4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
And I didn't actually rule out the options of liar or lunatic. If you'd like to come to these conclusions, you are welcome to. I am simply suggesting that it is important to read his words and come to an educated decision.
"Prophet" or "Good teacher" are not options.
Duke wrote:I've heard this argument in numerous forms, and it doesn't hold water. The fundamental difference is this: Only you can see the truck, and there is zero guarantee that you're not hallucinating. If it were a real truck and others were just not looking, that's one thing - if you called their attention to it, ALL would see the truck, and agree the child needed to be saved.
But it's NOT a real truck (or cliff, or wave, or whatever analogy). You've got no way to insist that it is. So the rest of us just see a kid crossing the street or playing on a nice lawn.
You are asking me to factually prove faith issues. Ultimately, it will come down to what we choose to believe.
But what if it WAS in fact a real truck which you were unable to see? Maybe you had bad eyesight, bad drugs, or were too busy hallucinating a blonde on a beach in Aruba.
I work in a chemical factory. There are truly horrible toxins all over the place which NONE of us can see which are perfectly capable of killing us in all manner of terrible ways. There are only 2 or 3 people in the plant who would ever be qualified to identify these contaminants, and then only with specialized equipment. The only safe way for us to work is to assume contamination pretty much everywhere. Doorknobs, tools, tap water, everywhere.
And I would suggest the point definitely holds water. Even if I was hallucinating a truck, I would not hesitate to try to remove someone from the perceived danger. The moral action on my part would not change based on the factual differences. Perceived danger is worth acting on, though I might be viewed as goofy.
Salanis wrote:I read a passage from an interesting version of the Bible a while back. This version had footnotes with literal interpretations of earlier text that it had been translated from. The famous passage referring to Jesus as the "only begotten son of God" had an interesting footnote. The literal interpretation of that was "unique son of God". Woah! Subtle, but very different.
Don't mean to bust your chops, but I just tried a search through 28 different complete versions of the Bible. None of them turned up the phrase "unique son of God".
Was this a translation or an interpretation?
Not that I disagree with it, but I'd exercise a little bit of caution before trusting a questionable source with something that bears such significance. You might want to know a bit about the source before building an entire theology around it.
Salanis wrote:I don't want to put words into SVRex's mouth, but it sounds like your faith diverges from his. You put a lot more weight on the preeminence of Jesus Christ. SVRex sounded like he puts more emphasis on a higher power and the general flawed nature of humanity. He did not reference Jesus as gatekeeper.
Are you sure you don't want to put words in my mouth?
fastEddie and I are in agreement. Neither of us called Jesus the "gatekeeper".
I don't remember mentioning the general flawed nature of humanity. You did, however, pickup on the significance. The recognition of this nature convinces me of the need for a savior in the presence of a Holy God. Those are big words which basically mean, no matter how hard I try, I can't get there by myself.
Higher power schmier power. If I failed to mention the preeminence of Jesus, it was a serious oversight. God the Father and God the Son are one. I generally use the words "God" and "Jesus" interchangeably, except on this board where I generally try to hold my tongue and put it in words that most people will find more palatable.
fastEddie and I do differ slightly on the issue of inerrancy.
My position is that scriptural writings in their original form were without error. If there is any error, it is probably in my ability to understand.
I believe most translations (NOT interpretations) make a valiant effort at scholarly and accurate translation, though there are several which have their own agendas and specifically change the meaning (like the gender neutral translations).
However, there is a lot of cultural significance that cannot be translated accurately. For example, the Greek word "kataluma" which our Bibles translate "inn" in our Christmas stories could be accurately translated as either "inn" or "guest room". With a good understanding of first century Middle Eastern culture and architecture, it is likely that there was "no room in the guest room"...another story.
I don't read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. So I generally read several versions to try to discern meaning. A poor second best, but a lot better than not reading it at all because it might contain errors.
Oh, and errancy has to do with truth, not historical fact. A parable can contain vast amounts of truth without being a historical event. It could still be a historically factual and accurate presentation of how Jesus chose to communicate a truth.
SVreX wrote:You are asking me to factually prove faith issues. Ultimately, it will come down to what we choose to believe.
And by actively proselytizing, you (by that, I mean evangelists, not YOU personally) you are attempting to make that choice for others. Call me what you will, but I don't like that. If people seek you out and ask for enlightment, fine, no problem. But if you go around saying that you've found the only way (or even the best way) to heaven - a heaven YOU have made up - is to believe a certain way, then we have a problem.
