M
minkymurph
Guest
I would say the majority would consider mass suicide pretty extreme - suits me.
I believe there is God, I believe Christ was God, persuade me of the benefits of renouncing this belief
- Status
M
minkymurph
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Of course you do.
You can’t have one standard for evaluating the veracity of one set of historical events, and another standard for other historical events, just because they deal with Christianity.
Because I still don’t know what you mean by tradition. It sounds like you’re using it as synonymous for “history” but you could also mean “custom”.
If you could please clarify…
M
minkymurph
Guest
The Church does give us guidelines, and as Catholics we follow those guidelines. Scholarship does not follow those guidelines unless the scholars are Catholics. Thus, different conclusions will be drawn but the tools, methods and conclusions of scholars who are not Catholic are useful in discussions with atheists as they cannot be deemed to contain Catholic bias - particularly if the scholar is an atheist.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Right.The Church does give us guidelines, and as Catholics we follow those guidelines. Scholarship does not follow those guidelines unless the scholars are Catholics. Thus, different conclusions will be drawn but the tools, methods and conclusions of scholars who are not Catholic are useful in discussions with atheists as they cannot be deemed to contain Catholic bias - particularly if the scholar is an atheist.
It seems a bit disingenuous to think that atheists think that since there’s mythical language, and poetry, and history as well as fact and data in the Bible, we can’t figure out what’s what.
It’s like 7th grader coming home from his school library with a Mother Goose book saying, "Well, since our library has this book
this Mother Goose book must be scientific, 100% fact, true-in-every-way also!"
I know if my 7th grader acted as if he couldn’t tell that Mother Goose was allegory because he got it from a library that also had textbooks on animal husbandry I’d be like
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
The point is that whether Socrates actually existed does not carry the same importance as the alleged miracles of Jesus. If you would assert that you found a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk, I would not doubt it. But if you asserted that your found a “Madison portrait” (a 5000 dollar bill) then I would be extremely skeptical about it.
As it is stated in 1 Corinthians 12:19 - 12 - But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 - If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
14 - And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
15 - More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 - For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17 - **And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. **
18 - Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
19 - If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Somehow I think that this kind of claim should be proven beyond any (reasonable) doubt.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Ah, you’re a member of the denying Jesus is the same as denying the Shoah happened/if you believe Caesar existed than you must accept Jesus was God school of Christian apologetics.
Work it out for yourself.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
You ‘believe in’ Socrates? What does that mean?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Slow your roll.
The only point being addressed there was that our understanding of history, particularly the portion of it that predates modern science, is substantially less evidenced than we assume.
That’s it.
I’m glad to see you got straightened out on what “materialism” is, btw.
Another thing you need to be straightened out on is that absolutely no one is claiming that the supernatural can somehow be naturally explained and thus proofed. If it could, it wouldn’t be supernatural, now would it?
Really, think about it.
How on Earth does one “prove” the supernatural and still maintain the claim as such??? Eye-witness accounts would be all you could have. You certainly couldn’t willfully recreate the event, as it was supernatural to begin with…
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I
inocente
Guest
It’s actually 1 Cor 15
and Paul isn’t making a claim himself. In 15:13-19 he spells out the implications of what some others are claiming (15:12). If their claim is true, argues Paul, then Christ could not have been resurrected either, and so their faith that He was is futile.So Paul’s argument in 15:17 is that anyone who doesn’t accept she herself will be resurrected must, if she is to be consistent, also accept that her faith in Christ is pointless.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Try to think more in the abstract, Kan. Not so much like someone who hears that he is like the son in the parable of Prodigal Son (look it up) and says, “That can’t be me because I don’t have an older brother. I have a sister. So there!”
Just apply the same standard you use for other events of antiquity when evaluating the events of Christian antoquity.
That just seems…judicious, no?
Really? You can’t just explain how you’re using tradition? Why?
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
You are mistaken. Claims about the past do not “enjoy” a special privilege. Any and all claims are “filtered” through the sieve of believability. Even if you claimed that you had encounters with Little Green Men 5 minutes ago, the amount of required evidence would be same.
Wrong again. The events that are under dispute all happened here, in this actual world. If you wish to present a “supernatural” explanation for them, you have a tall mountain to climb. But first you have to prove (yes, prove) that the events you claim to have happened - actually happened. The explanation comes afterward.
