Philosophy Discussion Forums

enegue wrote:

Dukedroklar wrote:Case in point; Most Christians will readily agree we are in "the end times" or "the last of days" spoken of throughout the bible. Most of them think organized Christianity is on the right track. The bible says that in those days "all the world will be deceived, all but a handful. Even the chosen would be deceived... if that were possible".

If the deception is going to be that pervasive and inescapable, why are they so confident in what they are told is the meaning is actually what it means? A handful could hardly be considered as large as any of the major religions. If that were the case then the words "most will be deceived" would be more accurate and not "ALL but a handful" (which may very well mean that only the chosen (144k) would be that handful).

You are only partly telling the story, Dukedroklar. The relevant passage says:
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
-- Matthew 24:21-24

God is not going to let things play out to the point where the elect will be deceived. Those who are watching for the signs, won't be deceived, and those who aren't, will. It's a pretty straight forward idea. The parable of the ten virgins indicates how important watching is.

You will have to have in your kitbag a really solid understanding of Jesus and his teaching in order to distinguish him from the false christs.

Cheers,
enegue

I must disagree Eugene,

Mathew 24:21-24 is only one of several passages throughout the bible referring to this time of deception. If I recall correctly the one i'm referring to (although all related) is in revelations and is nearl verbatim to what I quoted. Also, I believe it was in one of the multiple translations I was researching and cross referencing back in the 80's (sooo much easier now with the internet).

Anyway, I didn't say nor did the quote say the elect would be deceived. It said that they would be deceived just like the rest of the world IF that were possible. So, it's not that he won't let it get that bad since it clearly states "all WILL BE deceived" plain and simple. I read this as not that the elect wont be deceived because God wont let it get that bad because it clearly says it will but rather that they will be guided through that darkness by an inner intuition if you will.

I do agree that the deeper your knowledge of the bible as well as how to read old English and learning to understand the ancient metaphors will be a tremendous help in these times errr, I mean those times, I do not believe that in and of itself will be enough to see through the "grand illusion" (Grand Illusion by Styx, lyrics are fairly relevant to this). I believe that an unusually intense drive combined with an intuition will be what the elect posses and it will be born to them.

Ruskin wrote:

Geordie Ross wrote:
Yes? They are first hand accounts?...... No they are not!

They're accounts based on someones first hand accounts of someone/something. You can faith in it or reject it that seems like a good deal to me.

Also, what about the prostitute Jesus was so fond of?

He had more interest in the lower classes, outcasts and scum of Jewish society than the elites so those were the people he hung around with there.

There are hundreds of authentic ancient texts from across the world. Yet your group bias dismisses them as myths.

If you mean the Vedas or whatever they generally kind of are though you can't really place them in history relate them to people in geographical space and time and you elephant heads and whatever, or it's the philosophy and accounts of some guy saying something. We would both want a bit more than just that. A resurrection from the dead will do very nicely.

This is nonsensical apologetics. You cannot account for an omnipotent, omniscient and infallible deity using such a poor method of communication. It does not add up.

If God just clobbered you over the head with something undeniable that would deny the need of faith which I think would defeat the idea. It wouldn't be voluntary for you if he did that. So you need something good but not too good, the perfect balance.

Surely god, as a perfect being, should create a logically sound and undeniably true message that cannot be refuted by a rational mind.

Perhaps that's exactly what he did? Though he did "hide it in plain sight" to some extent.

The number of eye witnesses for alien abductions is far larger than that of the resurrection.

Perhaps people do experience something unusual that happens to them? They may be well be "night terrors" or they could be something else we don't really know. You can keep an open mind on those as there have encounters with non-human entities that go back thousands of years the world over. They may bear some relation to what people used to call "fairies" if they're real but I'm not saying definitely are.

Should we assume that aliens have a fascination with inserting probes into human rectums?

I don't know if that's ever actually reported or it's a comedy cliche.

Also, why wasn't this shared experience world wide?

