B
- Status
I think I’ll pinch that one for my missions 
**
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Runandsew,
I remain open to evidence of such powers, but as far as I can tell, all of these stories are told by people who desperately want to believe them, all lack the kind of corroborating evidence one should require to actually believe that Nature’s laws have been broken in this way, and most people who report these events demonstrate an utter disinclination to look for non-miraculous explanations.
In any case, we don’t need to rely on a two-thousand year old book to find the sort of proof that you seem to find compelling. Stories about mystics (and charlatans) walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future, etc., are being told now.
Indeed, all of these powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by an uncountable number of eyewitnesses-and the man claims to have been born of a virgin to boot! Sai Baba is not the David Koresh of the East. His followers threw him a birthday party and a million people showed up. He has literally millions of followers, many of them educated westerners. You can watch some of his “miracles” on YouTube, performed before credulous throngs of spiritually hungry souls. Prepare to be underwhelmed.
I don’t find these stories being told today any more compelling than you do. And yet, you are suggesting that tales of similar events emerging from the pre-scientific religious milieu of the 1st century Roman Empire (decades after their supposed occurrence) are especially credible?
Best,
Leela
500 witnesses? First-hand reports of miracles are a dime a dozen, even in the 21st century. Many spiritual seekers in India testify to miracles performed by their gurus on a daily basis. These miracles are every bit as outlandish as the miracles attributed to Jesus. I bet it would be easy to find 500 western educated men and women who are convinced that their favorite yogi has magic powers.
I remain open to evidence of such powers, but as far as I can tell, all of these stories are told by people who desperately want to believe them, all lack the kind of corroborating evidence one should require to actually believe that Nature’s laws have been broken in this way, and most people who report these events demonstrate an utter disinclination to look for non-miraculous explanations.
In any case, we don’t need to rely on a two-thousand year old book to find the sort of proof that you seem to find compelling. Stories about mystics (and charlatans) walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future, etc., are being told now.
Indeed, all of these powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by an uncountable number of eyewitnesses-and the man claims to have been born of a virgin to boot! Sai Baba is not the David Koresh of the East. His followers threw him a birthday party and a million people showed up. He has literally millions of followers, many of them educated westerners. You can watch some of his “miracles” on YouTube, performed before credulous throngs of spiritually hungry souls. Prepare to be underwhelmed.
I don’t find these stories being told today any more compelling than you do. And yet, you are suggesting that tales of similar events emerging from the pre-scientific religious milieu of the 1st century Roman Empire (decades after their supposed occurrence) are especially credible?
Best,
Leela
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
**hi again Leela
so you simply dont believe, and that’s it.
But actually, you don’t even care:wink:
So - why do you want to make others care about your opinion:coffeeread:
just out of your boredom?
It won’t interest you whatever they write:doh2:
So why should one bother spending his time on silly statements
You find silly and laughable what we write
Just waisting time,
so, why don’t you just join a forum of beefeaters :hey_bud:
Why do you …
oh well
I’m already waisting my time on you
so
have a nice time
we’ll meet again within 100 years
the one who was right, spends a sixpack to the other:hug1:
just for a bit of relief
CU
Love
Bruno
**
1
1holycatholic
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
leela,
seem to be picking and choosing based on what evidence you like.
its not giving much weight to your arguments.
indeed as bruno pointed out the problem
what is your motive? do want to learn, or teach? whats the point?
seem to be picking and choosing based on what evidence you like.
its not giving much weight to your arguments.
indeed as bruno pointed out the problem
what is your motive? do want to learn, or teach? whats the point?
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Petey,
Can you explain how I am the one who is picking and choosing? I said that I DON’T find the evidence for the claims about Sai Baba compelling just as I don’t find the evidence for the divinity of Jesus compelling. You seem to find the evidence for the divinity of Jesus compelling, but the evidence for the divinity of Sai Baba easily dismissed. Why is that?
The issue I’m trying to raise is not about what evidence I like, it’s about what sort of evidence YOU like. I’m not suggesting that you need to adopt whatever standards I apply for what is a good argument or compelling evidence. I just wondering about what sorts of standards you are applying when the ancient account of Jesus in a single book is compelling to you, but the modern accounts of millions of eye-witnesses of the “miracles” of Sai Baba are so obviously incredible to you. I’m asking about how you do your “picking and choosing.”
Like everyone else, I’d like to leave the world a better place for my children and others I love.