I work in a chemical factory. There are truly horrible toxins all over the place which NONE of us can see which are perfectly capable of killing us in all manner of terrible ways. There are only 2 or 3 people in the plant who would ever be qualified to identify these contaminants, and then only with specialized equipment. The only safe way for us to work is to assume contamination pretty much everywhere. Doorknobs, tools, tap water, everywhere.
I think you're begging the question here.
If you sent unprotected people into that plant, they would die. REALLY die, even though the agent was invisible and undetectable. They would be dead. If we all suited up and went in after them, we would all see their dead bodies on the floor. We could pick them up and bury them.
But you (and again, I mean evangelists) are trying to convince me that I'll be damned if I don't protect myself with your religion, yet no one has ever EVER EVER seen an actual damned person ever.
Perceived danger is worth acting on, though I might be viewed as goofy.
So, at the risk of being offensive - and that is NOT my intent - what's the difference between a Bible and a tinfoil hat?
JohnSSC wrote:SVreX wrote:Here's a thought- Who is Jesus?
He claimed to be God. That's a pretty big claim- I didn't know how to respond to that.
There are only 3 conclusions:
Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was who He said he was- God incarnate.
Jesus never claimed to be God. The apostle Paul makes this claim on His behalf, but so far as I can tell, Jesus claims to be the son of God and the son of man - not to be God.
Now let me make full disclosure here. My Sweetie has a Bible that is direct translation from Aramaic which is the language Jesus and the apostles would have spoken - and Aramaic has not changed much. My Sweetie has repeatedly tried to find any mention by Jesus where he makes a claim to be God and can find none. She has done more of the heavy lifting reading wise than I have.
That said, calling oneself the "son of God" and the "son of man" is actually quite consistent for that time when the prophets or those who felt they were "chosen" by God came along. Jesus very much was one of thes.
Remember: Judaism (the root of Christianity) is monotheistic - one God. For Jesus to claim He is God as well would be inconsistent with His teachings that we were to worship and pray to God and also inconsistent with what appears to be His continued observance of the tenets of Judaism.
The early Christians, in fact, called themselves Christians not because they worshipped Christ, but because they followed the teachings of Christ in order to worship God better. They tried to emulate Christ to be closer to God.
It was some of the apostles who portrayed Jesus as divine and later it was the various sects that grew up within Christianity that began to vie for theological supremacy with those who supported divinity for Christ winning. One need look no further than the concept of the triune God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) that made the emperor Constantine a Saint (by dint of his putting to death anyone who did not "believe" this) to see what happens when things start going off on theological tangents.
With all due respect, the Bible was not written in Aramaic. Aramaic accounts for about ten chapters in the entire Bible.
There are no surviving Aramaic versions, so a "direct translation from Aramaic" would be VERY suspect.
I would agree that I am not aware of Jesus saying the words, "I am God". But you already made the case for the consistancy of the case within the Hebrew culture of time. I think it was well understood by the Jews who chased him out of Nazareth, by the Pharasis who called for his crucifixion, and by His followers.
Duke wrote:And by actively proselytizing, you (by that, I mean evangelists, not YOU personally) you are attempting to make that choice for others.
I disagree.
I think they are trying to communicate important information, at least it is important to them. You are free to make whatever choice you desire. Is there really any difference in a teacher within a compulsory education system teaching perspectives he really believes in? I watched the entire Democratic convention. They sure had a lot to say and some very strong opinions, but I am still free to make my own choice.
By suggesting others are trying to make the choice for you, you are expressing a pretty grave weakness. Are you unable to resist? Are you unable to make your own decision? Do you believe they should be censored? Are you afraid? Are you close minded?
No accusation here, just observation.
Duke wrote:So, at the risk of being offensive - and that is NOT my intent - what's the difference between a Bible and a tinfoil hat?
I have chosen to believe there is a difference based on a great deal of study with a very open mind. And there are days where I really wish I could roll up in a ball and count on the effectiveness of my tin foil hat.
I'm not sure you are asking a question. I think you are making a statement, that you have chosen to see no difference in the two.
One of us is wrong.
SVreX wrote: Atleast one of us is wrong.
Corrected
And to be honest, I hope I'm wrong in my beliefs that there is nothing beyond life, but I'm not going to spend my life preparing for death. shrug
Salanis wrote: Arguably, the Illiad also is a more trustworthy document in terms of literary authority. It was recorded much closer to the time the events it depicts and did not travel nearly as much distance, or undergo nearly as many translations, or jump cultures. Nor did the stories have to be hidden from the wider culture ever. We are able to find it and study it in its original language.
