Faith Vs. Religion Vs. Santa Claus Vs. The Martians

Didn't i lend you Case for Christ Andy?

Glenjamin wrote:Didn't i lend you Case for Christ Andy?

Yeah possibly. You lent me something. I don't quite remember.

Disclaimer: Any exclamation marks or italics are purely for the purposes of comedic impact. This is also the case for any superfluous bad jokes.

Simmo! wrote:Please, feel free to propose a third or more option. My question wasn't really designed to offer you a binary way of answering, more as it was to prompt some thought on the topic. Maybe we should try to move away from debating about how we debate, and actually get into it.

Deal. My proposed reconstruction could have been considered to be too constrictive, but when I re-examine it now, I think it may have been not constrictive enough. Looking back at your original question, and to the last question of your immediately previous post, it could be said that your offer was indeed a sort of binary choice (not that it’s really important) since you appear to imply that my stance was either based on “assumption” or “research”, and it’s difficult to see what other methods would be available (although there may be).

So then I went on to say that the assumption overrode the research. This may have been a bit hasty – and possibly philosophically questionable – but I think it can be defended when we describe what the assumption is of. If the assumption is based on a ‘theory’ which has significantly large amounts of supporting evidence, then it can, I would argue, leave the research option a non-option. BUT, even if that isn’t the case and the assumption does not remove the option of research, there is still the issue that the research must be relevant. The next paragraphs will try to explain this further.

Simmo wrote:Sounds like you're living for your car, man.

No way. I totally simplify.

Simmo! wrote:Why? What else is there from that period other than written accounts? [...]

Yes, that is a major problem, if not the problem. And it is not like the examples given: many people deny that man has walked on the moon; many (many more) believe that he did. Whether he did or not is not a matter to be resolved by any one individual’s or any mass of individuals’ testimony for or against that fact, via any medium, not even if it was the individual in question themselves stating so. That people believe that man walked on the moon is not because Armstrong went around saying “Hey, check me out. I’s been on the moon, a’ight.” And, similarly, the reason that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of believers in the moon conspiracy is not just because someone told them it didn't happen (actually, for a lot of them it might be, and that’s a problem). These ‘documents’ could be legitimately researched, and we could discover perhaps why these people said such things and believed such and such, but they can’t provide any actual evidence for the event occurring or not occurring, unless by leading us down another path of inquiry.

Simmo! wrote:You don't think that research is a method of discovering evidence of history?

No, I do. Lucky that’s not really what I said. What I was trying to say was that when wanting to find supportive evidence for a specific something, the research that you do needs to be of relevance. Looking back at your original post I do see that you did say “researched the documented evidence”. I initially assumed this to be only evidence of documents that simply state ‘such and such occurred’ (which I’m pretty sure is what a lot of it is) but I see now that you could have been referring to other evidence (what other evidence there could be on this issue I’m really curious to hear). And by all means let us now get that other evidence on the table to discuss it, but, as I’ve argued for, if this evidence just consists of documents that detail people’s accounts or people’s accounts of other people’s accounts, then they don’t qualify, because they’re not relevant, because they can’t provide information on the likelihood of that event happening but only on other issues as to why it was written/said etc.

Andy wrote:Deal. My proposed reconstruction could have been considered to be too constrictive (...)

Take it easy on reconstructing the question, when you could have just answered it. How about I answer it for you?

Andy wrote:Nah Simmo, I haven't done any reasearch into documentation of the events, and yes, I am just assuming that it is impossible because I've never seen it done before.

Ahh... Much better. Now let's move on with the topic.

Andy wrote: (what other evidence there could be on this issue I’m really curious to hear).

See:

Simmo! wrote: Also, there are many sources of research for that time period and location other than the bible. Start with Josephus and work from there.

Anyway, as always, unfortunately, I've got to run off to class.

Simmo! wrote:Take it easy on reconstructing the question, when you could have just answered it.

Well, that is part of answering it.

Simmo! wrote:How about I answer it for you?

Andy wrote:Nah Simmo, I haven't done any reasearch into documentation of the events, and yes, I am just assuming that it is impossible because I've never seen it done before.

