Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm pretty sure you are a Christian and therefore have some regard for scriptural evidence. But, I don't know, there are a lot of different brands of Christians these days, so maybe there are some that don't believe the Bible. Anyway, I'm going to assume you do give them credence, so maybe you can tell me how Romans does not say exactly what I said, that Jesus got us out of the mess Adam got us into.
It has gotten the attention of a few Scholars who are looking at it.
But as far as I'm aware, there isn't even an authenticated example of someone lifting a ton of concrete just by belief, of someone levitating a cherry just by belief. Do you know of any?
There'd be no reason to think Mark's Jesus is illegitimate. The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, being the product of divine insemination, would (were that true) be illegitimate by any standard.
We skeptics would immediately think of eg Uri Geller, or astrologers, or anyone else whose act lets them down under scrutiny. After all, people believed in magic back then. Not everyone does, these, days. The result, either way, appears to be zero authenticated cases.
All I did was quote what Jesus said. As I've said a few times now, I think the reason nobody has moved a mountain is because nobody believes they can. The teaching we all got from an infant is simply too strong to overcome. We are overly reliant on our five senses. I think it telling that the first thing that happened to Adam and Eve after disobeying God was that their eyes were opened. They began to get their ideas of reality based upon what they saw. They must have gotten their ideas some other way before that. Whatever it was, maybe that is the realm in which nothing is impossible to anyone who believes in what we now consider impossible, e.g. moving a mountain or a cherry.
Are you at all skeptical about skepticism?
But look at the record. Using our five senses, we move mountains, concrete, cherries, whatever we like, all day every day. As against that, using wishes, we have zero moved mountains, concrete, cherries at all, even after a couple of millennia. If there's an error here, surely it would be by those favoring wishes, no?
As I think I mentioned, that looks like a metaphor for adolescence to me, nothing more. They became aware of their sexual nature as their hormones cut in.
On my analogy, from their [actual] parents, symbolized by God.
We can move mountains and levitate cherries in our dreams, of course. Perhaps it's best understood as an aspirational tale ─ you can be whatever you want, sort of thing (assuming you know what you want, that is).
Did he never suggest that you take biblical passages and test their truth in reality rather than assume it? That's the outlook that gives skepticism its power.
Thanks. And you.
Of course. The moment something comes along that can better answer the question, 'What's true in reality?' I'll be onto it in a flash!Are you at all skeptical about skepticism?
I pointed out that multiplication implies division eg 1/3 = 1 x .333', and that this is all you need to extract roots of a real number. And you say the persons of the trinity are multipliable entities. So my question legitimately follows from your example, as a natural reductio ad absurdum for your false analogy.
Which brings us back to the question I asked you.
Of course they are. They're not accessible to reason, and neither is the Trinity doctrine. And even if they were, the Trinity doctrine still would not be.
That's not a false analogy ─ it's not an analogy at all. You have no way of communicating your ideas to the squirrel, and no way of knowing whether, if you could, the squirrel would at some level have a concept of the idea or not eg a tally plus a compulsory sharing.
If it did, it couldn't refer to the NT, since the NT didn't exist as such when the books &c of the NT were written.
There's still a live question whether Jesus existed in Jesus' day. An historical Jesus isn't necessary to explain the NT ─ stories could do it, and a great deal of it is manifestly fiction, however piously intended.
Simply point to the part of the doctrine that "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" and differs from what I said.
Not at odds with the scriptures, but at odds with the naive religious interpretation or acceptance of those scriptures by (still) ignorant believers.
I suppose I was being overly broad in my statement. I was thinking specifically of the scholarship (even in many Bible colleges) that does not say that the Bible is the inspired written word and will of God, that it is the words of men.
You think you understand Genesis from the eyes of a Middle Eastern man who lived 4,000 years ago? I'm thinking you've never even thought about that, let alone taken the time and effort to do so. Somehow I don't think think they would have understood a thing Steven Hawking said (who, by the way, didn't understand a thing God said).
At last! You realize that my mathematical question is what I said it was, a reductio ad absurdum of your 1x1x1 analogy. Yes, nonsense indeed! But nonsense that follows directly from what you said.
Then we're here.
