The Birth Of Jesus

[Solaris]

What matters is the truth, not what may appear more dignified to subjective human beings. It is not that being divine is less dignified, but for some reason it seems so to you... The issue at hand is that you are considering being divine an impossibility. I don't even know how you define divinity itself, but one would be hard pressed to ask why you consider divinity impossible. Is it because you know all things that are possible and divinity not being one of them makes it impossible?

 

Why is Jesus considered divine? First of all, because he declared to be so, and based on his utterly unselfish and honest life one can simply trust in all of his words if not anything else. Secondly, it is obvious from his short life, acts and deeds and teachings, and also miracles. Let's not be such fools to believe that a multitude of people who witnessed the miracles are fools, and we that were not present are smarter to know better. Don't you think that people 2000 years ago could also doubt? It does not really take intelligence to doubt, as anyone can doubt in a second. In fact, many people who heard of Jesus's miracles that did not see themselves doubted, and never saw a miracle.

Nobody is inventing stuff here. The Gospels are not invention, they are recordings of what happened. Should we believe in anything that has been written? Not really, there are also myths that were written, but the myths were written as myths, not to cheat people. It is not so hard to tell by the way a scripture is written to tell if it is meant to be a record or a myth. The nature of Gospels is so that they are not written as myths, but testimonies of what happenend. True there are contradictions and inaccuracies too for obvious reasons, but they hold largely true.

 

So, again we can speculate a lot of things, but nothing more than speculation.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Sasun, I already told you that I don't believe in supernatural, 'cause I have never encountered an evidence of its existence that holds water. There is an enormous amount of "recorded" "miracles" in any religion or mythology. Should be believe all of them, or could you suggest a method of distinguishing "true" miracles from the "false" ones? Are only those "recorded" in the Bible true? Why?

 

You say Jesus was (is?) divine, fine, and so was (is?) Zeus - he of the golden rain, or Vishnu, or Krishna… We have a vast choice of Gods to believe. What makes you think it’s only Jesus who is the "real thing"? Today I already wrote somewhere that religion is a learned thing, as it does not come with our "preinstalled" software package. You'd never know about Jesus if you hadn't been told about him in the first place. Had you be born an Indian in India, more likely than not you'd have been a Hindu, 'cause that would have been your "default" religion. But you could still pick Christ if you got to know about him and fancied the story…

 

You say Jesus is considered divine because he declared to be so. Let's assume he did – although we can't say for sure - there is a fair chance that the entire story is a piece of pure fiction. From what we know about him, we can say that he was a person of insight and imagination who had a message to deliver – perhaps not a divine but a human one, seeking escape from the cant and tyranny of his time. A carpenter from Nazareth had a little chance to be taken seriously, but the son of god had. He was perhaps smart enough to realize that, considering that claims of "divine origin" weren't novel at the time. Let me remind you of someone else who apparently did exactly the same. Another extraordinary character, Joan of Arc, whose story is apparently better recorded (at least her existence and military prowess aren't subject to much doubt), also declared contact with the divine – she supposedly heard voices and talked to angels. Now she was an 18 y.o. peasant girl. No matter that she was a genius, she couldn't in her barbaric times just come forward and say – I am a nobody from the middle of nowhere called Domremie, and I came to save France. But claiming to be the one chosen by God made perfect sense – and it actually worked.

 

One the other hand, the story Jesus' divinity could have been made up later on – as that Newsweek article suggested. In a word, I find all the "mundane" explanations more "verisimilar" that the "divine" ones. Myth is a myth and should me treated as such. If you don't take some of the Scriptures texts literally (and you said you didn't), then you could allow that others could be allegorical as well.

[Solaris]

I thought Bush was the greatest human. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

[ED]

very interesting Solaris.

 

Perhaps it meant to be, in a very clever and way, Jesus (feel free to name any here) had to be/become the son of God and almighty, imagine if you will, if the world today lacked some form (s) of god and “divine” being, in the mists of a confusion, despair, the one and only thing a humans in times could feel close to there heart is a God figure, what if we never had Hayk, or Sasuntsi Davit?

Nation which lack hero’s, and leaders in there history, could such nation survive without moral telling? I agree with you on Jon of Arc, Yet just maybe like Jesus story, hers also was blown out of proportion, yet had to be, its what do you wish to believe not what it can be proven, sometimes the prove is not the best interest of humanity, just like I don’t want to know if Universe has a end, it ends somewhere in distant point and nothing beyond that exists.

[DominO123]

A created reality if believed is undistingishable from reality, and is reality for the believer.

 

As I said, belief is a personal matter, ones interaction with his own universe(multiverse)

[ED]

A created reality if believed is undistingishable from reality, and is reality for the believer.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

the way I see it is, everything around me is created either by evolutionery creation or some divine power, wich we call it a God, but in the end those two are all the same to me.

[DominO123]

the way I see it is, everything around me is created either by evolutionery creation or some divine power, wich we call it a God, but in the end those two are all the same to me.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You forgot human(conscious) creation. That a bunch of human have created a son of god and believe in it, can not be distingished from their own reality, and this is what really matters. This son of god exist in their universe.

 

I think that the theistic view is as much flawed as the atheist view. There are infinit numbers of universes, and just the fact that we can believe in a god, show us that this possibility can exist... so everytime someone take position in this matter, it is a religious act that he/she is posing. We are by ourself gods, everytime you creat, you creat a reality, you are a god, and your masterpiece is your creation.

[Sasun]

Sasun, do I have to draw you a diagram?  Just look at what Jesus has been able to accomplish and how many sheep are following him blindly!

Sheep?! Following blindly?!!! Wow, Sip, you are really a genious, and I guess one of rare people who are not sheep and can see the greatness of Jesus, unlike other "sheep" that do not have brains but simply follow blindly. Well, I guess I need a diagram

I am being sarcastic because I get the same feeling from your posts

I really admire him and I think he was THE greatest human to have ever lived. He would have had to be to make such an impact on so many people.

So you think he is great because he had such an impact on people?

And crediting all his greatness to "God" just takes away from his real greatness!  He had a vision, he had a philosophy, and he found a way to make it a lasting one.

Well, let me remind something: Jesus said that all his messages, philosophy, etc... came from God. Do you think he was lieing to have a lasting name, or whatever reason?

If you find "derogatory" things in what I say, so be it. But sometimes it hurts to realize how many people have been "fooled" and for how long! The beauty of it is, that his message was a good one to begin with so it's not a complete loss

style_images/master/snapback.png

But here you are assuming that God does not exist and/or Jesus was not divine (again leaving out the question of what divine really means), and therefore people have been fooled. So your convition is based on an assumption alone.