That is your problem, not mine. If you are unable to present the required evidence, your claim will stay an unsubstantiated, empty claim. The required evidence needs to be objective, and must be available for the skeptics. Only the charlatans require that you must grant an a-priori acceptance for their claims. These charlatans are the Uri Geller type hoaxers, who claim that the sleight-of-hand tricks they perform (they are quite good stage magicians) are the result of some paranormal phenomenon.
I do not subscribe to concept that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. All claims require the same kind of evidence, however, for ordinary claims we might forego the process of substantiation - simply because of “who cares?” approach. If is “cheaper” to accept a “ho-hum” claim, because it is irrelevant.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Ah, not just the ‘deny Jesus and you’re denying everything else that has ever happened’ school of apologetics but the ‘if you can’t think up a sensible argument, patronise’ school of apologetics.
Why would I be bothered to?
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Thank you for the correction. I “over-edited” the text, and inadvertently deleted the “15” from the “15:12-19”. Mea culpa. The point was that if the resurrection did not happen then the whole Christianity is “futile”. Since that claim is central to the belief system, it requires a high level of evidence.It’s actually 1 Cor 15
So Paul’s argument in 15:17 is that anyone who doesn’t accept she herself will be resurrected must, if she is to be consistent, also accept that her faith in Christ is pointless.
W
worldwideweary
Guest
Random yet not quote:
*A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. *
—Irenaeous (Against Heresies)
*A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. *
—Irenaeous (Against Heresies)
P
puzzledtoo
Guest
“I believe there is God” I believe there is Divine Presence.
Code:
"I believe Christ was God" I don't know. Judaism believes differently. Islam believes differently yet they both believe "there is God" I'm no scholar but I'm of the belief there are plenty of religions/traditions that believe there is God or gods yet don't believe Christ is God. It seems this thread got derailed early on with a mentality of Christianity or atheism in my opinion.
"persuade me..." I don't condemn I don't convert.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The point being made is that many of the events that occurred in the ancient past have only the scantest of evidence that they even occurred. Socrates is a pertinent example, there are one or two primary sources for virtually 100% of what we know about him.
Concerning your “sieve of believability”, you seem to then at least be aware of the relativity of evidence-interpretation this concept clearly alludes to. You’re just apparently very arbitrary in which standards what claim has to meet since, again, we have more sources referencing the deeds of Jesus than we do most Greek philosophers that you likely accept without qualm.
The writings of those that implicitly or explicitly claim to have witnessed an event are the primary source material for the overwhelming majority of history that we know. We call this “Recorded History”. Case in point, there is no evidence of Socrates outside of it.
But even as you’re woefully mistaken here, this is irrelevant to the claim (luckily for you).
When someone makes a supernatural claim, they are inherently claiming that it cannot be proofed beyond first-hand account. As it is supernatural, it cannot be readily demonstrated on demand.
Supernatural claims are axiomatic. You’re free to accept or reject them as you wish.
Telling someone “you must proof your supernatural claim!” is akin to telling that same person “I don’t understand what ‘supernatural’ means!”. Of course, this is also coming from a guy that didn’t really know what “materialism” was until today, so I’ll extend my graces.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
So what? The claims about Socrates are irrelevant. The claim about Jesus would be of paramount importance, IF they could be substantiated. Just out of curiosity: do you accept the claims about Mohammed’s ride to heaven as readily as Jesus’s resurrection? I suspect you don’t.
What are those “sources” which affirm that Jesus walked on water, fed a crowd with a few fish, resurrected Lazarus, etc… Bring them on. Outside of the Bible, of course.
You still don’t get it. The events you claim all happened HERE in this existence. If you assert that the supernatural claims cannot be substantiated, that is just fine by me. In that case they are just as irrelevant as claims about Nessie, or the Yeti or other imaginary creatures.
Axioms are the starting points of a deductive system. But if you wish to consider the claims about the supernatural to be “axiomatic”, that is your problem.
As a matter of fact, the expression “super”-natural implies also “sub”-natural. I would suggest to use the word “un”-natural. I have no idea which one of your numerous misconceptions lead you to the assumption that I do not (or did) comprehend the term “materialism”, but considering your general lack of understanding, it does not really matter.
P
PRmerger
Guest
- Status