1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The odds of a Shakespearian sonnet

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Jew4Judaism, Mar 5, 2018.

  1. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    31,333
    Ratings:
    +26,080
    Religion:
    None
    See above, when you learn the definition of evidence please tty again
     
  2. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    10,297
    Ratings:
    +820
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    When I wrote 1,000, I was waiting for someone to quote the bigger number. I could have said 33,000 or all, if that helps, since I don't disagree with those sects about the Bible, I merely disagree with their views on salvation. A common enough mistake, since all religions besides Christianity, including those sects, teach salvation by good deeds, rather than by trusting God.
     
  3. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,588
    Ratings:
    +17,388
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Really? The Catholics and the Orthodox - i.e. most Christians - don't accept sola scriptura. You agree with them that prima scriptura is correct? IOW, you consider the Bible to be only the most important source of doctrine, not the only source?

    And you do realize that these denominations disagree with you about what "the Bible" is, right? The Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible contain different books.
     
  4. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    10,297
    Ratings:
    +820
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    My answer is no. But also, according to Hebrews as quoted, you don't have faith (trust, from experience) that vampires exist, you have a belief they exist.

    I don't merely believe in Jesus Christ, I know Him, trust Him, and trust His crucifixion as saving.
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,506
    Ratings:
    +23,294
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Since knowledge is demonstrable and you do not seem to be able to demonstrate this supposed fact it appears that you merely have a very strong belief. There is no shame in admitting to a belief. There should be shame when you claim to know, but cannot support that claim.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Evidence is a collection of facts. The facts are that some writers wrote some things.

    Paul wrote to try to turn a widely known simple story into an elaborate theology. But the story was widely known already since Paul did not need to inform anyone of the basic story: a religious figure named Jesus with messianic overtones got crucified and supposedly rose from the dead, although there was some skepticism about that part. Paul tried to turn that jarring element - a messiah got crucified? - into something positive rather than negative and invented a new religion in the process. Why would he need to expend such efforts to salvage the story if the story was not already out there?

    Mark wrote to flesh out the character of Jesus as a real historic figure, incorporating episodes about Jesus that take place in a social, political and religious environment that ceased to exist about 30 years before Mark wrote. These sound like early traditions passed down. The great similarities between several passages (calming the storm 2x, feeding the multitudes 2x) suggest that these stem from traditions old enough to have spawned variations.

    One passage in Mark deserves special consideration. Mark 7:1-13 recounts an acrimonious :) debate between Jesus and some Pharisees concerning Oral Torah versus Written Torah. Mark wrote sometime after 70 AD. No audience interested in reading Mark would have understood what this was about. Nor would even a non-Christian Jewish audience understand it. After the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, the only Jewish school of thought left standing was the Pharisees, champions of the Oral Torah. Their opponent in the Mark story is Jesus, portrayed as champion of the Written Torah and opponent of th Oral Torah. By contrast, Paul’s Jesus – the one he claimed talked to him in visions – said to abandon the Torah. This passage in Mark is clearly an early tradition.

    Mark’s resurrection non-story – empty tomb, Jesus a no show – if viewed as an early tradition could explain the origin of the resurrection story. We know that Mark read Paul, specifically 1 Corinthians. In Mark 14:22-25 we see a close copy of 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, the institution of the bread and wine ritual. Mark has at his disposal the 500+ witnesses to the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 yet goes with his no witness version. If Mark had invented his Sunday morning story, he would surely have incorporated Paul’s witness story as he incorporated Paul’s bread and wine story, especially considering how utterly important Paul said the resurrection was. Unless of course Mark was in possession of an early tradition about what really happened and went with that instead of Paul’s rather over-the-top version.

    Matthew tells us that there were stories about the body of Jesus being stolen instead of Jesus being resurrected, an embarrassing statement and obviously not an invention of Matthew. To counteract these stories, Matthew tells an elaborate tale about an angel opening the tomb witnessed by the guards who are then bribed to shut up and a cover story prepared. And of course, he has people see the risen Jesus, although that part is rather minimalist compared to Luke’s later version. (All of this is in Mathew 28)

    The simplest explanation for all this is to assume a real historical Jesus, although not a magical one. Proof, no. I never claimed it was. Just the simplest explanation.