[Sasun]

Sasun, I already told you that I don't believe in supernatural, 'cause I have never encountered an evidence of its existence that holds water.

Had people encountered an evidence of nuclear fusion one century ago? No. Have you seen nuclear fusioin yourself? No, you only have heard about it. But does it mean it could not exist?

Your experiences are very-very limited to make any solid conclusions about what can possibly exist. Of course, you can alwasy tell with 100% certainty if a red ball exists in your pocket or not, but you can't say what exists in the universe.

There is an enormous amount of "recorded" "miracles" in any religion or mythology. Should be believe all of them, or could you suggest a method of distinguishing "true" miracles from the "false" ones? 

Actually it maynot be as difficult as you expect. Give me some examples

Are only those "recorded" in the Bible true? Why?

No.

You say Jesus was (is?) divine, fine, and so was (is?) Zeus - he of the golden rain, or Vishnu, or Krishna…  We have a vast choice of Gods to believe.  What makes you think it’s only Jesus who is the "real thing"?

It's not only Jesus, Krishna too is like Jesus, and others. But not Zeus and Vishnu who are not historical persons. I don't think you will find anyone who will argue that Zeus and Vishnu walked on the earth as human beings, even though there are many Hindus who worship Vishnu as a real thing (not sure about Zeus). So there is the distinction between myths and real events. For example, in Hindu religion there are so many stories about Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma (called puranas) that are highly revered by Hindus. These stories are myths and are believed as myths by their followers. The same goes with the Greek mythology, I have never haerd anyone claiming that Zeus was a historical person (but maybe there are some, I don't know).

As far as Jesus or Krishna and others are concerned, the stories about them are told as testimonies, not as myths. Some parts of very ancient stories such as the story about Krishna could be spiced up with mytholigical elements, I see it as the prevailing literary style or something of that order, but not an attempt to make up a totally false story. If you become familiar with many scriptures it is actually easy to tell what is meant to be a myth and what is meant to be a testimony.

 

I will answer to the remaining questions later

[armjan]

Sasun, do I have to draw you a diagram?  Just look at what Jesus has been able to accomplish and how many sheep are following him blindly!  I really admire him and I think he was THE greatest human to have ever lived. He would have had to be to make such an impact on so many people.

 

what is sad is not seeing the spec in your eye. you accuse of others of being sheep and following so consider this. you too, as they, believe in some political,educational, economical thoery of what may work best so it looks to me like your following someone else for a different cause. not unless u make a claim that you have actually invented all of the current systems in use in your lifetime.

 

blindly, how would you know ones personal path to faith. it seems quite blind of you to make such an accusation. please don't confuse your personal path to faith/lack of with others. I would be too humble to speak on behalf of humanity and their personal journey to faith/lack of.

 

 

If you find "derogatory" things in what I say, so be it. But sometimes it hurts to realize how many people have been "fooled" and for how long! The beauty of it is, that his message was a good one to begin with so it's not a complete loss

style_images/master/snapback.png

so this makes you wiser than all these ppl,fine,would u do us a favor and tell us what is really true!

Edited February 22, 2005 by armjan

[Siamanto]

Folks, wouldn’t it be more dignified - and humanistic, to consider Jesus as an exceptional human being, one of the greatest philosophers in the history of mankind and a fouder of a most influential and humanistic religion, instead of making him a supernatural character from folklore

style_images/master/snapback.png

I wish I could say: "It goes without saying!" Public opinion indicates otherwise.

However, that is how I understand it! I view the supernatural "mise en scène" as an "infomercial!"

 

 

 

whose mom was, moreover, a cheat?  mad.gif  smile.gif  tongue.gif

style_images/master/snapback.png

Maybe one should blame those who initiated the rumors, instead of the victim!

[armjan]

this is amazing. if J.C doens't float your boat, then find that guy/girl/thing that will.

what's it to u if others find him as a savoir? are we trying to convert any of you?

 

I am noticing that some of you are anti-christian as opposed to defining your own selves. Find that car/brick or whatever else you need to define your belief set and believe in that. Why are u so interested in convincing others of. when believers try to do this you call it persuation through blind conformity, but when non-believers do this you call it free thinking even though you all conform to the opposite. honestly, how much sense does this make?

 

if i tried to do what some of you are doing, you would plain out call me a christian bigot trying to convert you. I nor anyone else on this forum has not tried this persuation campaign but please detach yourself for one minute and look at the double standard. i know it's hard.

 

i wonder of all the ppl that are non-believers, how many of you were/consider being married at a christian church. Why? Would you consider being married at an armenian christian church or not?

 

the natural tendancy would be to find a congregation/temple/synagogue/las vegas or whatever form that you feel is approperiate and practice it there. The armenian church has clearly defined itself for believers of christ and so i assume i would not see any one you there. right?

 

don't get me wrong, you are welcome at the church anytime provided you repent and accept God into your heart. As a matter of fact, the marriage cermony that lasts X # of minutes(depending on event) will explicitely give the blessings of J.C. and God upon you & your family, but i don't see how much sense this would make to those who don't believe.

Edited February 23, 2005 by armjan

[DominO123]

I am sorry if you got offensed by my posts, it may be hard for some, when they feel that their belief are attacked. Your belief is of no harm to my consciousness, I only track those like Chinmoy that destroy lives, and that I feel that it is my moral duty to react.

[Siamanto]

this is amazing. if J.C doens't float your boat, then find that guy/girl/thing that will.

what's it to u if others find him as a savoir? are we trying to convert any of you?

 

I am noticing that some of you are anti-christian as opposed to defining your own selves. Find that car/brick or whatever else you need to define your belief set and believe in that. Why are u so interested in convincing others of.  when believers try to do this you call it persuation through conformity, but when non-believers do this you call it free thinking even though you all conform to the opposite. honestly, how much sense does this make?

 

if i tried to do what some of you are doing, you would plain out call me a christian bigot trying to convert you. I nor anyone else on this forum has not tried this persuation campaign but please detach yourself for one minute and look at the double standard. i know it's hard.

style_images/master/snapback.png

armjan,

I hear you and you make sense! I will only speak for myself when I say that my intention was neither to convince nor to disrespect anybody! I apologize if anything I have said was perceived as such.

Personally, I'm neither religious nor atheist or agnostic! I just refuse to classify myself.

Faith is a private matter and I would never have a "rational" discussion about its significance/legitimity and/or how it should be practiced.

Personally, I believe that Christianity is not about miracles and supernatural imagery - what I earlier called "mise en scène" - it is about the Philosophy of Redemption and forgiveness! I think that Solaris was rather complimenting Jesus and the Christian Philosophy.

