little piece of Himself in each of us. We can embrace or ignore it as we wish. If you want to find God, just look inside yourself. He's with you constantly.
Now to Belle and the dating of the NT books:
The Gospels were the last books of the NT to be written. Mark is generally considered to be the first one written, sometime from 65-75 AD. 90% of Mark appears in Matthew verbatim, and about 75% appears in Luke verbatim, so it seems they had Mark as a source. Matt and Luke also share about 250 lines or so that are not found in Mark, so it is generally presumed there was another source, called "Q" (from German "quelle" = "source"), which was apparently a collection of sayings of Jesus.
The earliest book of the NT is 1 Thessalonians, generally dated to 50 AD. Tacitus writes of Nero's persecutions after the great fire in Rome of 64 AD of the "Chrestianoi" (Christians) who were blamed for it by Nero. So by the early 60s AD, there were enough Christians in Rome to form a group large enough to pick on - and who were distinguishing themselves from the Jews. Paul's letter to the Romans is dated to the winter of 57/58 AD (that's known pretty accurately), and he addresses a Roman Christian community that is apparently pretty sizable by then. He says he had been wishing to visit them "for many years" at that point. Additionally, Acts 18:1-3 says that when Paul got to Corinth for the first time (~50 AD) there were Jewish-Christian refugees from Rome there already. So the establishment of the Christian community in Rome can be plausibly dated to the mid-40s AD - only about 10 years after Jesus death and resurrection. I can dig out more details if you want them.
Well, that's enough for tonight. Feast away!
<strong>Without God, there is no accounting for behavior. It doesn't matter if I'm good or bad. It doesn't matter if I volunteer to help the homeless or AIDS patients, or anything else. It doesn't matter if I beat my wife, sell drugs, abuse children, or anything else, either. Why? Because the universe is doomed.</strong><hr></blockquote>We kind of got into this issue a few pages ago in this thread, but I'm glad you brought it up again. I personally believe a non-Heaven universe is, if anything, more consistent with making the world a better place. This is all there is, so why not try to make the best of it?
If there's an afterlife, getting there is really the goal. This life doesn't matter as much, compared to a universe without an afterlife.
But, it depends on how you get to heaven. If you get to heaven by doing good deeds, then fine. You have to help the homeless and the people with AIDS and be nice to everyone, and then you get to go to heaven.
But my understanding is that in most Christians' view, this is really not the way to get to heaven. You get to heaven by believing in God and Jesus. The good deeds may then follow, but if they don't, it's OK, because you're still going to heaven.