Best,
Leela
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Believing the Bible is a matter of faith - it is all hearsay written by nobody-knows-who and compliled by folks with a definite agenda (but that is for another thread).
thats false on its face
the bible is a collection of books written over thousands of years, by dozens of people who did not live at the same time or even in the same area, have the same culture, or even the same faith or denomination, or even access to the same books, and could not have possibly known each other.
big deal you say.
how bout this
they all predicted a messiah, and those predictions were born out in front of many, many first hand witnesses by Jesus Christ. Who sacrifice fulfilled those prophecies.
no other faith makes these claims
there is one G-d,
one truth,
and one way to a relationship with him, Jesus Christ
amazing evidence, isn’t it, unless all the people who wrote the bible were time traveling psychics we should accept it, less evidence is permissible in a court of law, why isn’t it acceptable to you
we already found that that is not a reasonable motivation in thread on that subject, that goal cannot be accomplished here effectively
thats false on its face
the bible is a collection of books written over thousands of years, by dozens of people who did not live at the same time or even in the same area, have the same culture, or even the same faith or denomination, or even access to the same books, and could not have possibly known each other.
big deal you say.
how bout this
they all predicted a messiah, and those predictions were born out in front of many, many first hand witnesses by Jesus Christ. Who sacrifice fulfilled those prophecies.
no other faith makes these claims
there is one G-d,
one truth,
and one way to a relationship with him, Jesus Christ
amazing evidence, isn’t it, unless all the people who wrote the bible were time traveling psychics we should accept it, less evidence is permissible in a court of law, why isn’t it acceptable to you
we already found that that is not a reasonable motivation in thread on that subject, that goal cannot be accomplished here effectively
L
Leela
Guest
Whoever you are quoting above isn’t me, though you seem to be respinding to me last below…
What convinces you that the Bible is divinely inspired rather than an ordinary book. Have you read it? Is there anything in the Bible that you think could not have been written by someone living in the 1st century?
Best,
Leela
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
the evidence i present for divine origin is in that post
don’t be deliberately obtuse
why do you doubt it, what part of it don’t you believe?
and word games don’t count. discuss the argument i presented there, not how i achieved it or i will Socrates you right back. and every body finds that annoying. which is why buffalo kept asking you how to describe something with out morals or whatever.
you said that drove you a little crazy, so follow the golden rule on that.
in other words tell me why you don’t accept the validity of the bible?
or do you accept the validity?
if so that dramatically opens the range of possible conversations we have
don’t be deliberately obtuse
why do you doubt it, what part of it don’t you believe?
and word games don’t count. discuss the argument i presented there, not how i achieved it or i will Socrates you right back. and every body finds that annoying. which is why buffalo kept asking you how to describe something with out morals or whatever.
you said that drove you a little crazy, so follow the golden rule on that.
in other words tell me why you don’t accept the validity of the bible?
or do you accept the validity?
if so that dramatically opens the range of possible conversations we have
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
**
(Match also Mat 13,15, Marc 4,12, Joh 12,40, Acts 28,27)
Funny hearing people say: “I’d like to leave the world a better place for my children and others I love.” but at the same time refuse Christianity whereas it is Christianity which aims just this.
Let them have a look at places where religion was or still is illegalized like Hitler-Germany, the former GDR, Soviet Union, China, North Chorea and many others.
Was or it that a better world?
But however. Many show us, that’s absolutely all in vain to try and answer their provocative questions. They regularly fight against any understanding and acceptance of the existence of God.**
some are not even allowed to understand. We must be open hearted WANTING to understand. We will, when it’s given to us to understand. Otherwise see psalm 115:6: they have ears, but cannot hear, or Isaiah 6:9: He said, "Go and tell this people: ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
(Match also Mat 13,15, Marc 4,12, Joh 12,40, Acts 28,27)
Funny hearing people say: “I’d like to leave the world a better place for my children and others I love.” but at the same time refuse Christianity whereas it is Christianity which aims just this.
Let them have a look at places where religion was or still is illegalized like Hitler-Germany, the former GDR, Soviet Union, China, North Chorea and many others.
Was or it that a better world?