That's not very accurate.
The Iliad was authored about 500 years after the believed time of the Trojan war. Most of the New Testament was recorded within 25 years of the actual time of the events.
The Old testament is different. It is, of course, many books whose writings span over 1500 years. But some of the oldest known manuscripts (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) were written around 200 BC, within a couple of hundred years of some of the events.
You are right, the stories of the Iliad did not have to be hidden, but both they and the Biblical writings were carried by oral tradition for extended periods (hundreds of years). The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in Qumran (in the West Bank- VERY close to Bethlehem- though it was obviously much further to some of it's original locations)
The Iliad has over 100 translations in English. Sounds like a jump in culture.
With all due respect, the Bible was not written in Aramaic. Aramaic accounts for about ten chapters in the entire Bible.
There are no surviving Aramaic versions, so a "direct translation from Aramaic" would be VERY suspect.
I would agree that I am not aware of Jesus saying the words, "I am God". But you already made the case for the consistancy of the case within the Hebrew culture of time. I think it was well understood by the Jews who chased him out of Nazareth, by the Pharasis who called for his crucifixion, and by His followers.
Sorry - the quote above here is not properly attributed to SVreX...
Uhhh, no offense, but this would be incorrect, and I apologize for not citing my reference, which is: "Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text - George M. Lamsa's Translation from the Aramaic of the PeE36 M3ta"
From Page i of the Preface: " This translation of the Old and New Testaments into English is based on PeE36 M3ta manuscripts which have comprised the accepted Bible of all of those Christians who have used Syriac as their language of prayer and worship for many centuries. It is appropriate that as we have translations based on the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament and on the Latin Bible of Jerome, so also should there be available to the modern reader that form of the text which was translated anciently into a branch of the Aramaic language which has been used by the Christians from earliest times....
...In the first century, Jesus and hi earliest followers certainly spoke Aramaic for the most part, although they also knew Hebrew. Therefore the Gospel message was first preached in the Aramaic of the Jews of Palestine. Modern scholarship tells us that the originals of the Four Gospels were written in Greek: this is disputed by the Church of the East and by some noted Western scholars. Regardless of which view one may accept, Aramaic speech is an underlying factor and it is unquestionably true that documents in Aramaic were drawn on by writers of the New Testament, the basic inspired form of the Christian message." - Lamsa
Lamsa Continued - Preface Page i:
Aramaic was the language of the Church that spread east, almost from the beginning of Christianity, from Antioch and Jerusalem, beyond the confines of the Roman Empire. This differed from the language of Palestine in choice of words and grammatical forms rather more extensively than does American English from British English and in written form these differences became regular and standardized. The Jews and Christians used the literary dialect of Aramaic that we call Syriac almost at the same time to propagate their translations of the sacred books brought from Palestine and the West, reaching into Syria and Mesopotamia and the nearby mountains, quite early into India, and into China in the course of time."
Before I continue, the auto censor is obliterating the name of the text of the Eastern Church which is spelled: PESHI-DoubleTA - good grief...
From Page ii of the Preface:
"The fixed stand of the Church of the East with respect to some of the points mentioned above can best be understood by reference to the following letter, which we are authorized to quote, from the Patriarch and Head of that Church:
....'With reference to your letter concerning Lamsa's translation of the Aramaic Bible, and the originality of the P-word text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and that the P-word is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision.' Mar Eshai Shimun by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East."
Hope this helps verify that there is indeed an Aramaic text....
SVreX,
Okay, I'm still working on attempting to understand your viewpoint (FastEddie's is a bit more familiar to me, from experience with other people). Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I was hoping you'd jump back in earlier so that I could compare your's and FastEddie's stances.
That you use "God" and "Jesus" interchangeably clarifies a bit... but it raises a few more questions. Do you refer to the physical Jesus who walked and talked in the Bible as the same as "God".
Also, when you say you "can't get there on [your] own", do you mean Heaven when you say "there"? What is "there"?
I guess much of this comes back to my earlier point that, Christian's regularly state that to be saved you need to "accept Jesus" or "believe in Jesus" or "have faith in Jesus". That seems to be the core of Christianity... but I have yet to meet someone explain what that means. What do you mean when you say you have to "believe in" Jesus?