    What you want is a sworn affidavit from Pontius Pilate that says “I killed Jesus”, although I suspect that this would not be ‘evidence’ in your eyes either. What you really want is to prevent discussion of the possibility that there might have been a real Jesus, even a non-magical one. Which is why I take every opportunity to present and explain my proposal. I will not be so easily sidetracked.

    Your silly word games about evidence, your outrageous claim that the application of reason is not allowable in discussions of this sort, your claims that I have ‘faith’ in anything, your statements such as ‘massage your sensibilities’, combined with your claim that anti-Christian Celsus is an unimpeachable source, all add up to opposition to anyone being allowed to discuss the subject. Why? Is it that you are that afraid of the idea of a real Jesus, even a non-magical one? As I said before, my rejection of Christianity was based on research and reason. I am not afraid to consider that there may have been a real Jesus because I know that would change nothing. Is it that yours was based on emotion, which would demand an all or nothing attitude and leave you no capability for nuance? It sure sounds like it.
     
  7. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    31,333
    Ratings:
    +26,080
    Religion:
    None
    And again it attempts to insult my intelligence, and in addition dictates my mind (so ignorant). And ends up with projection.
    As i said, i am done here.
     
  8. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    I did not insult your intelligence now or ever. My speculation was what appeared to be the case based on your statements in this thread. If it is not the case, say so. You are also using the word 'projection' incorrectly. If I were projecting, I would be presenting an emotion based argument. My proposals are based on research and reasoning that have led to results different from either the typical believer or non-believer with their pre-established agendas to follow.. I always explain how I get from one point to another, as I have been doing all along in this thread. Neither faith nor emotional commitment are involved. I go where the evidence leads. What is it that inspires your word games and insults and misrepresentations if not a pre-existing emotional commitment to some point of view that you see me as endangering?
     
  9. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,942
    Ratings:
    +6,517
    Religion:
    None
    I just explained why I reject the scripture about the nature of faith. Faith is not evidence of unseen things, as it seems you just agreed when you stated that faith in vampires is not evidence of vampires. It's unjustified belief, which, yes, is a form of belief - the kind that doesn't require evidence.

    Also, I don't use the word faith to refer to justified belief, or belief based in experience as you just did. Experience is evidence, and if properly understood, justifies any derived belief. That is why even though it is acceptable English, you won't hear me say that I have faith that my car will start the next time I attempt to turn it over as it did the last 200 times I tested it. That's justified belief, and too much ambiguity results from calling both justified and unjustified belief faith.

    What if you had two daughters, and called them both Faith. Would that lead to ambiguity or confusion when you referred to Faith?

    If I believe that vampires exist, it must be by blind faith inasmuch as there is no supporting evidence for their existence.

    Then you do that by faith. As I said, the sine qua non of evidence is that it be evident. If Jesus was evident, we'd all see Him.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    31,333
    Ratings:
    +26,080
    Religion:
    None
    Well i suggest you take some lessons in social interaction or ask you gp about alexithymia.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    The usual red herrings to not only avoid considering the possibility that there might have been a real Jesus but to attempt to prevent anyone else from considering it either. LIke I said, what are you afraid of?
     
  12. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    31,333
    Ratings:
    +26,080
    Religion:
    None
    You are welcome to your belief, you are not welcome to attempt bastardise the word evidence and then plaster your posts with hyperbole because real evidence does not apply to your faith, faith is not evidence

    I gave you my viewpoint a week ago, since then you have repeatedly tried to diminish those evidence based facts with unqualified faith and hearsay calling it evidence because it suits your belief.

    As i have said "enough" you want to continue your rants then thats up to you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    10,297
    Ratings:
    +820
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Of course we disagree there. The Catholics in past times disqualified themselves as true Christians™ by disbelieving in the true Bible™ and by killing millions of true Christians™.

    Unfortunately, skeptics, being elementary on spiritual things as well as much truth, seem to think that if different denominations believe differently, that somehow magically invalidates the Bible as a truth book or Jesus from being risen from the dead and so forth, which is nonsense. The world is ROUND, no matter how many atheists teach that it is FLAT.
     
  14. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    10,297
    Ratings:
    +820
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    I think you make a good argument with the two daughters, until you realize that you find it necessary to continually add "blind" to "faith" in your posts. So we have blind faith and faith that sees precisely, in contrast.

    A great synonym for faith from the Greek is TRUST. I trust Jesus, whom I know. I cannot see the future with 100% accuracy, but I trust Jesus for my future/have faith for my future. Skeptics trust themselves. I've seen many people over-rely on themselves showing THEY have blind faith.

