Hello

[Annabea]

Annabea, I’m glad you’re concerned, but don’t tell me what to do when it comes to other posters. God bless.

You were talking about me for criminy sake.

 

[aileron]

Sorry, your argument doesn’t make sense. Those that witnessed could very well have become believers and then went on to spread the news or were slaughtered by Roman authorities

“Could very well…” Speculation is not evidence. As to your specific conjecture, any contemporaneous recordings of these events by believers would have been considered the most important of historical documents. Why were they not preserved? The Jews were able to preserve their sacred texts despite brutal Roman oppression. Do you really mean to suggest that Roman authorities had it in their power to isolate every last written recording of an event of this earth shattering magnitude?

Again, why would Romans want word of Christ extended further into the Empire?

I never suggested that they did.

They were trying to stop it. “Hey, we don’t want you to become Christian but check out this really cool historical event of dead people walking in the streets on the account of Jesus the Savior.” It makes no sense.

But dead people walking in the streets, that makes sense. Even your more enlightened priests recognize that as a wild embellishment of events.

 

[josie_L]

You were talking about me for christs sake.

I’m talking about his attitude Annabea, not the topic itself. And refrain from using such language or you’ll be banned.

 

[Annabea]

I’m talking about his attitude Annabea, not the topic itself. And refrain from using such language or you’ll be banned.

You had an equally rude attitude. And um sorry? Didn’t know…

 

[josie_L]

It’s below the belt in situations like these when we’re having a decent discussion. Annabea is easily the most reflected and well-formulated debater I have ever seen in my five years on various forums, and it sucks to see the age-card being pulled in situations like these.

I said it was out of concern that I asked that question to Annabea, nothing more. You spoke out of turn, and insulted me. Don’t do that again!!

 

[josie_L]

You had an equally rude attitude. And um sorry? Didn’t know…

Yes, Annabea, I gave him attitude after he was rude. I will not be spoken to like that by anyone.

 

[jam070406]

“Could very well…” Speculation is not evidence. As to your specific conjecture, any contemporaneous recordings of these events by believers would have been considered the most important of historical documents. Why were they not preserved? The Jews were able to preserve their sacred texts despite brutal Roman oppression. Do you really mean to suggest that Roman authorities had it in their power to isolate every last written recording of an event of this earth shattering magnitude?

I never suggested that they did.

But dead people walking in the streets, that makes sense. Even your more enlightened priests recognize that as a wild embellishment of events.

I have not read through every single piece of the Church Fathers writings, so again we’re back to speculation, on your part as well. Unless you’ve read threw all the Church Father’s writngs and have seen all there is to see on this topic. If you have not, then how can you even make a claim that nobody wrote on it?

The opinions of “enlightened” priests are speculation, no? On their part and yours for that matter.

 

[aileron]

I’ll attempt to respond these questions on face value (that is, I’ll try not to muddy up the argument with contextual information that has been blatantly omitted).

People here know the context as well as I do. We can both read. We don’t need to provided an exegesis.

To the accusation of clothing; why would a god institute a dress code if he was unconcerned with human conduct? It seems such a petty issue in the greater scheme of things.

So why is the creator of the universe going to great pains to implement petty Levitican laws and largely ignoring the evil of slavery? All he had to do was tell the Hebrews, “No slaves,” but he never did. (I sense a mysterious ways argument coming on. I’ll accept that if you accept all the mysterious ways arguments about Brahman)

As far as genocide goes, it would seem to me that a god who is bloodthirsty and autocratic in nature would not be so concerned with eliminating one race in favor of another (quite lesser) race

Wow… Do you honestly believe that there are races at all in any meaningful sense, and that one race can be quite lesser than another? – Even the innocents?

To the issue of commerce and slavery, it does not fit that a despot of this magnitude would take such a casual stance on issues that are fundamental to the preservation of a society. What modern day terrestrial dictators do you know of that are so passive on such issues?

What “issues” are “fundamental to the preservation of society?” Certainly you don’t mean slavery, but that’s the only issue in context. Please clarify.

 

[Annabea]

Yes, Annabea, I gave him attitude after he was rude. I will not be spoken to like that by anyone.

And thats the attitude that got this world were we are. Thats what we learn not to do in pre-school. If you are hit do not hit them back, it only causes more trouble. You do not realize it but I have been angered by many of your comments. I just replied to the calmly. If you yell I won’t yell back only for you to yell again. Do you see where I am coming from? If that offended you I’m sorry, it wasn’t meant to. It was only meant to give you my idea.

 

[aileron]

I have not read through every single piece of the Church Fathers writings, so again we’re back to speculation, on your part as well. Unless you’ve read threw all the Church Father’s writngs and have seen all there is to see on this topic. If you have not, then how can you even make a claim that nobody wrote on it?

It is not speculation. Scholars know very well that no contemporaneous writing describing these events has ever been found.

The opinions of “enlightened” priests are speculation, no? On their part and yours for that matter.

It’s opinion, not speculation. Yes, it’s my opinion that there are some very enlightened priests out there. I only wish they would be in a position of power, but these things take time.

 

[jam070406]

People here know the context as well as I do. We can both read. We don’t need to provided an exegesis.

So why is the creator of the universe going to great pains to implement petty Levitican laws and largely ignoring the evil of slavery? All he had to do was tell the Hebrews, “No slaves,” but he never did. (I sense a mysterious ways argument coming on. I’ll accept that if you accept all the mysterious ways arguments about Brahman)

Wow… Do you honestly believe that there are races at all in any meaningful sense, and that one race can be quite lesser than another? – Even the innocents?