Hmm, I don't think the word "quoting" means what you think it means.
But anyways, yes, that is, roughly, my position. I assume. I assume that when a magician saws someone in half, that he doesn't; I needn't read an old text of someone, or a thousand people, who swore that they saw it happen. I assume that when hundreds of people throughout history have claimed to have seen zombies, vampires, ghosts, UFOs, aliens and the like that what they saw was not what they think they saw; despite, again, any sacred manuscripts saying otherwise. I assume that AIDS is real, even though I've never examined the virus myself; and whatever Dave Groll, or whoever, has to say, even if it's in a large book, won't convince me, if all it consists of is "I seen it".
Yes, I assume that dead things don't come back to life. But it is not really only because I haven't seen it before. It is because many, many (make that all) professionals who are experts in that field (and there's a lot of them), after many generations of learning how these things work, now know that it doesn't work like that.

Simmo! wrote: Also, there are many sources of research for that time period and location other than the bible. Start with Josephus and work from there.

Ok. I don't know who that is, but doing a quick google search throws up this guy who wrote some stuff in the first century. Yeah, you see this is what I was saying, rather clearly I thought. This doesn't count (or at least explain to me why it does), because some guy just wrote it down. That's not to mention that (according to wikipedia) these specific documents have received huge amounts of criticism and scepticism because of their convenient content. And most, if not all, of those who deny the criticisms are, unsurprisingly, christians.

There is a difference between the "documentation of the events" and evidence that is documented. You haven't shown there is any of the second kind.

Sorry to rain on your parade Andy, but regarding:

Andrew.C wrote:Ok. I don't know who that is, but doing a quick google search throws up this guy who wrote some stuff in the first century. Yeah, you see this is what I was saying, rather clearly I thought. This doesn't count (or at least explain to me why it does), because some guy just wrote it down. That's not to mention that (according to wikipedia) these specific documents have received huge amounts of criticism and scepticism because of their convenient content. And most, if not all, of those who deny the criticisms are, unsurprisingly, christians.

Most historians- and yes i do mean those who study things like the bible (no, not just Christians) would actually say that Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" is a rather good piece of supporting evidence for the bible, the reason being is that it is NOT in any major way about the events of the bible. Let me explain, Josephus hated the "Christian cults" he saw springing up all over the Roman empire, he wrote a very small amount about the events of the Gospels and did so in such an unflattering way in (we think) the hope of deterring people from looking into it any further. The most important part (i think) is that Josephus links the man Jesus with such people as James (his brother), and identifies Him as "a wise man" who was condemned to die on "the cross" by Pilate. If Josephus doesn't float your boat, try such other unflattering, anti-christian writers as Tacitus (who probably would have happily killed the lot of them) or Lucian who made fun of "those disciples who have convinced themselves... that they are to be immortal.

The reason for mentioning these writers? They were against Christians but their writings aid in ascertaining the historicity of the 4 Gospel accounts.

So I see my point about it being an ancient, serially-translated text of an individual's account seems to have been conveniently glossed over, huh? No probs. So, in the interests of letting this discussion progress, so as that it can be more hastily ended, I will concede that point: Josephus' text describes events whose prominent features can be said to mirror, in some way, certain events described in the bible. Agreed. Now you may continue with the discussion in however manner you wish.

Andy wrote:Well, that is part of answering it.

Not when the question is that simple. It was a straight-forward question and you spent a lot of time making it complicated. I have no idea why.

Andy wrote:Yes, I assume that dead things don't come back to life. But it is not really only because I haven't seen it before. It is because many, many (make that all) professionals who are experts in that field (and there's a lot of them), after many generations of learning how these things work, now know that it doesn't work like that.

Now think it doesn't work like that. Just because there is a lot of evidence, doesn't make it true.

Now, I'm not here to argue that dead people can spring back to life all crazy-like and over the place, but let's not forget (on your terms here) that this man is reputed to be the Son of God.

(And on my terms...)This pretty much puts anything into His power. Here's where we make the transition to philosophy. At the moment, the structure that I'm getting from your argument goes something like this:

1. Jesus didn't raise from the dead.
2. This is because it is impossible.
3. And God cannot change this because I refuse to concede the point that God may exist. (I know we haven't directly addressed this point, this is just what I'm getting from you)

Where we should be arguing like this:

1. Jesus may have raised from the dead. Let's examine this.
1a. What inculpatory evidence do we have?
1b. What exculpatory evidence do we have?
1c. Where does this lead us?
2. If this led us to Christ did/may have raise(d) from the dead, how is it possible?

