Posts by rawe

97

Did Jesus really exist?

by slimboyfat in

i had been wondering over the past few years whether there really was a historical jesus at all, until a few months ago when i read bart ehrman's latest book "did jesus exist?

" initially i was persuaded by his argument that the nt contains multiple sources that testify to jesus' existence.

but more recently i have been reading the christ myth position of richard carrier and his responses to ehrman.

rawe

Hi Ismael,

"Book of Matthew describes a series of very extraordinary events, including massive earthquakes followed by a darkness covering the land."

My view is it is more likely than not that a real person name Jesus was the inspiration for the religion of Christianity. Indeed your argument is a good one against some of the more extraordinary events of the gospels being actual real events that affected a large population. On the other hand the more modest view of the historical Jesus would make for a very small target in terms of history. To wit he was active for only 3 1/2 years and had direct impact/contact with a few fervent believers.

Cheers,

-Randy

97

Did Jesus really exist?

by slimboyfat in

i had been wondering over the past few years whether there really was a historical jesus at all, until a few months ago when i read bart ehrman's latest book "did jesus exist?

" initially i was persuaded by his argument that the nt contains multiple sources that testify to jesus' existence.

but more recently i have been reading the christ myth position of richard carrier and his responses to ehrman.

rawe

Hi Ismael,

"Even more extravagant is how Matthew also describes dead people rising from their graves and roaming the streets."

Unless I'm mistaken the official Witness belief on this event is not that dead people rose in terms of a ressurection. Rather they believe the earthquake caused graves to open and expose the corpse of the dead individual.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. I found your written English to be excellent.

22

Evolution vs. God

by Perry in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0u3-2cgomq&list=plimax6whtnhc34_zbxbtcgvgvgxk3qzvu.

rawe

Hi Designs,

"Perry rarely responds."

Oh, okay. That will make it difficult to understand how Perry processes the "were you there?" line of argument. I'll assume, he posts this video because he feels it communicates an important message.

Cheers,

-Randy

97

Did Jesus really exist?

by slimboyfat in

i had been wondering over the past few years whether there really was a historical jesus at all, until a few months ago when i read bart ehrman's latest book "did jesus exist?

" initially i was persuaded by his argument that the nt contains multiple sources that testify to jesus' existence.

but more recently i have been reading the christ myth position of richard carrier and his responses to ehrman.

rawe

Hi Slimboyfat,

I am not schooled well enough in the arguments to comment too much one way or the other. However, for the moment, I believe a literal person named Jesus likely existed and was the inspiration for Christianity later filled out and defined by Paul. I think many of the stories about him in the NT go beyond the literally true for religious/prophetic reasons (such as his birth in Bethlehem, move to Egypt, etc).

To me a story of an inspiring rabbi who talked about the Kingdom of God, but then got himself killed by the Romans, is more economical than early Christian using pure invention to create his character. In the modern world we also generally see people follow real-person living Christ-like characters, such as Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Vernon Howell (David Koresh) and Sun Myung Moon. If we had more examples of Paul-like leaders creating mythical Christ-like characters to follow, I would tilt my views in that direction.

Cheers,

-Randy

22

Evolution vs. God

by Perry in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0u3-2cgomq&list=plimax6whtnhc34_zbxbtcgvgvgxk3qzvu.

rawe

Hi AndDontCallMeShirley,

Perry hasn't responded, which is okay. But I would like to explore the idea of observation as it applies to the theory of evolution, science in general and religious experience and teachings. I believe there are key reasons tied to observation why the comment was "65 million" and not some other number. Most things we know relate to the past.

I don't mind the "were you there?" question if asked sincerely. It can be a starting point. So... how can we get "there?" The "there?" is not even just about time it can be about size or distance. How do we know about atoms, electrons, etc? How do we know the landscape of Mars when we have not personally been there?

Cheers,

-Randy

22

Evolution vs. God

by Perry in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0u3-2cgomq&list=plimax6whtnhc34_zbxbtcgvgvgxk3qzvu.

rawe

Hi Perry,

I have to run off to work, so I only got to 3:26. I have a question, if you don't mind.