But however. Many show us, that’s absolutely all in vain to try and answer their provocative questions. They regularly fight against any understanding and acceptance of the existence of God.**
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Chesterton said the only thing atheists are interested in are arguments against atheism.
that seems true, to some degree, i have noticed when, disbelievers get cornered on the practical applications of their implied beliefs they run out of things to say, or they run out of the room.
as long as everything remains sophistry and word games then its ok, but when confronted with the empirical evidence of an observable universe they just reply, “i don’t know, and neither do you”
thats false, there is an empirical observable universe, to which one can test any hypothesis for or against a G-d.
saying “i don’t know” is really saying, " i am afraid i may be shown to be wrong" or " i am too intellectually lazy to consider a proposition, that i cannot parrot from a book written by another, more famous atheist."
one has the tools to reason, and all the empirical evidence necessary to, reach a reasonable conclusion on the matter
frankly, when they dodge the question of practical implications of disbelief it tells me that the dodgers motivation has more to do with trying to be smarter than us ignorant theists.
and if thats the case indeed i am stupid but the people that don’t bother to engage with them, those with thousands of posts, and years on the site are not to be trifled with. they have the horse power to tow that truck, so to speak
so i may enjoy the battle, but im just a grunt for Christ, the big guns don’t bother to fire at little targets
that seems true, to some degree, i have noticed when, disbelievers get cornered on the practical applications of their implied beliefs they run out of things to say, or they run out of the room.
as long as everything remains sophistry and word games then its ok, but when confronted with the empirical evidence of an observable universe they just reply, “i don’t know, and neither do you”
thats false, there is an empirical observable universe, to which one can test any hypothesis for or against a G-d.
saying “i don’t know” is really saying, " i am afraid i may be shown to be wrong" or " i am too intellectually lazy to consider a proposition, that i cannot parrot from a book written by another, more famous atheist."
one has the tools to reason, and all the empirical evidence necessary to, reach a reasonable conclusion on the matter
frankly, when they dodge the question of practical implications of disbelief it tells me that the dodgers motivation has more to do with trying to be smarter than us ignorant theists.
and if thats the case indeed i am stupid but the people that don’t bother to engage with them, those with thousands of posts, and years on the site are not to be trifled with. they have the horse power to tow that truck, so to speak
so i may enjoy the battle, but im just a grunt for Christ, the big guns don’t bother to fire at little targets
D
Dameedna
Guest
The only conclusion I’ve drawn, is that God doesn’t want us to “know” he’s there.
Nope…God doesn’t “need” us to believe in him. Why would he? He’s an entity that never dies. What we do, or do not do, may cause her pain but as an ever existing entity, he hardly suffers from an ego nor a petty or jealous need for us to believe he exists. Thats a silly human ego trait, the need for acknowlegement.
Most of religion is a projection of our ego anyway.
No…God doesn’t care if we know she’s there or not. That’s my conclusion. That doesn’t mean he ISN’T there, just that it isn’t something he can disclose if he is. What human, would ever make a choice, if it was alway’s laid out for them?
A god, that gives us all the rules, is a god, that created a robot. And THAT goes against every religion that defines the problem with free will.
God…isn’t there so you can acknowlege him. He 's there, so he can acknolwedge you
D
Dameedna
Guest
And that is wrong in what way?
A universe does not, and has never proven a God. Yes I’ve heard the “there must be a first cause” argument. It’s good. But it’s also meaningless. We simply don’t know. That is simple honesty, not cowardess.
Or they could be brutally honest. They simply don’t know. It’s a very uncomfortable place to live, but some of us actually manage it, rather than believe what makes sense for us, at this point in our lives.
…implying that if some-one reaches the conclusion they don’t know…they are some-how unreasonable?
Oh I know that argument well
I suspect you learnt that term “dodge” from an athiest.
Okayand if thats the case indeed i am stupid but the people that don’t bother to engage with them, those with thousands of posts, and years on the site are not to be trifled with. they have the horse power to tow that truck, so to speak
No such thing as christs humility on this thread
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
Why do you keep spelling God as G-d ?
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I had a look at the Sai Baba videos on youtube, since I hadn’t heard of him before.
The thing about him is that if these things aren’t really miracles, they are an intentional fraud. It looks like he’s doing ‘magic’ tricks and passing them off as miracles.
Are you suggesting that Jesus might have done the same thing? If not, then I don’t see the comparison. If yes… then that’s a whole discussion of its own I guess.
L
lunike333
Guest
Just to piggyback a little (if I may), I also strongly suspect that if Sai Baba was tortured to death he might admit some of his fraud. Consequently, I think the comparison to Jesus is not analogous in that Jesus did not change his preaching even when facing a painful death. Furthermore, the types of miracles performed by Jesus, if they were tricks, were more of the type to require conspirators (feeding multitudes and resurrection and NOT just pulling gold ingots out of the mouth), and history indicates that all but one of the Twelve did not die natural deaths and held their beliefs in Christ’s divinity to the end.