Well it was eventually but you have to start somewhere. Perhaps there are tribes in the Amazon who haven't heard about Jesus but that's probably about it.

Gods geography seems to be concentrated into a tiny corner of the Middle East and North Africa. Isn't god universal? Why are his actions so specific to a tiny part of the land mass of earth?

That's why believers had to set out on missionary work and preach the gospel and the Word of God as revealed in Christ. This wasn't just something to tell pass onto your children. So you have the global plan of campaign there.

Why didn't Zeus create the universe?

Well he didn't, this is how Zeus was born and raised according to Greek myth.


"Zeus was born by the Titans Cronus and Rhea. Cronus was notorious for being a very jealous and greedy deity. Out of the fear one of his children could take his throne, Cronus swallowed every child Rhea was giving birth to.

However, when Rhea gave birth to her last child, Zeus, she managed to trick Cronus with the help of the Titans Uranus and Gaea. She gave her husband a rock in swaddling clothes to swallow, as a substitution to her child, and sent Zeus away to the Greek island of Crete. Special daemons named "Curetes" made noise by hitting their shields, so that Cronus would to not hear the cries of the baby. Zeus was raised secretly by the Nymphs and was fed with honey and milk from the goat nurse Amaltheia with the help of her broken-off horn. Soon came the day where Zeus was mature enough to claim the Kingdom of the World and he started a battle against his father and the Titans. This battle is also known as "Titanomachy". First, Zeus managed to liberate his elder brothers and sisters from his father's stomach by giving him a special herb and making him disgorge.

Then, with the help of his siblings, Zeus overthrew the Titans in the depths of the Underworld, the Tartarus. After overthrowing his father Cronus, Zeus was confronted with the Giants and also the monster Typhon, which he both defeated successfully. Time had come for the Kingdom of the World to be in the hands of Zeus and his siblings! Justly, Zeus drew lots with his brothers Poseidon and Hades to let luck determine who would become the new King of the Gods. Zeus won the draw and he officially became the ruler of the Earth and the Sky and the Lord of Mount Olympus, the highest mountain of Greece."

The argument that it was (insert deity here) is equally as valid as yours.

I'm not sure if Zeus has any rational argument/s to back his existence. You're looking at some kind of composite between Indo-European sky god (Deus) and a Mediterranean fertility god. The Bible more or less states that these beings are all works of fiction and not to be worshiped as gods as there is only the one true God of the universe. And there are good rational arguments for this kind of God. Anything like Zeus you can just treat as ancient literature and cultural heritage.

To claim otherwise is a fallacy. Simply because it is the deity you prefer does not give your argument any more weight.

No because you have decent arguments to support Gods existence and real people/locations/events (and possible supernatural events) in real history. Zeus is nothing remotely at all like that at all.

I have no time for fallacious reasoning, blind faith and favouritism bias. Your god has as much evidence supporting him as any other deity. You chose Yahweh probably due to the community you were raised in. If you lived in Ancient Greece you'd have an identical conviction for Zeus's existence, and just as much evidence to support it. Diddley squat. Hearsay and a book of mythology riddled with errors and inaccuracies. Your arguments to support your faith are a deistic template that applies to Yahweh and Vishnu as much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, making your argument redundant.

Geordie Ross wrote:
I have no time for fallacious reasoning, blind faith and favouritism bias.

Neither have I.

Your god has as much evidence supporting him as any other deity.

I would disagree with this opinion.

You chose Yahweh probably due to the community you were raised in.

What if the community I was raised in had the right kind of belief in the right kind of God? It could well be that no-one has it 100% perfectly right but I don't that automatically means atheism has it right. In any case I think there is an important social and cultural element.