The interviewer objects to comments about "65 million years ago" on the basis of "it cannot be observed." My question is this: Do you think what _has_ been observed put no constraints on the years-ago-comment? In other words, do you think the comment could just as easily been "65 billion years ago..." or "65 thousand years ago..."?

Cheers,

-Randy

95

Just this simple fact of life is proof of God....

by EndofMysteries in

i'll be curious for any alternative plausible explanations for this...... .

every lifeform on earth, humans, plants, bacteria, cells, anything with life originated with other life.

all trees come from living seeds from other trees, etc.

rawe

Hi Prologos,

"We know you meant descendants, not ancestors that would be pushing the envelope to have us survive in new (not wt) worlds. If someone developed a paternity test showing that life must have had an origin beyond known chemical/environmental conditions & possibilities, would that."

Thanks! -- Yes, our "descendants", not ancestors ;-)

As I understand it evolution tends to create new species when members of species somehow get separated and subject to different environmental/selective pressures. Each child born is of course of the same species as it's parents. However, it is not an exact copy. In fact a child's DNA is 50% from the father and 50% from the mother. And because two parent forms of DNA within the father recombined when sperm was formed and likewise in the eggs inside the mother, even the 50% is not an exact match sequence-wise from each parent. Although a smaller sequence of mtDNA from inherited from the mother only is in most cases identical or near identical. If DNA transcription were perfect we would all have Eve's mtDNA so-to-speak.

Thus my four daughters are one evolutionary generation distant from me and are of course of the same species (humans). But there is no biological reason or barrier that we can detect that would suggest the parent-to-child rule about same species would need apply across more distant relatives.

One form of separation that is the most obvious is geographical. Indeed this seems to have been a big driver in terms of new species and is the reason why isolated places like Madagascar sport unique life. It is also why it would be reasonable to believe that if humans ever were to terraform Mars, eventually Martians would evolve into a new species unable to reproduce with humans from Earth.

A second form of separation is time. At first I had not considered this, but now it seems so obvious! Successful life forms tend to put a lot of energy into reproduction. If it is sexual production all sorts of mate selection schemes seems to have developed. Even to point of being ridiculous, such as how much energy and time goes into the tail feathers of a peacock. But selecting the very best mate really is that important. But... one cannot mate across time barriers. One just cannot select a mate 100 years in the past or future. Thus while the survival of a species depends on evolution not being too rapid, you wouldn't want just a couple generations of New Yorkers to be unable to mate with those from LA, it is not of ultimate importance.

Cheers,

-Randy

62

Discussion w/ Wife: I Welcome Your Suggestions

by breakfast of champions in

so these last few wts have definitely eroded my wife's faith in the org.

she is definitely seeing the bs, and i even overheard her talking openly about it to a family member.

good for her!.

rawe

Hi Breakfast of Champions,

"Here is what she's stuck on though: Jehovah's Witnesses don't go to war. And who else is doing the preaching work like Jehovahs Witnesses?"

A year or two after I left the faith, I made a trip to Berlin Germany. One of the sites I wanted to visit was Sachsenhausen. Our tour guide explained at one point that the first person hung on the gallows was one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I can honestly say, a feeling of pride (and sadness of course) still came over me, even though I was now an Ex-JW. Even to this day, I don't think there is any need to not give some credit to the Witnesses in this regard. I also continue to appreciate that when my father in Canada decided not to go to war it was a difficult decision and certainly one that went against the currents of the time.

However, a couple other things struck me that day. One was the simple fact that it was the Russian Red Army that liberated the camp. The fact that Russian soldiers went to war and many died in the process was the undeniable basis upon which inmates in that camp were set free (of course the SS forced marched out many before the Russian arrived). Second there were others who resisted the Nazis such as Reverend Martin Niemöller who wrote the now famous "First they came..." poem.

Finally, I now realize there is something intrinsic about Jehovah's Witnesses both now and then that does much harm, but plays out in this way. That is a strong sense of them vs us in regards to competing philosophy. Absolutely anyone who dared suggest they could lift up humanity is the subject of scorn and ridicule by the Witnesses. Hence, resistance against Hilter's Germany was not just about being on elevated moral ground. It was much to do with "we are God's people and will not bow to you..." Of course the individuals making up such rhetoric were not the ones on the front line!

