Posts by hmike

13

Watch those Germans!!!!!

by Gill in

jw
friends

i was having trouble sleeping the other night and switched the tv on to bbc 2. there was a programme on about the sw region of africa and a country called namibia.

early in the 20th century namibia was under the control of the german colonialists.

the germans were rather keen on getting more land for themselves as there were a couple of large tribes of black peoples living in namibia.

hmike

Being half-German myself, I have to wonder. Some of the best AND worst in history came from there.

79

DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?

by Terry in

jw
friends

the oldest manuscripts are not considered the most reliable.. there are no "autograph" texts.

none.. there are no "original" manuscripts.. no two manuscripts agree.. the bible as we know it only came together in the form it now holds because certain men decided it should do so.. neither jesus nor his apostles or disciples carried bibles.. the apostle paul didn't carry a bible and none of his letters were in any of the scrolls considered holy scripture at the time he was preaching and forming christian theology as it is now understood to be.. largely, what the bible is today, is the result of certain men with certain agendas who had the authority to make their project happen.

they also had the power to destroy writings which did not agree with their agenda.

hmike

Well-written, Terry. Yes, I did know this, and actually, Terry, none of it invalidates the Bible. From a Biblical perspective, while man may work to subvert the will of God, or apparently derail it by his clumsy attempts to help it along, the will of God survives it all intact. All the political intrigue and wrangling that surrounded the formation and survival of the canon, all the disputes and controversies that have followed the Bible over the centuries, all of the human mismanagement of the church--the Biblical perspective of all this is that God’s will is being accomplished anyway.

The Bible doesn’t hide the follies committed by its heroes--Abraham, David, Peter, etc.--no, it’s not afraid to expose them because it shows how God did what he intended in spite of their failures. If the canon were still open, the writers wouldn’t be afraid to mention what you wrote because they would see God’s will being accomplished in spite of, and even because of, the fumbling efforts of people.

50

C.S. Lewis statement....

by Shining One in

lewis says jesus' claim to be equal with deity leaves us only one other choice: .

a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

he would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the devil of hell.

hmike

Actually, Romans 2:12-16 shows that even those who don't know the name of Jesus can be saved by God

The crucial thing is that they follow their conscience as they truly see it to be. This is a fundamental teaching of the RC.

Certainly, in places that haven't been exposed to the Bible, there is an idea of right and wrong. The assumption seems to be that if people do what is right according to their conscience, that will be good enough in God's eyes. Even if someone had a concept of right and wrong that matched God's, would they always do the right thing?

Paul went out on his missionary work to Gentile cultures teaching that Jesus was the only way of salvation because nobody could meet the requirements of the Mosaic Law or their own conscience. If any culture had a vaild way to God, why bring in Jesus?

50

C.S. Lewis statement....

by Shining One in

lewis says jesus' claim to be equal with deity leaves us only one other choice: .

a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

he would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the devil of hell.

hmike

Classicist,

Understood. I didn't mean that everybody believed or worshipped. However, your statement from Plato: "the gods, if they really do exist,..." shows at the very least he paid lip service to the possibility of the existence of gods. The modern atheist wouldn't go that far.

50

C.S. Lewis statement....

by Shining One in

lewis says jesus' claim to be equal with deity leaves us only one other choice: .

a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

he would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the devil of hell.

hmike

Hi Rex,

Here is the problem I see that we’re dealing with when it comes to statements like this from Lewis...

Skeptics are taking increasingly less for granted. Logical discussions begin with some kind of "given"--something all the parties agree upon as a starting point. The starting point for apologetics seems to be getting pushed further and further back. When the Apostle Paul made his statements on Mars Hill, or to any Gentiles, he was living in a time when the existence of gods or a single god was acknowledged by most people. Religion was a part of everyday life. It was even easier when he spoke to the Jews because they worshipped the God of Moses, so he didn’t have to lay any groundwork there--he could just proceed directly into his teaching about Jesus as Messiah. Even today, when discussing the Bible with devout JWs or Mormons, the given is that the Bible is reliable revelation from God. But with the modern "enlightened" atheist, there is no way we can start there.

C. S. Lewis was presuming that his audience was at least willing to accept that that the Bible contains accurate, historical quotations of Jesus, even if the miracle accounts were fabricated. Today, we have skeptics who are not even willing to concede that there was ever a Jewish man named Jesus--even secular historical accounts are considered suspect. For them, the Gospels contain no reliable historical information about Jesus--it’s all myth and legend. So, for them, this kind of statement is meaningless. Apologetics is being pushed back to where we have to begin at the most fundamental level, perhaps with the subject of how reliable the Bible texts are. The starting point may need to be establishing the Bible as a credible record in the mind of the listener or reader, since subjective experiences are understood based on Scripture and not the other way around.