 

 

 

i wonder of all the ppl that are non-believers, how many of you were/consider being married at a christian church. Why? Would you consider being married at an armenian christian church or not?

 

the natural tendancy would be to find a congregation/temple/synagogue/las vegas or whatever form that you feel is approperiate and practice it there.  The armenian church has clearly defined itself for believers of christ and so i assume i would not see any one you there. right?

 

don't get me wrong, you are welcome at the church anytime provided you repent and accept God into your heart. As a matter of fact, the marriage cermony that lasts X # of minutes(depending on event) will explicitely give the blessings of J.C. and God upon you & your family, but i don't see how much sense this would make to those who don't believe.

style_images/master/snapback.png

For many, being married in a church has more than religious connotations: it's more complex!

Edited February 23, 2005 by Siamanto

[Sasun]

You say Jesus is considered divine because he declared to be so. Let's assume he did – although we can't say for sure - there is a fair chance that the entire story is a piece of pure fiction. From what we know about him, we can say that he was a person of insight and imagination who had a message to deliver – perhaps not a divine but a human one, seeking escape from the cant and tyranny of his time. A carpenter from Nazareth had a little chance to be taken seriously, but the son of god had. He was perhaps smart enough to realize that, considering that claims of "divine origin" weren't novel at the time.

Just a point of clarification, the reason I mentioned that Jesus declared his divinity is because Sip was saying as if it was Jesus's followers who had falsely attributed divinity to him while he himself perhaps didn't say anything like that. But my understanding is, Jesus was both human and divine, in other words he was born as a human and lived among humans sharing more or less the same human experiences. At the same time, he was divine in consciousness, he had established a conscious union with God. I don't know if this makes sense to you, but let me not go into detail about what it means to establish union with God.

 

What you are saying about possible motives of Jesus to declare a divine origin in order to promote his philosophy, I wont' say that it is an unreasonable speculation. If I didn't know anything about Jesus' teachings, but if I knew that someone is has good intentions, and is using a "small" bit of a lie for the good cause of humanity, I would consider it possibility that this person indeed has very good motives, and one lie would be attributed to his imperfections, but nonetheless he is a very good person. But let's see if Jesus would indeed do that. Here one needs internal verification, and there really is not much more than that. I would suggest to just concertrate internally on the teachings of Jesus and his deeds. If you concentrate without prejudice and preconceived ideas, just without other thoughts, I am inclined to think that one has to conclude that such a person could not tell a lie, especially that he paid his life for claiming to be Son of God. Why? Because lieing is a selfish act. Jesus died selflessly, he died for the truth. If one dies for the truth, lieing is ruled out.

So this is my sense of internal verification.

 

Of course, there are other things to suggest the veracity of Jesus Christ and the Gospels. You might still doubt that scriptural evidence is not solid enough, or as you are saying the whole thing could be pure fiction. Well, such a scenario would have to explain a lot of strange behavior on part of early Christian movements, the apostles, etc... these are facts that cannot be dismissed as they are not isolated cases. It is very hard to imagine a vast and lasting movement based on an imaginative character with some really extraordinary features.... I won't go much longer on that, I just wanted to give you one example. Have you heard of a Catholic stigmatist named Therese Neumann? This woman experienced the "stigmata" of Jesus's torture marks once every week coinciding with the actual weekdays as written in the Gospels. What happened is that every week Jesus's wounds of crucifixion would appear on her body and she would bleed a lot and have visions of the crucifixion. This is not an ancient history, it happened in the first half of the 20th century, and there have been many visitors to her to check and see themselves, there are accounts written down documenting what they saw. Another curious fact is that she did not eat anything else than one piece of small bread (I forget the name, the bread that you get in the church) a day. Why I am mentioning this? Because this is like a very strong suggestion that the Gospels are true and are not invented. If one is not to believe in the authenticity then one has to come up with really-really sophisticated conspiracy theories... BTW, there are other contemporary stories of stigmatism.

Let me remind you of someone else who apparently did exactly the same. Another extraordinary character, Joan of Arc, whose story is apparently better recorded (at least her existence and military prowess aren't subject to much doubt), also declared contact with the divine – she supposedly heard voices and talked to angels. Now she was an 18 y.o. peasant girl. No matter that she was a genius, she couldn't in her barbaric times just come forward and say – I am a nobody from the middle of nowhere called Domremie, and I came to save France.   But claiming to be the one chosen by God made perfect sense – and it actually worked.

I will answer to you right away that I believe that Joan of Arc had a divine contact. (Her power, inspiration and charisma are good suggestions she could have divine contact. Her extraordinary and unselfish act also could suggest that). Many others have had divine contacts to one degree or another. It is not as rare as we in a materialistic age come to learn. Of course, divine contact and divine realization are different things. One can have once in a lifetime divine contact, or a few times a lifetime divine contact. On the other hand, Jesus had a permanent union with God, which is what Son of God means.

We are all entitled to divine contact, it is not foreign to us humans. As such we are all potential sons of God, we just have to realize it and strive to reclaim our lost divine state.

One the other hand, the story Jesus' divinity could have been made up later on – as that Newsweek article suggested. In a word, I find all the "mundane" explanations more "verisimilar" that the "divine" ones. Myth is a myth and should me treated as such.    If you don't take some of the Scriptures texts literally (and you said you didn't), then you could allow that others could be allegorical as well.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I don't take scriptures literally when they contradict to known facts. To be sure, I am not anything like an expert in scriptural interpretation. However, my understanding is that the Gospels were not meant to be symbolic or allegoric, while Genesis definitely was. We know for sure that the world was not created in 6 days, and things of similar nature. In Gospels too there are some elements that do not make sense if one is to read literally. But the life of Jesus, the story that such a person was born, lived and was crucified, this is by no means an allegory in my opinion.

I know of the best way how to approach to the scirptures - it is through internal verification. For that there is an axiom - truth is self evident. Given enough concentration truth will reveal itself, it will be self-evident by observation. This principle could be applied to scriptures. For that one needs to read small pieces of scripture at a time and meditate in silence for a long time. You will be amazed how much better you can understand in this case. By this practice the truths behind allegories and sybolism will become apparent.

Edited February 23, 2005 by Sasun

[armjan]

There is an enormous amount of "recorded" "miracles" in any religion or mythology. Should be believe all of them, or could you suggest a method of distinguishing "true" miracles from the "false" ones?

 

here are 2 definitions of a miracle:

1.any amazing or wonderful occurrence.

2.An act of God contrary to the usual (providential) course of nature.

 

so how much sense does it make to try to define correctness from these definitions. but moreover how would you do it? it's not realistic attempt. if u'r logic was true then it would extend to the defn that doesn't concern a mention of God (1). and similarily, how would one define truth when it comes to amazing or wonderful occurrence. u can't, that's my pt.