Jesus of course said "this good news of the kingdom will be preached..." (Matt 24:14) and there is little doubt the Witnesses are well known for their door-to-door preaching. But, in reality what is this thing we did as Witnesses? Actually I now believe it was almost entirely about ritual that helped with group identity. A year or two before we left this happened. My wife had a Bible study move just west of Phoenix out towards Sun City. At first we tried to contact the congregation out there so they would make contact with the study, but that didn't work. We then made two trips out to the congregation and after the meeting asked around who would like help out with a study. It was truly a deer-in-the-headlights look! Finally, someone agreed to go with my wife on the next study. My wife was shocked when she got an angry phone call the day after the study. The sister said, literally, "what are you trying to rope me into?" Then went out to explain at some length how she could not accomodate a study and how could she presume such!

Not all of course are like that and certainly I have met some sincere and well motivated Witnesses in my years. However, far more it seems do things, subtle and sometimes not so subtle to actually be ineffective and merely put in the time.

Best wishes helping your wife.

Cheers,

-Randy

95

Just this simple fact of life is proof of God....

by EndofMysteries in

i'll be curious for any alternative plausible explanations for this...... .

every lifeform on earth, humans, plants, bacteria, cells, anything with life originated with other life.

all trees come from living seeds from other trees, etc.

rawe

Hi BackseatDevil,

Ideas ('memes') certainly can be created, mutate and self-replicate. However, such depend on an already biological living thing -- the human brain. The NYU reference is interesting. How synthetic and man-made was the DNA? To me this will be the key to unravelling how life must have started. If we can in a lab start with basic chemical compounds and build towards RNA and/or DNA base pairs that can self-replicate then we should be able to layout a plausible scenerio for how it worked in nature. Of course some of what is called synthetic life often is a matter of simply re-writing aspects of existing DNA sequences.

Cheers,

-Randy

95

Just this simple fact of life is proof of God....

by EndofMysteries in

i'll be curious for any alternative plausible explanations for this...... .

every lifeform on earth, humans, plants, bacteria, cells, anything with life originated with other life.

all trees come from living seeds from other trees, etc.

rawe

Hi Jgnat,

"Without resorting to "God did it", is there a scientific explanation how the first life might have come to be?"

I have read The Spark of Life by Christopher Wills and Jeffery Bada plus several shorter articles on the subject. From all that I can tell the answer for now is we don't know. But that doesn't mean we don't anything at all. For example, I know this might seem obvious, but... we know life did not always exist on Earth. There was a time that Earth was completely sterile. We also know that in general "Origin of..." questions are very difficult when we lack examples of similar events. For example, we know the Earth is here and must have had some origin, but there are still some pretty big and unanswered questions about planetary formation. Such events just don't happen often enough closeby for us to figure them out. Likewise the origin of the universe itself is, to us, a single event in the very remote past that will probably always prevent us from knowing the exact how and why.

Some articles I have read suggest an RNA-only world likely existed before DNA. Indeed DNA is incredibly useful for stable storage and transmission of information across generations. But without translation via RNA it is rather useless to actual life function. Please, anyone more educated in this, don't hesitate to jump in and correct any mistake notions I might have. It is entirely possible I've misunderstood some that I've read on the subject.

We also know that all objects that are the result of intelligent design are not life-like, in that they don't self-replicate. A gopher hole is the result of ID, but the hole by itself doesn't reproduce. Likewise a TV is the result of ID, but again doesn't self-reproduce. It is of course possible that a sufficiently advanced intelligence could use ID to create a self-replicating system. In fact people are working on that (Lord help us if ever such things go amok). I think this difference between ID-systems and self-replicating systems is important to this argument, because... ID is invoked to overcome some barrier nature by itself could not overcome. But... one would assume the barrier would remain even after the initial creative act. Thus if one says, free oxygen would destroy initial life, it means the designer cannot just create life, but he must coddle it along to prevent a natural demise.

Alas, history shows natural demise of life forms is the general rule on earth. Even species that have managed to survive for millions of years, up and go extinct.

Finally, there is no reason to believe humans are special in this regard. Earth cannot last forever and this is the only viable place for us to live. Even if our ancestors were to find a way to leave Earth and live in a spaceship or on some distant planet, inevitably evolution would take over and such creatures would become a new species.

Cheers,

-Randy