Persuasive evidence is different for everybody, which should be clear to anyone who has had anything to do with jury trials, or has followed the high profile cases of the past decade plus (at least beginning with the OJ trial). When juries are selected, while each side in the case wants jurors who will be sympathetic to their presentations, there is also an intention to select people who will use what is considered normal, reasonable standards of judgment in weighing the evidence. Most of the population is in a region near the middle of this skepticism distribution curve. Outside this region on one side would be those I would call hyperskeptics--people whose standards for proof would be so high that it would be hard, or even impossible, to persuade them of anything. On the other end, there would be the hyposkeptics--people who could never maintain a position. Their position would vacillate to whichever side had presented the latest argument.

Someone on this board once wrote (probably not original with him) that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (What this has done is skew the curve to the side of the hyperskeptic.) How, exactly, should the claims and evidence correlate? What happens when the quality or quantity of evidence required exceeds that which can be provided? At what point is the skeptic’s requirement so severe that he or she excludes any possibility of satisfaction? Taking a Biblical account at face value for the moment, what if Thomas, when meeting the risen Jesus, had said, "Sure I can see you and touch you, but this is all some kind of trick or illusion. I need more proof"? I’m sure that even if Jesus satisfied all reasonable expectations for evidence of his existence to the general public, many would still not accept it. I’m sure because some people doubt there even is such a thing as reality as most of us accept it.

Jesus and the Bible writers warned about being hyposkeptical--accepting claims too easily. At the other end is the error of being hyperskeptical--setting up conditions for proof way beyond what can be met. What determines how a person consciously or unconsciously sets their standards of evidence? Anyone who is at either end should maybe consider "Why?"--what are the real underlying reasons?

64

Your thoughts about Wal-mart

by desbah in

jw
friends

.

do you shop at wally world?

i can spend over $100.00 on little items, man shopping at wally world is the devil on my checkbook.

hmike

I've boycotted them since the big supermarket strike. I have many issues with them.

I wonder what Sam would think of today's Walmart.

94

The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

by Shining One in

check some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.

you will immediately smell the b.s.

emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!

hmike

If we have been controlled, scolded, impugned, ordered about, bullied and stunned into silent awe by the wagging finger of Authority we are apt to slink quietly into our pew and bow our head, whisper our frightened entreaty and crave the ineffable touch of magic that will open our cocoon into butterfly-hood.
Wow, you paint a dismal picture, Terry. Is that how you really see it?

Well, yes.
I invite rebuttal.
Terry

Terry,

Maybe that's the way the Witnesses see it, and maybe some Christians, but not me, nor any I know personally. If what you said was true, I'd agree with your choice.

94

The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

by Shining One in

check some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.

you will immediately smell the b.s.

emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!

hmike

If we have been controlled, scolded, impugned, ordered about, bullied and stunned into silent awe by the wagging finger of Authority we are apt to slink quietly into our pew and bow our head, whisper our frightened entreaty and crave the ineffable touch of magic that will open our cocoon into butterfly-hood.

Wow, you paint a dismal picture, Terry. Is that how you really see it?

94

The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

by Shining One in

check some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.

you will immediately smell the b.s.

emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!

hmike

Thanks for the input Mike and I appreciate that very much. A previous writer on another thread asked if I would call someone supporting or affirming my information a 'backslapper', since I had noted that 'itsallgoodnow' with her brief post cheering on Alan F. was doing just that. If can't see the difference between her post and this one, so be it.

Not a backslap so much as just a little support from someone who has taken a few hits of his own over the years. You're more openly challenging and confrontational than I am, though.

Besides, I don't like to see anybody ganged up on, even people I disagree with.

94

The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

by Shining One in

check some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.

you will immediately smell the b.s.

emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!

hmike

Well, Rex, looks like you’ve really set yourself up as a lightning rod. Funny thing about lightning rods--people don’t want to be close to one in a storm. I haven’t read all your posts, so I don’t know if I can sign off on everything you’ve said, but from what I have read, I’d say you’ve given plenty of good information and resources to balance out the skeptical position. You know, with all the opposition you’ve gotten here, there might just be some people who will seriously consider what you’ve proposed, but you may never hear from them. So, even if I am only speaking for myself (which, frankly, I doubt, considering what I’ve read from others in the past), I want to thank you for presenting and supporting this position.

As I’ve said before on this board, people who are willing and able to believe the Bible can find enough to justify doing so, and those who are not can find plenty to discredit the Bible. It’s all a matter of how you fill in the blanks. I don’t value apologetics as much as I used to. Information and discussions may be helpful in showing that there is an alternative to atheism, but ultimately, the decision for or against faith is based on something that happens much deeper, things a person may not even be aware of. A decision for faith cannot really rest on the intellectual level of facts and arguments, otherwise it would always be wavering depending on what new information the person was exposed to.

A true scientific mind is always open to considering new information, revising the model, and discarding it if necessary, and just because something isn’t scientifically verifiable doesn’t exclude it from the realm of possibility. In an honest search for truth, considering the vastness of the universe and our considerable human limitations, how could someone ever say, "Now I’ve got it all figured out, once for all; I understand it all, and I’ve got the correct picture. Anything that doesn’t fit isn’t true." Yet, it seems that some people who claim to trust science as the only reliable avenue to the truth do exactly that.

I hope you stick around. I appreciate your input.

Mike