If you lived in Ancient Greece you'd have an identical conviction for Zeus's existence

It would have made reasonable sense at the time for the Greek gods to exist though for the Greeks the gods were more an explanation for why bad things happen and why life is **** but the gods could grant you good luck or not kill you if you pay your proper respects to them. There was no eternal life or anything nice on offer you just went to Pluto's realm where you continued on forever in a tormented existence as a gibbering shade. I suppose hell could be something along those lines, say you would continue to "exist" in some form but without any corporeal vitality as you would be without the full glory of a resurrected body. Hell wouldn't be like a literal fiery pit little imps jabbing at you with red hot pokers as they like to depict it in the middle ages that's not necessarily described in the Bible anywhere.

, and just as much evidence to support it. Diddley squat.

There's evidence but you don't consider it to be evidence. Though to you the conversation may as well just go something like this.


It's worth pointing out that unlike creationism there is no scientific evidence that would in any way refute the existence of God. All these multiple universes or whatever it is you have in mind have not been demonstrated to exist.

Hearsay and a book of mythology riddled with errors and inaccuracies.

There are some myths in there but they can be treated like parables that underline a certain kind of truth relating to God. It doesn't label what is myth and what is literally historically true so you have to use your judgement a bit.

Your arguments to support your faith are a deistic template that applies to Yahweh and Vishnu as much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, making your argument redundant.

Yahweh is different as you have something there that was revealed to an entire people within history as a shared experience, the resurrection particularly as there were claimed to be hundreds of people who encountered the risen Christ. You also have a number of prophecies that apparently came true, I don't think Vishnu or whatever has anything comparable. It's not that all religions are necessarily all equally as good and they're all equally bull****.

Ruskin wrote:

Geordie Ross wrote:
I have no time for fallacious reasoning, blind faith and favouritism bias.

Neither have I.

Your god has as much evidence supporting him as any other deity.

I would disagree with this opinion.

You chose Yahweh probably due to the community you were raised in.

What if the community I was raised in had the right kind of belief in the right kind of God? It could well be that no-one has it 100% perfectly right but I don't that automatically means atheism has it right. In any case I think there is an important social and cultural element.

If you lived in Ancient Greece you'd have an identical conviction for Zeus's existence

It would have made reasonable sense at the time for the Greek gods to exist though for the Greeks the gods were more an explanation for why bad things happen and why life is **** but the gods could grant you good luck or not kill you if you pay your proper respects to them. There was no eternal life or anything nice on offer you just went to Pluto's realm where you continued on forever in a tormented existence as a gibbering shade. I suppose hell could be something along those lines, say you would continue to "exist" in some form but without any corporeal vitality as you would be without the full glory of a resurrected body. Hell wouldn't be like a literal fiery pit little imps jabbing at you with red hot pokers as they like to depict it in the middle ages that's not necessarily described in the Bible anywhere.

, and just as much evidence to support it. Diddley squat.

There's evidence but you don't consider it to be evidence. Though to you the conversation may as well just go something like this.

It's worth pointing out that unlike creationism there is no scientific evidence that would in any way refute the existence of God. All these multiple universes or whatever it is you have in mind have not been demonstrated to exist.

Hearsay and a book of mythology riddled with errors and inaccuracies.

There are some myths in there but they can be treated like parables that underline a certain kind of truth relating to God. It doesn't label what is myth and what is literally historically true so you have to use your judgement a bit.

Your arguments to support your faith are a deistic template that applies to Yahweh and Vishnu as much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, making your argument redundant.

Yahweh is different as you have something there that was revealed to an entire people within history as a shared experience, the resurrection particularly as there were claimed to be hundreds of people who encountered the risen Christ. You also have a number of prophecies that apparently came true, I don't think Vishnu or whatever has anything comparable. It's not that all religions are necessarily all equally as good and they're all equally bull****.

A single word can summarise your entire argument. Bias. You believe because you want to believe, you choose to have unquestioning faith in a unsubstantiated and irrational series of events that has very little credibility, simply because you prefer it over all the others. This is patently fallacious. In essence your argument falter at the same hurdle as young earth creationists. You fail to see the irrationality of your own argument.