You missed my point about the Bible and the Illiad. Forgive me if I got my time frames wrong. I was under the impression that the Illiad was written about 100 years after the events in question, and that the New Testament was written about 300 years after the events in question. The point I was trying to make is, that both texts are instances of a culture recording its history. However, we know that when the events of the Illiad were retold and recorded, they had mythology added onto the top of them. I was stating my opinion that the stories in the Bible appear to have undergone a similar evolution.
We know both texts were written by men. Men are fallible. Christians assert that God guided the hands of the people recording its stories. I do not buy that, because it is a more complicated explanation with less evidence than to say it was written by people.
Actually, it would be quite quite appropriate to state that the people recording the Bible did not believe in their own infallibility in recording the stories. As I understand, there is a Hebrew tradition when recording history that gets played out in the Bible. Rather than trust one source, or attempt to fuse together multiple recountings of events, they record each recounting separately and present all of them to allow the reader to interpret what may or may not have been fact. Observers are fallible, and you can't tell which one is right. That's why there are multiple versions of the same story. As I understand, aren't there multiple versions of Genesis? They recorded them all because they knew they couldn't be sure which details were correct.
The same thing occurred in the new testament. There are four versions of the story of Jesus told from the views of different observers. Each one stands separately because the details of each are not exactly the same.
I personally think that is a very wise way to record historical events... but that strikes me that it runs counter to the "infallibly directed by God" argument. If there is a single omnipotent God capable of guiding the hands of a scribe infallibly, there should not need to be multiple versions of the same story. If there are, there should not be any inconsistencies between them.
And this is where you hit on the crux of it, Salanis.
Christianity claims to be monotheistic. Yet, some Christian sects have inserted Jesus as a deity equating him with God and implying that first you have to accept Jesus as a Lord and Savior before you can accept God as God apparently.
Even in Islam, however flawed it may be, one is not required to accept the Prophet as anything other than a man who was chosen by God to deliver the Word. He is not divine nor is he God. He is not prayed to.
It is Muhammed who asked not to have pictures drawn of himself or statues made of himself so as there would be no chance that he would develop his own following: as the Shahada states: "There is no God, but God, and his messenger is Muhammed."
In my view Jesus is a great teacher who brings to us a beautiful message. He tells us of a life we should emulate. But Jesus is not God. We should pray to God. We should worship God if we do believe in God. The relationship should be between us as believers and God, not between a select group of intermediaries and THEN God.
JohnSSC: Well put. I agree wholeheartedly. I regularly compare Jesus and Siddhartha.
There's another thing that bothers me about Christianity: Sin/Forgivenes.
Okay, we all screw up. We all "sin". None of us is perfect. In Christianity you are then supposed to turn to Jesus and he will wash away your sins.
No. That does not happen.
If I steal from you, feel bad, and turn to Jesus, that does not undo the harm that I have caused you.
Okay, so you may say Jesus "forgives" me of my sins. Why the heck is Jesus the one who I need to get forgiveness from? When I stole from you, I didn't hurt Jesus. Jesus is not the one I need to make it up to. I haven't hurt him. The person I stole from is the one I need to make restitution to and ask forgiveness from.
Jesus/God are frequently likened to a parent who loves you, no matter what. But then Christianity says that they don't love you if you don't ask for forgiveness when you do something to hurt another person.
Let's say a boy hits his sister over the head and steals her toy truck. Let's say the parent is watching and sees this. They love their son despite what he did. If the son feels bad and comes to the parent asking for forgiveness, the parent will tell them that the person they need to make it up to, is his sister. So the boy gives his sister back her truck and says he's sorry. The sister forgives him. The parent will probably be more proud of their son if, after hurting his sister, he goes up to her and apologizes without first having to consult their parent.
The little boy doesn't need his parents forgiveness.
If you do believe that there is a personal God who is watching us, I expect they will be far more like the parent who wants their son to take responsibility for his own actions without having to first consult him, than to have the son turn to them for forgiveness when he didn't hurt them. If the child needs guidance, the parent will surely offer it, but they aren't the ones the boy needs to make it up to.
On Aramaic:
We've chased a rabbit that isn't really relevant.
I don't know much about Aramaic (other than Jesus spoke it), and I know nothing about George Lamsa.