 

Are only those "recorded" in the Bible true? Why?

 

what is ur criteria for determining if something is true? and does u'r defn validate or invalidate all that is true/untrue. if u asnwer yes, then you have a knowledge base that contains the set of all answers. its quite clear that u don't so again, your arg goes 1/2 way.

 

What makes you think it’s only Jesus who is the "real thing"? We have a vast choice of Gods to believe

how can we validate this? Again, I would have left it but according to your claims and burden of proof as they pertain to faith, surely you should live up to your standards, so please validate. if u'r going to reference other religions/faiths, then this would be contradictory and here is why.

set A = {alteast 2 elements of same kind } (God, Budda,etc)

you nullify a member of A by assuming the other is true when they are indeed according to your defn of faith both equvalent.

 

 

What makes you think it’s only Jesus who is the "real thing"?

what makes u think that he's not? you say X, i say ~X. none of us can validate X or ~X. but even after several threads you seem to miss this point.

 

Today I already wrote somewhere that religion is a learned thing, as it does not come with our "preinstalled" software package.

 

so what comes with a default installation. does a newborn have any knowledge? i am not talking about an infant who knows how to swim after 3 months. A new born. What about language? What about Math? What about social manners? Isn't EVERYTHING learned.

 

 

You'd never know about Jesus if you hadn't been told about him in the first place.

so if u were never told about English, Math or Biology, would you know it? again, look at the big picture, not the details.

 

Had you be born an Indian in India, more likely than not you'd  have been a Hindu, 'cause that would have been your "default" religion.

this would also mean that ppl only speak their native language, but most intellectuals attempt to learn more.

 

 

You say Jesus is considered divine because he declared to be so. Let's assume he did – although we can't say for sure

we can't say that he's not for sure, remember X and ~X. blind guides blind. see the irony.

 

 

One the other hand, the story Jesus' divinity could have been made up later on

 

or perhaps it could have been true

 

 

 

If you don't take some of the Scriptures texts literally (and you said you didn't), then you could allow that others could be allegorical as well.

 

humans learn by example. remember cry wolf. details not important, underlying msg very important. but its sad to see some, like you, discredit the msg b/c u focus on the details. try to see life as a learning experiment and not expect to be spoon fed everything in an organized manner.

Edited February 23, 2005 by armjan

[Siamanto]

I just watched an enchanting 90 minute conversation between two individuals I genuinely admire and respect: Bernard Pivot - undoubtedly The symbol of Culture of the last decades, in France - and late Franois Mitterand.

When discussing a chapter of Mitterand's biography - written by Elie Wiesel - discussing his faith, he - Mitterand - said:

"I regret and feel sorrow that it is not at easy at it was during my childhood."

(He defined himself as a "mystic agnostic.")

At the end of each "interview" - "entretien" in French - Pivot asks his guest a certain number of well know questions.

To the question:

If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

Mitterand answered:

"At last, you know." (Enfin, tu sais.)

I believe he meant: "At last, you know that I exist!"

Edited February 23, 2005 by Siamanto

[Solaris]

here are 2 definitions of a miracle:

1.any amazing or wonderful occurrence.

2.An act of God contrary to the usual (providential) course of nature.

 

so how much sense does it make to try to define correctness from these definitions. but moreover how would you do it? it's not realistic attempt. if u'r logic was true then it would extend to the defn that doesn't concern a mention of God (1). and similarily, how would one define truth when it comes to amazing or wonderful occurrence. u can't, that's my pt.

 

what is ur criteria for determining if something is true? and does u'r defn validate or invalidate all that is true/untrue. if u asnwer yes, then you have a knowledge base that contains the set of all answers. its quite clear that u don't so again, your arg goes 1/2 way.

how can we validate this? Again, I would have left it but according to your claims and burden of proof as they pertain to faith, surely you should live up to your standards, so please validate. if u'r going to reference other religions/faiths, then this would be contradictory and here is why.

set A = {alteast 2 elements of same kind }  (God, Budda,etc)

you nullify a member of A by assuming the other is true when they are indeed according to your defn of faith both equvalent.

 

what makes u think that he's not? you say X, i say ~X. none of us can validate X or ~X. but even after several threads you seem to miss this point.

so what comes with a default installation. does a newborn have any knowledge? i am not talking about an infant who knows how to swim after 3 months. A new born. What about language? What about Math? What about social manners? Isn't EVERYTHING learned.

so if u were never told about English, Math or Biology, would you know it? again, look at the big picture, not the details.

this would also mean that ppl only speak their native language, but most intellectuals attempt to learn more.

we can't say that he's not for sure, remember X and ~X. blind guides blind. see the irony.

or perhaps it could have been true

humans learn by example. remember cry wolf. details not important, underlying msg very important. but its sad to see some, like you, discredit the msg b/c u focus on the details. try to see life as a learning experiment and not expect to be spoon fed everything in an organized manner.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Armjan, now you're simply being a drag.

Don't forget that God, as well the Devil, is in detail.

[Solaris]

Had people encountered an evidence of nuclear fusion one century ago? No. Have you seen nuclear fusioin yourself? No, you only have heard about it. But does it mean it could not exist?

Your experiences are very-very limited to make any solid conclusions about what can possibly exist. Of course, you can alwasy tell with 100% certainty if a red ball exists in your pocket or not, but you can't say what exists in the universe.

 

This is the prize argument of irrationalism – totally irrefutable. There is no way of denying the existence of anything in the universe. However the conception of verisimilitude may of some help (this principle is akin to Occam's Rasor). We can as well say that there is a certain Latin spell which, pronounced in a certain way, will turn water into wine. We can neither verify nor refute it empirically. It is impossible to pronounce all possible combinations of all Latin words in all possible

ways, to see that nothing happens and ergo the sentence is false. But we'll excuse a reasonable person if she still considers that such a spell does not exist. So let's not succumb to the absurdity.

 

Early XIX century scientific knowledge was not developed enough to explore nuclear fusion, just like XVII century scientific knowledge was not developed enough to explain gravity. This is Bertrand Russell's example: "People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced".

 

However it is not very likely that science one day will develop to the point of explaining how plain H20 was turned into wine without the use of sophisticated equipment changing the structure of atoms.

 

Actually it maynot be as difficult as you expect. Give me some examples

 

I was asking about method. If you have it, you don't need my examples. It should be applicable to both past and future miracles. So, pls feel free to go ahead…

 

Q. (Sol.) Are only miracles "recorded" in the Bible true? Why?

A. (Sas.) No.

 

Then how do you reconcile different belief systems? Jesus & Krishna? How about Islam and its trends and sects?