I sincerely apologise for the tone of my debate. I never intended to irritate or offend you. I see you as a positive Christian that embraces the findings of science. But if you apply your faith to the scientific method, you'll find it equally absurd as I do. I do admire your faith, however I cannot accept it on an intellectual and philosophical level. Faith amounts to nothing other than wishful thinking.

May I ask, has doubt ever arisen in your mind?

PS. I'm still using a smartphone to adress your posts, and it takes way too long to copy, paste, quote and answer your replies, and I need to reply in block columns. I try my best to spell check my posts, please excuse any typos.

Ruskin wrote:Yahweh is different as you have something there that was revealed to an entire people within history as a shared experience, the resurrection particularly as there were claimed to be hundreds of people who encountered the risen Christ.

Just to point out that there was no resurrection in the earliest Bibles. That story was added on later (I think it may have been a century later? I can't remember the research exactly now without having to look it up). No-one witnessed the resurrection at the time (to my mind this is because, obviously, it is something impossible and didn't happen). It was a story written into one of the many versions of the Bible at a later date.

Here's one link after a very quick search:

http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Lea ... est_Bible/

Geordie Ross wrote:
A single word can summarise your entire argument. Bias.

Everyone has a bias of some kind though.

You believe because you want to believe

But you're doing the same thing unless you believe something you don't want to believe because...you want to believe something you don't want to believe in? It seems easier to believe what you want to believe it's less convoluted.

you choose to have unquestioning faith

It's continually and rigorously questioned on a daily basis. Do you do the same thing with your belief or just take it for granted?

in a unsubstantiated and irrational series of events that has very little credibility because you like it over all the others.

If you look at the other religions objectively they are either based on clear entirely on non-historical folk traditions (some of this is also found in the Bible sure) and myth and/or the teachings of just one man who had some kind of an experience (like the Jewish prophets sure) and we just have to take his word for it. With Jesus and his resurrection you have something a little different there, it's not quite the run of the mill guy saying something and people believing him for some reason. In fact hardily anyone believed Jesus and they though he was nuts, even his own brothers according to the NT. So I'd go for the one that stands out from the herd, as well as the one that has the best rational and moral arguments.

This is patently fallacious. In essence your argument falter at the same hurdle as young earth creationists. You fail to see the irrationality of your own argument.

The thing about Christianity is that you can present a good solid rational basis for it's truth. If you were to take Mormonism you just have to trust that Joesph Smith really did unearth golden plates which only he could read through a seeing stone inside his hat, we're going to just take him alone on his word and he had a clear motivation for personal gain to found a religion as the bulk of these prophets had Mohammed included. Jesus by contrast had a mission which was relatively selfless, selfless to the extent that he ended up willingly giving up his life this a different kind of religion from the standard mold.

I never intended to irritate or offend you.

I'm not remotely irritated or offended at all this is kind of debate is a faith invigilator.

I see you as a positive Christian that embraces the findings of science.

As did many of the best known scientists and philosophers throughout much of Western history.

But if you apply your faith to the scientific method, you'll find it equally absurd as I do.

Why do you think there is such complex, intricate rationally understandable and contingent natural order that is fully accessible to scientific investigation to begin with? It takes a rational mind to know the work of a rational mind. Say you find a watch on the beach you would know it had a designer/creator and was made with a purpose even if you didn't know what it was or understand the purpose for which it was made.

Faith amounts to nothing other than wishful thinking.

Blind faith would be but if the faith is rationally justifiable it becomes positive or inspired thinking.

May I ask, has doubt ever arisen in your mind?

[/quote]


Of course, has it ever arisen in your mind in relation to what assume to be true or do you have some kind of concrete unquestioned certainty? Now that would be a strong bias.

Zengirl wrote:
Just to point out that there was no resurrection in the earliest Bibles.

The empty tomb was always there and Saint Paul writing 20 years after Christs death confirms the resurrection. He even had a vision of the risen Christ himself on the Road to Damascus, not an experience he particularly wanted to have at the time he was trying to hunt down Christians as heretics.

Zengirl wrote:Just to point out that there was no resurrection in the earliest Bibles. That story was added on later (I think it may have been a century later?