While I'm not a big fan of Wikis for hard facts, they aren't a bad starting point. So here's a few:
Apparently Aramaic is not one language but many. It varied a lot according to the time and the place. Additionally, the written form of Aramaic was based on the Phoenician script. Ancient Israelites and Canaanites adopted this for their languages. It is better known as the Hebrew alphabet today:
Hebrew is the main language of the Hebrew Bible. Aramaic only accounts for about ten chapters of the whole
That's just a Wiki quote:
A very small minority believe that most or all of the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. This position, called Aramaic primacy, has been rejected by most scholars. The consensus among scholarship is that the New Testament was composed in the Greek language.
Again, a Wiki quote:
So, I'm learning a little about Aramaic, but it means very little to this discussion.
Christianity is monotheistic. But the concept of the Trinity will be very hard to get across.
Basically means fully God, fully man, fully spirit. But certainly only One.
I said i would continue my thoughts later. Here's a part of it:
When Christianity says God/man/spirit (the trinity) are all one, to me that is like saying all the decisions for good or bad come from inside oneself. In short, there's no deity other than what we believe. Using the whack the sister over the head analogy above, the whole decision to do that would have come from inside the brother's head, along with the afterwards 'Satan made me do it, but God forgives me' part. George Carlin did a bit where he said (among other things) 'Religion is how we abdicate responsibility for our actions.' That thought has always stuck with me. Yeah, he was a comic and not a philosopher, but I swear most stuff comedians come up with is from being very sharp observers of humanity.
Salanis wrote:Also, when you say you "can't get there on [your] own", do you mean Heaven when you say "there"? What is "there"?
No. I meant I am incapable of doing enough to make me acceptable to a Holy God. So I need His help. As far as I'm concerned, Heaven is not some future pie-in-the-sky existence with harps on clouds. It begins now.
Interesting observations on the Hebrew traditions of recording history. Didn't know that- makes sense.
I'm not sure we are agreeing on the fallibility issue, but we are on the same wavelength. I think your point is that the texts, as read in the various translations currently available to us in English, may not be 100% accurate. I agree. But I believe there to be an underlying layer of truth which at times has been misunderstood through translation and culture.
When I find discrepancies, I look for more understanding. I assume I'm not quite understanding the intent. After further study, I come to a deeper understanding. I have not encountered irreconcilable discrepancies that lead me to believe the scriptures are in error. Many non-believers use these same discrepancies as proof to discredit the whole. Very different motivation.
It is a matter of how you respond.
Salanis:
You're a tough audience. Take that as a big compliment. 
I'm not sure the "wash away sin" concept is exactly right. It is certainly used a lot, but I think it is a little off. It's not really used in the Bible.
The concept is more of a covering or a shield. Christ bridges the gap between us and God (because He was the only perfect human who ever lived). He makes up the difference. Part of that gap is our sin. One of the phrases used is that God will "remember not" your iniquities. That's a great phrase. The all-knowing God is not forgetful. That would be idiotic. It's not that He will forget your sins, He chooses to never again remember them.
I would agree with you that turning the sin over to Jesus is definitely not enough. When we wrong others, we have an obligation to approach them.
But by wronging others, we have also wronged God. And some sins can never be healed in human terms.
I think your boy/ sister/ truck analogy is spot on. I love your comment that the parents, "Love their son despite what he did". But I would suggest that the purest type of forgiveness would be to first recognize that he violated his sister through his assault and his theft. But he did, in fact, also sin against his parents. They taught him not to do those things, and he has violated their trust as well.
So the proudest parent would be the one who is approached by their son who says, "I hit my sister and stole from her. I apologized to her, and I think we are OK now, but I know that you have taught me to act better. I want to apologize to you too, for acting badly. Please forgive me, Daddy".
That's what it's all about.
Jensenman wrote:I said i would continue my thoughts later. Here's a part of it:
When Christianity says God/man/spirit (the trinity) are all one, to me that is like saying all the decisions for good or bad come from inside oneself. In short, there's no deity other than what we believe. Using the whack the sister over the head analogy above, the whole decision to do that would have come from inside the brother's head, along with the afterwards 'Satan made me do it, but God forgives me' part. George Carlin did a bit where he said (among other things) 'Religion is how we abdicate responsibility for our actions.' That thought has always stuck with me. Yeah, he was a comic and not a philosopher, but I swear most stuff comedians come up with is from being very sharp observers of humanity.
Jman: I don't get this. The man part of the Trinity is Jesus, not me.
I wish I could honestly say Satan made me do it. My sins are usually my own, and I am (sadly) probably never enough of a threat to Satan for him to deal with me directly himself.
OK, you guys are wearing me out. I'm taking a breather again. I'll be back (unless you ask me to stop).
Thanks for stretching my brain.