 

You say Jesus was (is?) divine, fine, and so was (is?) Zeus - he of the golden rain, or Vishnu, or Krishna…  We have a vast choice of Gods to believe.   What makes you think it’s only Jesus who is the "real thing"?

It's not only Jesus, Krishna too is like Jesus, and others. But not Zeus and Vishnu who are not historical persons. I don't think you will find anyone who will argue that Zeus and Vishnu walked on the earth as human beings, even though there are many Hindus who worship Vishnu as a real thing (not sure about Zeus). So there is the distinction between myths and real events. For example, in Hindu religion there are so many stories about Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma (called puranas) that are highly revered by Hindus. These stories are myths and are believed as myths by their followers. The same goes with the Greek mythology, I have never haerd anyone claiming that Zeus was a historical person (but maybe there are some, I don't know).

 

Do you mean to say that only historical persons who walked on the earth as human beings can be divine? What about the Trinity? Is Father God a historical character? He manifested himself as a burning bush, for instance, but did he walk on earth as a human being? You won't contend his divinity as Jesus's divinity is derived from his. But if he is divine, then Vishnu as well has a fair chance? Re Zeus: if a belief systems is no longer practiced, does it automatically render it's "miracles" and Gods invalid? Ancient Greeks worshipped those Gods - there was no other reason for having them. And apparently they believed that Zeus raided Earth in the appearance of a bull… And what if an old religion is being "relaunched"? There is some revival of interest in paganism in the UK and there are practicing druid groups. What about them?

 

As far as Jesus or Krishna and others are concerned, the stories about them are told as testimonies, not as myths. Some parts of very ancient stories such as the story about Krishna could be spiced up with mytholigical elements, I see it as the prevailing literary style or something of that order, but not an attempt to make up a totally false story. If you become familiar with many scriptures it is actually easy to tell what is meant to be a myth and what is meant to be a testimony.:

 

In any courtroom, you'll hear a lot of stories that are meant to be testimonies but are full-fledged myths. It doesn't matter what these stories are meant to be by the teller. What is important is whether the events the story states are in agreement with (or correspond to) reality. You consider Jesus' or Krishna's existence and activities as an uncontested facts, while they are not. In our case, we can neither prove or disprove that. We simply don't know whether or not those people existed, nor do we know whether or not those things happened. We can only establish that these events are nor verisimilar as they contradict to scientific knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy, physiology, ets. It is more likely that they are myths than miracles. In a word, evidence inadmissible, counsel.

 

You can still say that miracles don't have to conform to scientific knowledge. But that would render your "nuclear fusion" argument irrelevant.

Edited February 23, 2005 by Solaris

[Solaris]

Jesus died selflessly, he died for the truth. If one dies for the truth, lieing is ruled out.

 

Not necessarily. If one is ready to die for his/her ideas, then (s)he could also lie for them…

 

Of course, there are other things to suggest the veracity of Jesus Christ and the Gospels. You might still doubt that scriptural evidence is not solid enough, or as you are saying the whole thing could be pure fiction. Well, such a scenario would have to explain a lot of strange behavior on part of early Christian movements, the apostles, etc... these are facts that cannot be dismissed as they are not isolated cases. It is very hard to imagine a vast and lasting movement based on an imaginative character with some really extraordinary features.... I won't go much longer on that, I just wanted to give you one example. Have you heard of a Catholic stigmatist named Therese Neumann? This woman experienced the "stigmata" of Jesus's torture marks once every week coinciding with the actual weekdays as written in the Gospels. What happened is that every week Jesus's wounds of crucifixion would appear on her body and she would bleed a lot and have visions of the crucifixion. This is not an ancient history, it happened in the first half of the 20th century, and there have been many visitors to her to check and see themselves, there are accounts written down documenting what they saw. Another curious fact is that she did not eat anything else than one piece of small bread (I forget the name, the bread that you get in the church) a day. Why I am mentioning this? Because this is like a very strong suggestion that the Gospels are true and are not invented. If one is not to believe in the authenticity then one has to come up with really-really sophisticated conspiracy theories... BTW, there are other contemporary stories of stigmatism.

 

The trouble with our dialogue is that you tend to adduce arguments on which I am bound to be skeptical. And I am surely skeptical about stigmata. You trust the miraculous accounts and I seem more convinced with the rebuttals. Those interested in stigmata can consider this:

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._24/ai_63693003

 

 

I will answer to you right away that I believe that Joan of Arc had a divine contact. (Her power, inspiration and charisma are good suggestions she could have divine contact. Her extraordinary and unselfish act also could suggest that). Many others have had divine contacts to one degree or another. It is not as rare as we in a materialistic age come to learn. Of course, divine contact and divine realization are different things. One can have once in a lifetime divine contact, or a few times a lifetime divine contact. On the other hand, Jesus had a permanent union with God, which is what Son of God means.

We are all entitled to divine contact, it is not foreign to us humans. As such we are all potential sons of God, we just have to realize it and strive to reclaim our lost divine state.

 

I don't know which of us is more “terrible". I don't believe in God, but you don't believe in humanity. By suggesting that Joan owed her "power, inspiration and charisma" and "her extraordinary and unselfish acts" to divine contact, you simply degrade the human being in her. The same applies to Jesus. Should the deeds of great humans be credited to divine intervention? My answer is no. You may think whatever you feel like.

 

And there is something else that sounds very suspicious here: the point that the divine blessing was given to Joan implies that God was taking sides in a nasty war which was not just on either side. True, Greek Gods did that as well, but there had always been a fair number of them for each "warring party" to get its share of help. Athena for Greeks and Ares for Trojans, fair enough, let the best "woman" win… But we had only one "God" there, and so he helped the French against the English? Sounds more political than divine.

 

One more thing: the poor girl had a dreadful end. So did Jesus, but that was apparently "necessity" for "saving" the mankind. And according to the legend he did not stay dead for long after all. But Joan did. She was burned alive, and your God did nothing even to mitigate her sufferings. So why God's love has to be so harsh, to the point of being sadistic? You may say she was rewarded in afterlife, but, after all, nothing prevented Him (her? It?) from leaving her enjoy her mundane glory. He could reward her afterwards, once she had died a honourable gramma in her bed at the age of 80.