This is not true. If you mean the ending of Mark (which is indeed believed to be a latter addition by scribes), the resurrection is in fact mentioned before the added verses, when the angel says to the women that Jesus was brought back to life (just read the text). Besides that, the resurrection is mentioned in all the other gospels, and in the letters of Paul which were written before the gospels. So "there was no resurrection in the earliest bibles" is an utter nonsense, you shouldn't trust these bogus sites on the internet but only sources written by acknowledged scholars in the field (like for example the books of Bart Ehrman).

And by the way, in case you missed, I provided earlier quotes from a NT testament scholar that completely disprove your theory that the books of the NT were decided by a council of rich man. There was no such council until the 16th century.

Zengirl wrote:Just to point out that there was no resurrection in the earliest Bibles. That story was added on later (I think it may have been a century later?

So, what was Paul talking about in his letters, that we know were written before the destruction of the Temple around 70AD?

Cheers,
enegue

enegue wrote:

Zengirl wrote:Just to point out that there was no resurrection in the earliest Bibles. That story was added on later (I think it may have been a century later?

So, what was Paul talking about in his letters, that we know were written before the destruction of the Temple around 70AD?

Cheers,
enegue

Have you actually seen these letters supposedly written by Paul? Even if you did, would you understand the language they were written in? You are putting your faith in other people, whom claim to have read these letters and interpreted them correctly. That is the problem with books like the bible, which have been edited and changed over the centuries, no one knows for sure, how much was added and how much was thrown out, because it happened to conflict with the story they wanted to sell to the masses.

I have a suspicion I used a really bad website as a reference in my last post. I just wanted to apologise for this.

I will research and make a better reference when I have the space and time to be able to do so - which I will try and make tonight.

Present awareness wrote:Have you actually seen these letters supposedly written by Paul? Even if you did, would you understand the language they were written in? You are putting your faith in other people, whom claim to have read these letters and interpreted them correctly.

Well, history is like that, isn't it? The further you go back, the thinner is the evidence.

Did you know that many of the issues like the authenticity of scripture, go all the way back to a fellow by the name of Marcion, maybe even earlier. In 140 AD he produced a list of Christian documents known as Marcion's canon, which represented the writings, from the many being used at the time, that he regarded as legitimate.

Marcion was a Gnostic Christian who was excommunicated from the Roman Church in 144 AD because of his heretical views. I make mention of him because he opposed the Orthodox Church's view of doctrine, but even his restrictive canon of scripture contained the Gospel of Luke and ten letters of Paul.

Conclusion: Paul's letters, less than 80 years after they were written, were recognised by both the Orthodox Church and the enemies of the Orthodox Church as authentic Christian documents.

The evidence suggests I can be confident that authentic documents referring to the resurrection of Jesus, were being published and circulated in the second half of the first century AD.

Cheers,
enegue

Well, history is like that, isn't it? The further you go back, the thinner is the evidence.

It's a good point, Enegue. That is why "faith" is essential.

Present awareness wrote:enegue said:
Well, history is like that, isn't it? The further you go back, the thinner is the evidence.

It's a good point, Enegue. That is why "faith" is essential.

Yes, it is. Not, however, in regard to whether people in the second half of the first century AD, had knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus. As I have shown, we can be confident about it, based on the evidence available.

Cheers,
enegue

We can be confident people experienced something though it's technically possible to argue about what that something actually was. An atheist would say people were crackers and generally deranged as people tend to be as only they are fully sane. If there was an empty tomb involved however that puts a slightly different slant on it.

Ruskin wrote:We can be confident people experienced something though it's technically possible to argue about what that something actually was. An atheist would say people were crackers and generally deranged as people tend to be as only they are fully sane. If there was an empty tomb involved however that puts a slightly different slant on it.

The evidence of the empty tomb is satisfying to you and me because we welcome the implications. Others, however, would prefer for it be just a ripping yarn.

Cheers,
enegue