However, I am sympathetic to Leela’s view to the extant that I find it quite amazing as to what a person can convince groups of people to believe, e.g., Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全) in the Taiping Rebellion and his claims of being Jesus’ little brother and convincing people to die for him.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
dameeda
this is why to your first question
Sophism
When a false argument puts on the appearance of a true
one, then it is properly called a sophism, or
“fallacy”. --I. Watts.
[1913 Webster]
Let us first rid ourselves of sophisms, those of
depraved men, and those of heartless philosophers. --I.
Taylor.
[1913 Webster]
Sophist
Sophist Soph"ist, n. [F. sophiste, L. sophistes, fr. Gr. ?.
See Sophism.]
indeed, an observable universe does prove a Creator,
nothing comes from nothing, in the observable universe. plain fact. to say other wise is false on its face.
claiming a lack of knowledge is not the same thing as that knowledge not existing, I’ve never seen the taj mahal, but before i claimed i didn’t know if it existed i would bother to find out.
so i claim the cowardice not in a lack of knowledge but in the lack of exploration of the idea in a pragmatic, answerable method that provides for the universe that we all see.
sophistry is not an acceptable method. before you ask why, refer to the definitions provided above.
so do you have a reasonable argument, based on empirical data, of the observable universe?
can you post a testable hypothesis about the manner in which from absolutely nothing, all the matter in the universe came into existence?
if not, why not?
Reason is the blade you claim, use it. should it be dull surely we can sharpen it for you
provide arguments. or as they say " put up or s–t up."
this isn’t about the humility of Christ, why would you search for that humility here? thats another thread
this is why to your first question
Sophism
When a false argument puts on the appearance of a true
one, then it is properly called a sophism, or
“fallacy”. --I. Watts.
[1913 Webster]
Let us first rid ourselves of sophisms, those of
depraved men, and those of heartless philosophers. --I.
Taylor.
[1913 Webster]
Code:
-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48Sophist Soph"ist, n. [F. sophiste, L. sophistes, fr. Gr. ?.
See Sophism.]
- One of a class of men who taught eloquence, philosophy,
and politics in ancient Greece; especially, one of those
who, by their fallacious but plausible reasoning, puzzled
inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people,
and drew upon themselves general hatred and contempt.
[1913 Webster]
indeed, an observable universe does prove a Creator,
nothing comes from nothing, in the observable universe. plain fact. to say other wise is false on its face.
claiming a lack of knowledge is not the same thing as that knowledge not existing, I’ve never seen the taj mahal, but before i claimed i didn’t know if it existed i would bother to find out.
so i claim the cowardice not in a lack of knowledge but in the lack of exploration of the idea in a pragmatic, answerable method that provides for the universe that we all see.
sophistry is not an acceptable method. before you ask why, refer to the definitions provided above.
so do you have a reasonable argument, based on empirical data, of the observable universe?
can you post a testable hypothesis about the manner in which from absolutely nothing, all the matter in the universe came into existence?
if not, why not?
Reason is the blade you claim, use it. should it be dull surely we can sharpen it for you
provide arguments. or as they say " put up or s–t up."
this isn’t about the humility of Christ, why would you search for that humility here? thats another thread
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Bruno,
I spell G-d that way as a matter of respect for Him, He is the Master.
i am only His property
I spell G-d that way as a matter of respect for Him, He is the Master.
i am only His property
S
SimonArizona
Guest
God did give us proof; our reasoning minds.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
These can always be wrong 
It may be highly significant that Jesus Himself treated His identity as a secret: as something that could be known only by revelation. There is a lot of emphasis on serecy in the gospels, & on badffled expectations - He is continually puzzled over, for people do not know what to “make of” Him.1 Corinthians 1 is crucial - literally:
- 1Cr 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
- 1Cr 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
- 1Cr 1:19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.”
- 1Cr 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
- 1Cr 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
- 1Cr 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
- 1Cr 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
- 1Cr 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
- 1Cr 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Compare that with: - Mat 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
- Mat 16:14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
- Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
- Mat 16:20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
- Mat 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
- Mat 16:22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”
The Cross is the only sign we are given - it reveals Christ to some, & conceals Him from others. There is no feeding of the appetite for wonders here; because the startling & the Divine are not the same: anyone can do miracles - they prove nothing at all. But anything can be a sign, no matter how “ordinary” - a pregnant woman or a crucified Jew, say: both of them very unamazing in Roman Judaea. Sensation-seeking =//= faith.
- Status