 

I know of the best way how to approach to the scirptures - it is through internal verification. For that there is an axiom - truth is self evident. Given enough concentration truth will reveal itself, it will be self-evident by observation. This principle could be applied to scriptures. For that one needs to read small pieces of scripture at a time and meditate in silence for a long time. You will be amazed how much better you can understand in this case. By this practice the truths behind allegories and sybolism will become apparent.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well I knew it would boil down to this in the end. Some are special and see the light (by the means of navel contemplating or otherwise), some don't. It’s a matter of "inner light" – but some just don't have the bulb inside, and that's why they don't believe in gosh. Poor creatures, so much the worse for them… They'll go to heck…

Edited February 23, 2005 by Solaris

[Sasun]

This is the prize argument of irrationalism – totally irrefutable. There is no way of denying the existence of anything in the universe. However the conception of verisimilitude may of some help (this principle is akin to Occam's Rasor). We can as well say that there is a certain Latin spell which, pronounced in a certain way, will turn water into wine. We can neither verify nor refute it empirically. It is impossible to pronounce all possible combinations of all Latin words in all possible

ways, to see that nothing happens and ergo the sentence is false. But we'll excuse a reasonable person if she still considers that such a spell does not exist. So let's not succumb to the absurdity. 

 

Early XIX century scientific knowledge was not developed enough to explore nuclear fusion, just like XVII century scientific knowledge was not developed enough to explain gravity. This is Bertrand Russell's example: "People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced".

You are complicating a simple thing. The law of gravitation existed without our knowleldge and worked exactly the same way with or without our knowledge. Similarly, there are laws that science is not aware of, and those laws work equally well. Moreover, your own personal experiences cannot even compare to the aggregate of all scientific experiences, or experiements I should say. Therefore, many thing indeed exist that some others may have experienced but you have not experienced. You cannnot claim that just becuase you have not experienced something it does not exist. This should not mean that every imagined idea exists, like you are saying about a certain unknown latin word could exist. Please pay attention, I am not saying that everything taht could exist does exist. What I am saying is you cannot deny other poeple's experiences only because you have not experienced.

However it is not very likely that science one day will develop to the point of explaining how plain H20 was turned into wine without the use of sophisticated equipment changing the structure of atoms.

I am just curious how you can make such a prediction. Some time back it would seem very unlikely, and perhaps a lunacy, to claim that matter can be converted into energy.

I was asking about method. If you have it, you don't need my examples. It should be applicable to both past and future miracles. So, pls feel free to go ahead… 

One sure way is observation in normal circumstances. If you see a something miraculous no matter what your knowledge is then you are bound to believe. The bottom line is, one should not assume that his/her personal knowledge is sufficient to define all possible laws of the universe

Then how do you reconcile different belief systems? Jesus & Krishna? How about Islam and its trends and sects?

At the core of all religions are fundamental truths that are the same. Outer things can be very contradictory, and it means either some of them are wrong or all are wrong. But if you try to understand the essence of all religons they are the same. I don't mean theological concepts but the essence of teachings. Otherwise, even in one religion there are sects with contradictory doctrines. Of course, they are all wrong in the absolute sense. But surely they are right in some sense and similar. But if you take the fundamental principles Islam, Christianity, Hinduism they are all the same. For example, God is Spirit and is Omnipotent. I don't thing anyone from these religions will deny this.

Do you mean to say that only historical persons who walked on the earth as human beings can be divine?

That's not what I meant. God is divine by definition.

What about the Trinity? Is Father God a historical character? He manifested himself as a burning bush, for instance,  but did he walk on earth as a human being? You won't contend his divinity as Jesus's divinity is derived from his. But if he is divine, then Vishnu as well has a fair chance? Re Zeus: if a belief systems is no longer practiced, does it automatically render it's "miracles" and Gods invalid? Ancient Greeks worshipped those Gods -  there was no other reason for having them. And apparently they believed that Zeus raided Earth in the appearance of a bull…   And what if an old religion is being "relaunched"?  There is some revival of interest in paganism in the UK and there are practicing druid groups. What about them?

In any courtroom, you'll hear a lot of stories that are meant to be testimonies but are full-fledged myths.

I am a believer of objective reality. Someone was either born on earth as a human being or not. So as far as I know, there was no person called Zeus, but a diety. A person and diety are not the same thing. However, a person may manifest a diety. Human's are potentially divine, they can all manifest the divine provided they really want to do it.

Coming to Jesus and Krishna, they are meant to be human beings and God incarnates at the same time. That means they were manifesting God as human beings, in other words they were manifesting their own divinity, which we all humans share potentially but not actually.

As for court testimonies, again a testimony could be true or false, there is not other way, or a mix of true and false where components are definitely either false or true. But when a false testimony is given in court there is certainly a reason for that. Whereas if one is to claim that testimonies about Jesus are false there are not really any solid explanations why a group of people would agree to fabricate a story, and die for that story. The trouble with skepticism is that it is indeed very easy to be skeptic but they won't bother to offer valid explanations.

It doesn't matter what these stories are meant to be by the teller.What is important is whether the events the story states are in agreement with (or correspond  to) reality. You consider Jesus' or Krishna's existence and activities as an uncontested facts, while they are not. In our case, we can neither prove or disprove that. We simply don't know whether or not those people existed, nor do we know whether or not those things happened.

I agree that you have enough reason to be skeptical, and I don't have sufficient proof to prove beyond doubt that such individuals existed due to old history and lack of abundant and un-contradictory records. However, I do not think that it is most important to provide such proofs. What I consider most important is to test the validity of the teachings of these individuals as they exist in the (contested or uncontested) records. Then you will gradually understand intuitively that such things could not have been made up.

We can only establish that these events are nor verisimilar as they contradict to scientific knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy, physiology, ets. It is more likely that they are myths than miracles. In a word, evidence inadmissible, counsel.

I don't agree with your statement. Such miracles do not contradict, they simply cannot be explained by existing sciencese. This is a more objective and correct statement because we do know that our sciences are limited and expanding.

You can still say that miracles don't have to conform to scientific knowledge. But that would render your "nuclear fusion" argument irrelevant.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Actually, I am saying scientific knowledge does not have a complete and precise understanding of all laws. It is limited and imperfect. There are many uncertainties that are not objective uncertainties, we simply don't know. That does not mean that we will never know. My stance is time invariant.

[Sasun]

Not necessarily. If one is ready to die for his/her ideas, then (s)he could also lie for them…

Well, I don't think one is ready to die for false ideas. One can be truly believe in falsehood and die for that belief (as in 9/11), but if one believes that he/she is lieing he/she will not die for a lie.