Andy wrote:I will concede that point: Josephus' text describes events whose prominent features can be said to mirror, in some way, certain events described in the bible. Agreed.

This is what we in the trade like to call corroborating evidence, and it's... it's just great.

Andy wrote:even if it's in a large book, won't convince me, if all it consists of is "I seen it".

Then you better start passionate argument against a lot of other things big fella. I couldn't be bothered coming up with examples. Talk to Tom. There's a lot of history that comes down to simple historical account. Secondly, you're not looking at just one individual's account, as you said, there are FOUR gospels to begin with, that just deal with how Jesus got down while he was here, plus all the corroborating evidence from other sources. While I will admit that it falls short of the 'Andy, Jesus. Jesus, Andy' method of debating whether He exists or not, even the most hard nosed historian starts to take notice when you throw this much supporting documentation around.

Andrew.C wrote:So I see my point about it being an ancient, serially-translated text of an individual's account seems to have been conveniently glossed over, huh?

I would say this IS the debate, or at least a major part thereof. you're right the bible has been translated hundreds of times, the New testament was probably finished by 70ad. this we can ascertain because of references to certain major events (like the destruction of the temple 70 Common Era) aren't mentioned. This in itself is important because it shows the originals were written within living memory of the events they describe. So people at the time could have quite easily gotten up and said "Oi, i was there and nothing like that ever happened" or more likely "No he didn't- that criminal never got up and walked around again", etc, etc.

"But how can we trust that what was written 2000 years ago is what we have now?"
Well i'm glad you asked Andy! what we have now is a copy of a copy of a copy... i'm sure you get where that's going... so the only way to be sure of what was written earlier is to check what we have now against what there was back then. Now all we need is a time machine. *crickets chirping*

That's right we don't have that infernal machine, but we have something that just might do instead- Egypt. Egypt is hot, dry and sandy- what preserves papyrus the best? well a vacuum sealed container works pretty well, but in an Archaeological sense Egypt preserves papyrus best! there have been scraps of various writings found all over Egypt, but the most relevant one is this- the entire (with some degradation) copy of the Gospel of John found in Egypt (Jabal Abu Mana) which matches what we have in our bibles now pretty closely (the official name of this is Papyrus 66 or P66 for short). This manuscript has been dated at 125ad- so within 60 years of the originals being written. And it matches what we have now- did i say that already?

So in any case, that's one example- there are others, but the earliest complete "bible" (or New testament portion at least) was found in a monastery at mount Sinai. This codex (Codex Sinaiticus) has a long and busy history, but it was discovered in 1875- it was written between 330- 350ad, which places it roughly 260 years after the originals... to put this into context the earliest copies of Plato's writings were written some 1200 years after the originals... which in Manuscript Archaeological terms is pretty recent, (i'm not sure how much of this Tom did, but it might be worth getting his thoughts on how close that is.) so you see, the idea that it's changed over the last 2000 years doesn't really fly. Any changes would have to have taken place in the first 50-60 years, during which there were hundreds of copies flying around the place and a flawed one would've been picked up pretty quickly!

So yes i stand by my statement that the bible is the most historically accurate ancient text that Humans have found... It was after all written by God Himself.

EDIT

It appears that Simmo got here first...

I wish, I wish I hadn’t killed that fish. If only I had a time machine. I’d go back and withdraw my question. Curse you, Glen! Curse you and your damnable honey-trap!

To start, I want to thank you both for keeping in good humour throughout a discussion that involved such a sensitive issue. These things can easily escalate, and I, slightly concerned about seeing the forum consumed in a tower of screamy flames, don’t want to continue my blowing, especially as I’m responsible for the starting sparks.

Okay. Fine. Here’s the sound bite you wanted: It’s possible. I concede. Never wanting to be one to doubt Russell and his teapot^[1], oh how I concede. And what things I concede!

Simmo! wrote:There's a lot of history that comes down to simple historical account.

I take your point, and I don’t disagree. I never meant to imply that this was only a peculiarity of the bible.


And, in the interests of fair play, is it too much for me to ask the both of you to acknowledge that the ‘negative’ be also possible? In the sense that we’ve sort of agreed upon?

Last item on my treaty is that I reserve the right to “plead the fifth” on any more responses that may be posted, and so cannot be accused of ignoring anyone.