What “issues” are “fundamental to the preservation of society?” Certainly you don’t mean slavery, but that’s the only issue in context. Please clarify.

What moral compass tells you that slavery is evil? If slavery is a product of survival of the fittest, who are you to disagree? If murder justifies the means to the end, ie: preseving the idelogy of the enlightenment era, why would you disagree with starving millions of Christians to death?

 

[aileron]

The last part is a logical fallacy.
1,000,000 Waldo-claimers do not prove there is no Waldo.
Nor for that matter do they prove there is a Waldo.

So my logical fallacy would be that you agree with what I wrote?

Please regard the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

 

[jam070406]

It is not speculation. Scholars know very well that no contemporaneous writing describing these events has ever been found.

There is no proof in your statement, so yes, it is speculation.

Regardless, this is apparantly something you are stuck on. As for me, it does not affect my Faith.

 

[Annabea]

There is no proof in your statement, so yes, it is speculation.

Regardless, this is apparantly something you are stuck on. As for me, it does not affect my Faith.

so you are speculating that god exists?

 

[jam070406]

so you are speculating that god exists?

Um no, I was stating that there is no proof from his statement alone that there are no other texts, such as the Early Church Fathers, that talk about the dead walking as talked about in the gospels. Not sure where you came up with your conclusion.

 

[aileron]

What moral compass tells you that slavery is evil?

The terms “moral” and “evil” are somewhat charged terms for people with a naturalistic philosophy, but we can use them given that caveat.

My moral compass comes from the hard learned lessons of my ancestors. They made a decision that slavery should not be practiced. I examined this both rationally and emotionally, and find it sound reasoning.

If slavery is a product of survival of the fittest, who are you to disagree?

First, your categorization is not accurate, but we can ignore that for now. There are a lot of product of a naturalistic universe that I don’t like. Am I supposed to like mosquito bites, sunburn, cancer, just to name a few?

If murder justifies the means to the end, ie: preseving the idelogy of the enlightenment era, why would you disagree with starving millions of Christians to death?

Will you take me at my word that no nonbeliever I know want to starve millions of Christians, or even one?

 

[Madaglan]

It is not speculation. Scholars know very well that no contemporaneous writing describing these events has ever been found.

It’s opinion, not speculation. Yes, it’s my opinion that there are some very enlightened priests out there. I only wish they would be in a position of power, but these things take time.

What, nothing in the twitter archives?

There is Thallus, and others, quoted by early Christian writers. Of course, their writings, like so many others of the time, are since lost.

 

[aileron]

There is no proof in your statement, so yes, it is speculation.

Providing no proof for an assertion that has reasonable proof is most certainly not the same thing as speculation. Do I really need to prove this to you? If you have studied Christian history as diligently as you appear to have, why are you unaware of this issue? What proof would you accept? What source could I give you to verify it? It’s not exactly advertised in flashing letters on the Catholic Encyclopedia website. If you still care, ask a scholarly priest what contemporaneous writings there are. Note that if he mentions any, they will come decades after the event.

Regardless, this is apparantly something you are stuck on.

I’ll be “unstuck” as soon as there is reasonable proof.

As for me, it does not affect my Faith.

Well, there’s a lot more that isn’t written in bold text in the Catholic Catechism. I wonder how much it would take to affect it.

 

[jam070406]

The terms “moral” and “evil” are somewhat charged terms for people with a naturalistic philosophy, but we can use them given that caveat.

Yes, but you used the term evil. That is why I asked. And I can see that it disturbs you to concede that these terms come from a Christian world view, because it then links your thoughts and actions to that view.

My moral compass comes from the hard learned lessons of my ancestors. They made a decision that slavery should not be practiced. I examined this both rationally and emotionally, and find it sound reasoning.

And yet, this still doesn’t answer the question. Because their decision was also based on a moral compass, that which came from God. So you are ducking the question as to not concede that your moral compass in fact is based on that which indeed comes from God.

First, your categorization is not accurate, but we can ignore that for now. There are a lot of product of a naturalistic universe that I don’t like. Am I supposed to like mosquito bites, sunburn, cancer, just to name a few?

These other topics are a straw man argument. Slavery is something that pertains to one have power over the other. Domination of the stronger over the weak.

Will you take me at my word that no nonbeliever I know want to starve millions of Christians, or even one?

Yes, but only based on the fact that in comes from God within you. Even though you are not willing to admit it and subject yourself to His will.

 

[jam070406]

Providing no proof for an assertion that has reasonable proof is most certainly not the same thing as speculation. Do I really need to prove this to you? If you have studied Christian history as diligently as you appear to have, why are you unaware of this issue? What proof would you accept? What source could I give you to verify it? It’s not exactly advertised in flashing letters on the Catholic Encyclopedia website. If you still care, ask a scholarly priest what contemporaneous writings there are. Note that if he mentions any, they will come decades after the event.

I’ll be “unstuck” as soon as there is reasonable proof.

Well, there’s a lot more that isn’t written in bold text in the Catholic Catechism. I wonder how much it would take to affect it.

What is holding you back? What would make you “unstuck”? It just takes some humility. I can see that you are a bright person, you don’t have to check your intellect at the door to trust in God and become a believer.