The trouble with our dialogue is that you tend to adduce arguments on which I am bound to be skeptical. And I am surely skeptical about stigmata. You trust the miraculous accounts and I seem more convinced with the rebuttals. Those interested in stigmata can consider this:

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._24/ai_63693003

The reason I brought the example of Therese Newmann is that her case didn't occur in a distant past but relatively recently. And there are credible evidences, on of those being the evidence from an "enemy camp", a protestant priest who went there with the aim of exposing charlatanism but seeing that he was wrong instead wrote a testimony of what he saw ( I can provide the name if necessary). I checked your link but it is a typical statement of claims and skepticism. I just don't see what one can learn from there. Of course, there could be many charlatans making claims, and there could be genuine rebuttals of charlatanism. But there could be also genuine testimonies.

I don't know which of us is more “terrible".    I don't believe in God, but you  don't believe in humanity.   By suggesting that Joan owed her "power, inspiration and charisma" and "her extraordinary and unselfish acts" to divine contact, you simply degrade the human being in her. The same applies to Jesus. Should the deeds of great humans be credited to divine intervention? My answer is no. You may think whatever you feel like.

I think that humans are potentially divine, so I can't be considered a disbeliever in humanity by default But in this case both Jesus and Joan spoke of divine contacts right (in different words though)? What is surprising you give credit for them as humans, but you don't give credit to their words.

And there is something else that sounds very suspicious here: the point that the divine blessing was given to Joan implies  that God was taking sides in a nasty war which was not just on either side.

 

True, Greek Gods did that as well, but there had always been a fair number of them for each "warring party" to get its share of help. Athena for Greeks and Ares for Trojans, fair enough, let the best "woman" win…   But we had only one "God" there, and so he helped the French against the English? Sounds more political than divine.

But why not mention patriotism? And also why not mention her devoteness?I

One more thing: the poor girl had a dreadful end. So did Jesus, but that was apparently "necessity" for "saving" the mankind. And according to the legend he did not stay dead for long after all. But Joan did. She was burned alive, and your God did nothing even to mitigate her sufferings. So why God's love has to be so harsh, to the point of being sadistic? You may say she was rewarded in afterlife, but, after all, nothing prevented Him (her? It?) from leaving her enjoy her mundane glory. He could reward her afterwards, once she had died a honourable gramma in her bed at the age of 80.

Oh, you sound like Anoushik now... I have answered her but she didn't seem to be convinced. The chances are you won't be convinced either, but let me mention the name of Satan so you may get the idea

Well I knew it would boil down to this in the end. Some are special and see the light (by the means of navel contemplating or otherwise),  some don't.  It’s a matter of "inner light" – but some just don't have the bulb inside, and that's why they don't believe in gosh.   Poor creatures, so much the worse for them…  They'll go to heck…   

style_images/master/snapback.png

Why are you assuming that? I am not a believer of some being special and others not. There really is no need to be cynical, you too are potentiall divine, or in other words you too have the "bulb" inside. But I don't think you are trying to make use of it. It maybe due to my poor linguistic skills but I by no mean wanted to suggest that I know something that does not apply to others or belongs to me exclusively

[Sasun]

Personally, I'm neither religious nor atheist or agnostic! I just refuse to classify myself.

style_images/master/snapback.png

You can be classified in the class of unclassified convictions

[Solaris]

Sasun,

 

You bring all the right arguments any reasonable theist would bring, with all of their merits and fallacies. Most of them are simply very convenient, and when you are short of rational arguments you'd go for "intuition". If an alleged “miracle” is at odds with the scientific knowledge, you suggest an "easy" explanation that it's scientific knowledge that is incomplete, rather than the “miracle”, fictional.

 

David Hume, an eighteenth century English philosopher, actually wrote a treatise on the subject. Hume's rule in "Of Miracles" states that when an alleged miracle occurs we should ask ourselves which would be more miraculous, the alleged miracle or that we are being hoaxed? Reasonableness requires us to go with the lesser of two miracles, the least improbable, and conclude that we are witnessing not a miracle but a pious fraud. The logic is the akin to that of the Occam's razor. The modern and more sophisticated version is Karl Popper's conception of "verisimilitude" of conjectures, of which I talked earlier. We are not bound to believe that a seemingly abnormal thing is a miracle, 'cause there are other, more plausible explanations – we can be hoaxed, or mistaken, or deluded, or simply the event is not what it appears to be. Let's not succumb not only to absurdity but also to the common fallacy of false dilemma.

 

Your stigmatism argument still fails to convince me. The whole thing seems a regular pious fraud all the way – and a rather sick one, if we call a spade a spade. What kind of people could be aroused by the concept of a God who would render a child comatose and then inflict wounds on her? This is bloody disgusting, excuse the pun.

 

The concept of Satan is also very convenient – gives easy answers to all nasty questions. I guess all the evil on Earth is attributed to him? Good. Now we know who the enemy is. The Old Teaser, not Old Dubya Bush. Perhaps this casts a little doubt on the concept of Omnipotence – if Old Harry is so good at muddling up God's plans then God is not quite so almighty in the end of the day, now is he?

 

The concept of "potential divinity" is obscure – I don't grasp it. Do you want to call "divine" everything that is good in humans? For cripe's sake, why?

 

Finally, you said that the basic tenets of all religions are the same while "outer things can be very contradictory, and it means either some of them are wrong or all are wrong". The basic principle is that "God is Spirit and is Omnipotent". Doesn't it follow that all the built-up surrounding this principle (or your "outer things") can be safely cast away, or at least regarded as socially/regionally/temporally constructed and developed, and therefore subject to regular scrutiny and revision?

[Sasun]

Sasun,

 

You bring all the right arguments any reasonable theist would bring, with all of their merits and fallacies. Most of them are simply very convenient, and when you are short of rational arguments you'd go for "intuition". If an alleged “miracle” is at odds with the scientific knowledge, you suggest an "easy" explanation that it's scientific knowledge that is incomplete, rather than the “miracle”, fictional.

Earlier I posted a link to a case of virgin birth. You can't dismiss it as a hoax or dilusion. These are rare cases of immaculate conception. If I didn't know about it (and I only learned about them recently) I would have a hard time to explain that science does not make it impossible to give immaculate births. Sciense only explains how sex causes a birth, but it doesn't say that all births are caused by sex.

Virgin birth is a clear case of abnormality, do you agree? Even now that I have posted the link, nobody seems to come to agreement with the fact that immaculate birth is indeed possible. It is factual, though sciense does not have any explanation. This is a case of limitations of science when facts are not explained.

Does that mean that any such claim is true? Of course not, there are many false claims in general.

