Soldiers of Jah (page 20)

notverylikely

Pluse he probably had a thing for Mary ;)

That would make me like him a whole lot more.

Unless you mean his mom, in which case, ew.

PSacramento

LMAO !!
No, Mary, the sister of Lazarus.

tammy, i understand what you mean; however, your argument is conjecture. it is not evidence. nor is it objectively provable. as to the issue of whether jesus was real or not - i don't think your answer 'answers' the question. because someone has not proven that he did or did not exist using empirical data is not evidence to either point. it just means that there isnt enough evidence to say whether he did or didn't. i know that you and ps and others feel that he did. there are many others that feel that he didn't. but to use the bible to prove that someone existed is a conflict of interest. just because the bible says so isnt proof. please be assured that my comments are in no way derogatory to you (or anyone else for that matter). i just do not see it.

sometimes i wish that god/jesus/whoever would just definitively say: okay here i am and this is what i want you to do ... in a way that leaves zero doubt. it would still be our choice to follow it or not.

PSacramento

because someone has not proven that he did or did not exist using empirical data is not evidence to either point.

What kind of emperical data would you find convincing?

cofty

Hi just got in from work (UK - time difference) really enjoying reading how the discussion has evolved.

So far it seems to be a reasonable position that holding to both biblical inerrancy AND belief in a good god is logically inconsistent.

A few attempts have been made to reconcile the two but I would assert that they are woefully unsatisfying.

We have had ...

1. "Might is right" anything god does is good by definition so who are we to argue?

This is inconsistent with god's own definition of love as revealed through Jesus. We could fear a god of this sort but he is beneath our contempt and unworthy of worship

2. The victims of god's genocide were evil and practiced child sacrifice.

This is just another form of racism and no different from the kind of mentality that has made all of our modern day atrocities possible. Also to deal with child sacrifice by killing thousands of children is dumb even for Yahweh

3. People were more brutal back then, you can't judge them by today's standards.

But we are judging god for giving the order for genocide. His ethics are supposed to be eternal. I also believe it is a mistake to judge modern warfare as less brutal. Google Armenian genocide for a much neglected example.

4. God did the children a favour, their death is only temporary and they may enjoy eternity.

The foolishness and callousness of this is self-evident. Let the infanticide begin.

If, as a number of thoughtful believers have done, we admit that the bible cannot be taken at face value then it seems we loose any foundation for making any definite claims about god all together.

My thoughts so far.

cheerios

What kind of emperical data would you find convincing?

preferably something not so steeped in controversy. by that i mean not something that can be taken 42 different ways to sunday by anyone who looks at it and then disagreed on by all, twisted by some, and misused by others.

sometimes i think that the uneducated faith (note: that's not the right connotation but i'm not sure what the right word is) that was possessed by people in bible times was apropos to their specific time period. we live in an age of skepticism, reason, and philosophy where education is abundant (or should be), philosophy is prevalent and mankind can build off each others ideas. when people put forth ideas, the first thing that thinking people do is say: is this true and if so, why? the whole 'god exists because it says so in a book but he refuses to prove it because you have to have faith' argument is not going to win over many people. not in this day and age.

so that is what i struggle with. i would like to believe in a god, but i have a hard time reconciling empirical observation with just a want.

PSacramento

preferably something not so steeped in controversy. by that i mean not something that can be taken 42 different ways to sunday by anyone who looks at it and then disagreed on by all, twisted by some, and misused by others.

Well, if you apply the criteria to all historical figures then many of them "didn't exist" either, certainly those that were not kings or emperors or conquerers.

sometimes i think that the uneducated faith (note: that's not the right connotation but i'm not sure what the right word is) that was possessed by people in bible times was apropos to their specific time period. we live in an age of skepticism, reason, and philosophy where education is abundant (or should be), philosophy is prevalent and mankind can build off each others ideas. when people put forth ideas, the first thing that thinking people do is say: is this true and if so, why? the whole 'god exists because it says so in a book but he refuses to prove it because you have to have faith' argument is not going to win over many people. not in this day and age.

True, but these questions have been going for far longer than "this day and age", they are nothing new.

so that is what i struggle with. i would like to believe in a god, but i have a hard time reconciling empirical observation with just a want.

Well, a BIT of faith is always needed in almost everything we believe in, but you really need to be more specific in what you consider proof that is good enough for YOU.

notverylikely

Well, if you apply the criteria to all historical figures then many of them "didn't exist" either, certainly those that were not kings or emperors or conquerers.

Of course, we don't live our according to their scant words either, so the standards can afford to be lower :)

Well, a BIT of faith is always needed in almost everything we believe in, but you really need to be more specific in what you consider proof that is good enough for YOU.

But usually based off of prior firsthand experience or the word of people we know and trust that have given us reliable information in the past.

PSacramento

Of course, we don't live our according to their scant words either, so the standards can afford to be lower :)

You sure about that? Socrates is an example as can any historical figure that we do NOT have independant verification of.

Of course when people were talking about Jesus they didn't need to prove he existed and Paul himself mentions that many KNEW him and Saw him and they were still alive if anyone wanted to see for themselves first hand.

And we CHOOSE to live our lives according to his teachings, I am sure that IF the writers thought that thsi kind of controvery would be around 2000 years laters that they may have tried to "prove" his existence better.

Remember, we was simply a "carpenter" that was executed as a common criminal at a time that those things were very common.

But usually based off of prior firsthand experience or the word of people we know and trust that have given us reliable information in the past.

And for the people that the NT books and letters were written for, that was the same case.

notverylikely

You sure about that? Socrates is an example as can any historical figure that we do NOT have independant verification of.

Absolutely sure. I don't live my life as a Socratarian. We can debate the ideas attributed to him and still not be sure of his existence.

And for the people that the NT books and letters were written for, that was the same case.

We don't actually know that since we don't know ANYTHING other than what's in the bible, no personal conversations, not many letters. Thay MAY have been the case.

Soldiers of Jah

Share this