No worries... but i'll continue to monitor and occasionally post in here, my aim was never to trap anyone, nor to force you into an argument so that i (or anyone else for that matter) look smarter- i simply wanted to give outlet to a discussion that has in many ways started in multiple threads.

Possibly if i'd been thinking further ahead, i may have asked this question:

"Do you think God exists?" and i would have followed it up with this one "If so, what do you think He wants from/for you?"

And in the interest of fair play... i cannot acknowledge that there may be no God- He is far too real. As easy for me to deny the existence of the sun on a cloudy day, i may not be able to see it, but i know that without its existence, things would be a hell of a lot colder.

I am not trying to convince you, i am simply defending my stance- that there is solid historical evidence to support the facts of the bible, that Jesus was a Nazarene, He lived 2000 years ago (approximately), He taught with authority about God and He was executed by the leaders of the time. There is also reliable eye witness accounts supporting the belief that He rose again from the dead and was seen by more than 500 people. These are the facts, there is no question about whether or not they can be trusted- if you want i can take you through it, and you'll have plenty of opportunities to investigate the whole of the evidence (and yes- to poke fun at me), but what it all boils down to is a simple question:

"Can I trust in God?"

He will never force you, though He is very convincing, so it is your choice- to Live His way, or not.

At this point in a sermon i'd say something pithy like "you will hopefully live well into your 80's- can taking an hour or two from your life be that poor an investment of your time?" but this is not a sermon, and we are all too cynical to think seriously about a pithy one liner.

I've written so much here, that i think i've forgotten the start of my post...

Copied from the 'Boycottaru?' thread, and I wanted to comment on it:

Marc wrote:This opens up another issue: education by indoctrination. In the example you provide (setting aside the fact that I have no problem with sex before marriage, which is what I think you mean when you say that we won't agree on that example) you say that you don't want a child to see something that you personally don't agree with. Which is a rather unhealthy, censoring view to take, and is tantamount to lying to your child in order to scare them into believing what you want them to believe. You want to conceal that people who have sex before marriage can live full and happy lives? That's lying to your child to force them to conform to a narrow view of the world. This comes back to what Dawkins said on child-rearing: the best thing we can do for kids is not to force our views on them; we should teach them how to think, not what to think. Explain to them why sex should be saved until after marriage, don't ban them from doing it. And if they reach the conclusion that they don't want to follow your morals handed down from above, you should give them your blessing and let them do what they want. You can't live through your children and you shouldn't indoctrinate them.

The thing here is that you're considering people's religious beliefs as, basically, just an opinion of thought. Try to consider it from their perspective. For someone like Glen, for example, Christianity isn't just a belief, it's a reality. It's something as real as a tree or a car. Talking to Jesus for some people is as plain as calling up a mate on the phone.

Now, considering it from that perspective, can you see how peoples opinions on sex before marriage can change? Would you consider telling your child 'Listen, little Marc, here's what we believe about injecting heroin. We're totally against it. Our beliefs say that it's a bad idea. However, some people think that it's fine, and in fact, many people have a really enjoyable time doing it! But, we're not going to tell you what to do. If you want to use heroin, we will support you.'

See my point?

So...you're saying that religon is heroin, and I'm...what cures heroin?

Thanks, I'm here all week! (Dang I need a job.)

Seriously though, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You tell a young child that that is a fact, a reality, and they're not equipped to disbelieve you; they assimilate it and that is indoctrination. If you have enough reason for your beliefs, you should be able to teach them to think about things themselves and still agree with you, because it's the right thing.

Marc wrote:So...you're saying that religon is heroin, and I'm...what cures heroin?

If chu would read a little deeper, the metaphor is that sex before marriage is heroin.

Marc wrote:(Dang I need a job.)

www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment

Marc wrote:Seriously though,

Do go on.

Marc wrote:that's exactly what I'm talking about. You tell a young child that that is a fact, a reality, and they're not equipped to disbelieve you; they assimilate it and that is indoctrination

But if it IS fact, and it IS a reality, you would have no issue with it?

Simmo! wrote:If chu would read a little deeper, the metaphor is that sex before marriage is heroin.

Yes, I got that. I was doing a funny.

Simmo! wrote:But if it IS fact, and it IS a reality, you would have no issue with it?

Of course I have no trouble with a child being taught an objective fact. But religion isn't one. You can't test for it or prove it.