David Hume, an eighteenth century English philosopher, actually wrote a treatise on the subject. Hume's rule in "Of Miracles" states that when an alleged miracle occurs we should ask ourselves which would be more miraculous, the alleged miracle or that we are being hoaxed? Reasonableness requires us to go with the lesser of two miracles, the least improbable, and conclude that we are witnessing not a miracle but a pious fraud. The logic is the akin to that of the Occam's razor. The modern and more sophisticated version is Karl Popper's conception of "verisimilitude" of conjectures, of which I talked earlier. We are not bound to believe that a seemingly abnormal thing is a miracle, 'cause there are other, more plausible explanations – we can be hoaxed, or mistaken, or deluded, or simply the event is not what it appears to be. Let's not succumb not only to absurdity but also to the common fallacy of false dilemma.

Hmm... why complicate the matter with theoretical concepts that are not precise and could be subject to non unique interpretations? Let's have an example. If you witnessed a miracle, let's say a stigmatism case, then would you try to investigate it, or consider it either a hoax, or a case of delusion, or a mistake, etc? I am not talking about theoretical cases. It seems to me you are inclined to think that nothing abnormal could happen. The priciple that you are mentioning simply does not leave any room for unexplained things to happen. And when faced with hard evidence then you will have to assume that you are delusional. Well, I am sorry, but this is not a scientific method of investigation. Had it been the case how can you tell if you see something you are delusional or not delusional. Only because that something is familiar does not bear any consequence of your state being delusional or normal. In my opinion a delusional state is has to do with specific health abnormalities, and that is something that can be (at least in theory) identified as yes or no. It cannot be dependant on "verisimilariity" of observations. This is plain objective reality.

As for hoaxes, again you can't dismiss anything unexplainable as a hoax. That too is not a scientific approach.

Of course, this does not mean one has to conclude immediately that anything that looks like a miracle is a miracle. As I said charlatanism is quite likely to happen in such matters. All things are possible, it could be a normal phenomenon, it could be an illusion, it could be a hoax, it could be a delusion. These things are all to be investigated before you can make a conclusion. And if you can't come to a conclusion then it is an open question. That is the scientific approach.

Your stigmatism argument still fails to convince me. The whole thing seems a regular pious fraud all the way – and a rather sick one, if we call a spade a spade. What kind of people could be aroused by the concept of a God who would render a child comatose and then inflict wounds on her?   This is bloody disgusting, excuse the pun.

Again, you are jumping to conclusions and accusing some very honest people of cheating. I am sure if you were honest you could not have a way to prove that all cases is stigmatism are indeed hoaxes. Yet you your conclusion is not based on facts, it is a conjecture, a hypothesis based on limited experiences and limited knowledge.

The concept of Satan is also very convenient – gives easy answers to all nasty questions. I guess all the evil on Earth is attributed to him? Good. Now we know who the enemy is. The Old Teaser, not Old Dubya Bush.   Perhaps this casts a little doubt on the concept of Omnipotence – if Old Harry is so good at muddling up God's plans then God is not quite so almighty in the end of the day, now is he?

 

Being almighty does not mean that one will alwasy use his might. This is a question of free will that we all have and the Almighty does not take it away by not allowing do bad things. Satan is a negative and intelligent power in the universe who/which has free will given by God.

The concept of "potential divinity" is obscure – I don't grasp it. Do you want to call "divine" everything that is good in humans? For cripe's sake, why?

Definition of good is subjective, one thing is good for me but not for you, and vice versa. However, one way to define good would be whatever is divine in human is good

As for potential divinity, I understand it as divinity not exercised/manifested, and divinity itself is God's qualities.

Finally, you said that the basic tenets of all religions are the same while "outer things can be very contradictory, and it means either some of them are wrong or all are wrong". The basic principle is that "God is Spirit and is Omnipotent". Doesn't it follow that all the built-up surrounding this principle (or your "outer things") can be safely cast away, or at least regarded as socially/regionally/temporally constructed and developed, and therefore subject to regular scrutiny and revision?

style_images/master/snapback.png

The outer contradictory items can be safely cast away, but I don't see it as a vital necessity. If one really needs them then let them have it. Each person can cast away for himself/herself.

[Anonymouse]

Sasun,

 

You bring all the right arguments any reasonable theist would bring, with all of their merits and fallacies. Most of them are simply very convenient, and when you are short of rational arguments you'd go for "intuition". If an alleged “miracle” is at odds with the scientific knowledge, you suggest an "easy" explanation that it's scientific knowledge that is incomplete, rather than the “miracle”, fictional.

 

David Hume, an eighteenth century English philosopher, actually wrote a treatise on the subject. Hume's rule in "Of Miracles" states that when an alleged miracle occurs we should ask ourselves which would be more miraculous, the alleged miracle or that we are being hoaxed? Reasonableness requires us to go with the lesser of two miracles, the least improbable, and conclude that we are witnessing not a miracle but a pious fraud. The logic is the akin to that of the Occam's razor. The modern and more sophisticated version is Karl Popper's conception of "verisimilitude" of conjectures, of which I talked earlier. We are not bound to believe that a seemingly abnormal thing is a miracle, 'cause there are other, more plausible explanations – we can be hoaxed, or mistaken, or deluded, or simply the event is not what it appears to be. Let's not succumb not only to absurdity but also to the common fallacy of false dilemma.

 

Your stigmatism argument still fails to convince me. The whole thing seems a regular pious fraud all the way – and a rather sick one, if we call a spade a spade. What kind of people could be aroused by the concept of a God who would render a child comatose and then inflict wounds on her?   This is bloody disgusting, excuse the pun.

 

The concept of Satan is also very convenient – gives easy answers to all nasty questions. I guess all the evil on Earth is attributed to him? Good. Now we know who the enemy is. The Old Teaser, not Old Dubya Bush.   Perhaps this casts a little doubt on the concept of Omnipotence – if Old Harry is so good at muddling up God's plans then God is not quite so almighty in the end of the day, now is he?

 

The concept of "potential divinity" is obscure – I don't grasp it. Do you want to call "divine" everything that is good in humans? For cripe's sake, why?

 

Finally, you said that the basic tenets of all religions are the same while "outer things can be very contradictory, and it means either some of them are wrong or all are wrong". The basic principle is that "God is Spirit and is Omnipotent". Doesn't it follow that all the built-up surrounding this principle (or your "outer things") can be safely cast away, or at least regarded as socially/regionally/temporally constructed and developed, and therefore subject to regular scrutiny and revision?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I can only refer the reader to Kant, who was nothing more than the time's response as a critic to the dry sobriety of empiricists such as Hume. It seems that one of the everlasting contributions of Marxism was its rant on how all things are "social constructions". However, modern man does not need to be religious or spiritual at all. Man can dispense with a daily prayer for divine aid. He can carry out what he proposes to do, and he can apparently translate his ideas into action without a hitch, whereas the primitive seems to be hampered at each step by fears, superstitions, and other unseen obstacles to action. However, modern man is the victim of another superstition, that of reason and empiricism.