    As for your insistence that Jesus should do what you say, recognize that throughout both testaments, God chooses to reveal Himself to open people. He did reveal Himself to unbelievers at times to destroy or rebuke them!

    Isaiah 45:15 - Truly you are a God who has been hiding Himself, the God and Savior of Israel.

    Implicit in salvation is the concept of a God who reveals Himself to Isaiah and others and vice versa.

    The Psalms say, "The secret of the Lord is for those who reverence Him," and so on.

    You keep insisting my faith in someone I have a trusting relationship with is blind. I couldn't tell you that it is blind, since our relationship is two-way, with miracles large and small occurring and a great dynamic. I speak to God as to a friend and Christ answers.

    If my friend is imaginary only, I belong in an asylum, which is why I earlier challenged you that this world is run by asylum inmates!

    I trust Jesus because of what He did for us on the cross. It is an awesome gift.
     
  15. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,588
    Ratings:
    +17,388
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    So when you say you "don't disagree with those sects about the Bible," what do you mean, exactly? It seems to me that you disagree both on the Bible's status and even what "the Bible" refers to. Where is the agreement you refer to?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    My proposal is based on evidence - things written down - and their implications for what preceded those writings, based on the application of reason. If, for example, a writer says that there were stories about the body of Jesus being stolen, and that is not what the writer wants the reader to believe, then it is reasonable to think that there were in fact such stories going around. This then leads to the idea that there were those aware of the existence of Jesus who were not followers of Jesus. The other writings I noted also point to knowledge of the existence of Jesus being widespread prior to the invention of an elaborate mythology. The simplest explanation is that there was a real Jesus, but not the supernatural one created by the legend builders of later years.

    There is no faith involved here and I cannot imagine how anyone could think so.. In point of fact, my arguments happen to contradict several cherished articles of faith, such as that Jesus rose from the dead (he did not) and Jesus gave Paul a new gospel (he did not). But I can see that this false claim of yours about faith is all the argument that you have to offer. Are you really that afraid of the possibility that a real historic Jesus existed. Wow!
     
  17. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    31,333
    Ratings:
    +26,080
    Religion:
    None

    Ignored and after posting this will put on my ignore
    Iist. Hope that satisfies you
     
  18. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    3,304
    Ratings:
    +2,959
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    I think the main issue with this is the assumption the sonnet is a goal. Evolution truly has NO goal. It's for "whatever floats the boat". The sonnet has no objective superiority over anything else.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,942
    Ratings:
    +6,517
    Religion:
    None
    I've explained to you my position and you didn't rebut it. You just object to it. That's not the same thing. I discussed unjustified belief and justified belief, equated with first with faith, and noted that by definition, that believed without sufficient evidence is blind.

    You apparently don't like having insufficiently evidenced beliefs being called blind. It's a bit like crossing a street with your eyes open and wearing a blindfold. In the first case, you can acquire evidence that the traffic is clear and that crossing will be successful. Your belief that it is safe to cross is justified by evidence.

    If you choose to believe that it is safe to cross without looking, your belief is unjustified and blind. Why is it incorrect to you that there are only two kinds of beliefs, justified and unjustfied, and that the latter can be called blind?

    That's a pretty simple formulation. Perhaps you could explain why you disagree. What I am used to from you is mere contradiction without explanation.

    I accept that. And trust can also be justified by previous experience, or blind and based on nothing but a guess.

    I don't know what you are referring to here, but I do not insist that Jesus do anything.

    You haven't convinced me that your belief is justified, that is, not blind.

    I know that you believe what you do passionately and without doubt, but neither of those helps me decide if the belief is unjustified, which I have indicated is synonymous with religious type faith, which is also synonymous with blind faith, or whether the belief is justified by evidence.

    Since I have seen no evidence, you have not produced anything to support your beliefs, and I have first-hand experience with religious faith, I must conclude that your religious fervor is faith based.

    If the word blind offends you, I'll stop using it. I'll stick with unjustified belief and faith.
     
  20. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    19,176
    Ratings:
    +9,763
    Religion:
    None
    I think that "objective morality" and "absolute morality"
    are kind of the same thing, and those are "whatever God
    says".

    And "God"says whatever someone chooses to interpret him as having said.

    Is there any more to it than that?
     
Loading...