Okay. My point is that the Bible is a book. It is fallible, even in the "original" versions, but that does not discredit it as a historical document.
The Bible was written by men. All men are fallible. I think we can all agree on that.
Many Christians say, "It was written by men, but God stepped in and guided how it was recorded to ensure that the text was infallible." It is therefore an infallible text since it was guided by an infallible God.
I do not buy that argument. There are numerous reasons that I do not buy that argument.
The first is Occam's Razor; the explanation becomes overly complicated when you add a God guiding a bunch of scribes.
The second is that there is no evidence that God guided the scribing of the Bible. The Bible doesn't even claim that God guided the scribes. There aren't even secondary documents from the same time where one of these scribes relates how he entered a trance and the Holy Spirit filled him as he wrote it.
The third is that the way the Bible is recorded seems to indicate that the people writing it down and collecting the different books did so in such a way that indicated they did not believe in the infallibility of the words they collected. This is why they collected as many accounts of the same events as they were able to.
All that does not discredit the Bible.
As I said, it does serve as a historical document.
I, and apparently all of the atheists in this discussion, believe that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, who walked around preaching, got people riled up, got crucified, and had a bunch of his followers go out and talk about who he was and what he did. The Bible is excellent evidence of it. The fact that it has multiple accounts of the same events is great evidence.
If you were in court, and a witness gave testimony, you'd know they were fallible. If another person got up and gave similar testimony that differed slightly from what they first person said, but hit the main points similarly, the two testimonies would not be invalidated. They would support each other, but the subtle differences would go to show that they were fallible... but not lying.
The Bible is similar. The subtly differing versions of the same general stories indicate that the events depicted likely occurred, but the differences make it clear that the witnesses were fallible.
Ergo, the stories being told in the Bible are not lies, but they are not infallible truths. That does not discredit the Bible. It just makes it a historical document that the validity of needs to be judged as any other historical document would be.
Now, the part that's hard to swallow are all of the Miracles attributed to Jesus. It is important to evaluate these because they are the primary evidence for the "Jesus was the Messiah/Son of God" claim that is core to any Christian tradition based on the divinity of Jesus. (As pointed out, you may still be "Christian" to the degree of viewing Jesus as a wise teacher who should be emulated and learned from.)
There is no end to historical/mystical/religious texts that have tales of miracles. Most people do not believe these stories. I used the example of the Illiad. When it was written, people probably believed that there was a river Styx, that Achilles had been dipped in it, and that he'd become invulnerable because of that. We do not believe that anymore. If you are not Muslim, you probably don't believe that Gabrielle came down, plucked Mohamed up, and took him off to heaven. You probably don't believe that George Washington through an apple (or whatever it was) across whatever river he was supposed to have thrown it over. There are probably a bunch of similar tails that you do not believe.
Chances are you think these are myths, or maybe fables to illustrate a point.
So, are the miracles attributed to Jesus real, or just more myths.
Again, I turn to Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that Jesus was another dude, who because he created a great impact on a culture, and had a bunch of miracles attributed to him as time went on. There is evidence that this is the case, because many of those miracles were copies of ones attributed to the Greco/Roman gods the people were familiar with.
However, there are eastern mystics who can apparently do incredible things because of their power of will. I've seen evidence, and heard accounts that I trust, of spontaneous healings through faith. force of will, or something. I do not pretend to understand these things. It's possible Jesus might have been capable of similar feats. I don't know.
However, if these things are real and possible. I believe they are observable and repeatable and can therefore be scientifically studied and evaluated. That does not make them less magnificent, but I insist on evaluating them before believing them.
Think of Scully in the X-Files. She did eventually believe in strange occurrences, but always insisted that everything be tested scientifically before jumping to the conclusion that "it's a miracle". She was still a Catholic and did believe in things greater than herself, but required validation and analysis of claims before fully accepting them.
SVreX wrote:Salanis:
You're a tough audience. Take that as a big compliment.
Thank you. I do.
I do hope you realize that I am not trying to convince you that your faith is wrong. My honest hope is that, when this debate is finished, your faith is made stronger by having to seriously and soberly evaluate and explain it.
However, I find that, when one's faith is strengthened through such analysis, we frequently make changes to what we had once believed. Faith is living and evolving.
Ultimately, there is something greater than ourselves. You may think that it is Divine. You may think that it is wholly mechanical (scientific). You may think it is something of both. Whatever it is, we will never be able to completely understand it, but we can always strive to evolve and come to know it better.
