Posts by Viviane

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

1st corinthians 15 12-17. but if it is preached that christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even christ has been raised.

and if christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... .

Viviane

I find that most atheist views, fly out the window if they encounter a spirit being, force, ghost whatever they want to call it and cant explain it scientifically

Where did you find this? How many people did you sample? How do you know their views before and after the event? How do you know it was a spirit or ghost? What are those things made of?

Some will change others will not, no matter what, because they dont want to believe.

I am sure that is true. However, would you expect anyone to change their views without evidence?

Science is like religion, it is dogmatically argued, you have believers and nonbelievers always.

Science is the opposite of dogma.

33

Jesus, the Great Convincer?

by Simon in

supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.

erm .... judas betrayed him.

thomas didn't believe he'd come back.

Viviane

They believe the Old Testament foretold Jesus' betrayal. It would have to not be explicit because the various passages of scripture aren't explicit. The details given are: Jesus' betrayer would be someone close to him; and Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. That's enough for Christians.

It's not explicit but gives details? Interesting.

After all, the Bible doesn't state beyond doubt that in 33CE Jesus would be betrayed by Judas Iscariot.

It beyond a doubt absolutely does not state anything even remotely like that.

Christians have faith that this is accurate and correct.

Well, faith is about pretending to know things.

33

Jesus, the Great Convincer?

by Simon in

supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.

erm .... judas betrayed him.

thomas didn't believe he'd come back.

Viviane

So you were never a JW, that answers my question.

No one answered your question, stop making things up.

Belittles debating, seriously? How terrible! How about your belittling of people who come on this forum because their family has been trapped in a fucking cult for decades.

Tell me, do you always make up ridiculous things or is this a special occasion? And yes, belittles debating. Based on your comments, you seriously could have learned a lot from a debate team.

33

Jesus, the Great Convincer?

by Simon in

supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.

erm .... judas betrayed him.

thomas didn't believe he'd come back.

Viviane

Yes, I think 'prophecy' means a foretelling of an event. True believers vary re details. Millions of Christians aren't too fussed on the details, it seems.

Then they aren't foretelling "an" event.

neither. If you'd read my previous posts on this thread, you'd realise that I'm not a believer in Bible prophecy. I said I was playing devil's advocate.

My question has no bearing on whether you are a believer or not. You said there was a prophecy foretelling something, I am trying to determine how you concluded it's a prophecy. If you are saying that people claim it's a prophecy, we then need to shift the question to "how are they defining prophecy".

yes, I said it sounds a bit silly. Strange that you chose not to answer that harmless question ...

Why is it strange that I choose not to answer silly questions?

33

Jesus, the Great Convincer?

by Simon in

supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.

erm .... judas betrayed him.

thomas didn't believe he'd come back.

Viviane

who gets to make up these rules?!
You, me, Dr Bollocks on the Bakerloo Line?
To hundreds of millions of Christians world-wide, it was prophesied that Jesus would be betrayed by one of the twelve. It's nonsense but that's what I believed when I was a true-believer JW.

Rules? It's a a rule, it's just a question of "what is a prophecy". Is a specific foretelling of an event? If so, how do we know any event is the right one? Must the prophecy be specific enough to tell? On the other hand, are they supposed to be vague enough that a number of events can match and after the fact we have to pick and choose which events fit?

it's not how you or I define prophecy. It's how hundreds of millions of Christians define/accept prophecy.

Wait now, millions of Christians say it's very specific, other claim it's vague and only to be interpreted after the fact. Which is yours? I ask because that's what this is all about. If that is a prophecy, it's not specific enough to say "this was the event foretold". Jesus knowing Judas was the betrayer wasn't even something that required preternatural knowledge.

It sounds silly but I have to ask: were you a JW, Viviane?

It does sound silly that you feel you have to ask.

33

Jesus, the Great Convincer?

by Simon in

supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.

erm .... judas betrayed him.

thomas didn't believe he'd come back.

Viviane

it's slightly vague but bear with me ...

well, no, if it's vague, it's not really a prophecy, now is it? Unless you are telling me that prophecy is vague, so vague as to mean any number of things, in which case it's just people saying vague stuff.

Now to you it's tenuous/nonsense, to me it's tenuous/nonsense, but there are plenty of Christians who sincerely believe this crap.

John Hagee is a modern prophet, using vague language in the Bible to declare God saw this coming, whatever the "this" is.

Point is, lots of people believe lots of things. A "prophecy" that can apply to a hundred things and only after the fact sort of can mean what you want it to is useless. Is that how we are defining prophecy? If so, yes, it's a prophecy.

If, however, we are defining it as "a foretelling of future events", it's kind of important to have, you know, actually foretold the events.

They believe that one of the twelve would betray their master, not because nasty God forced him to but because this particular apostle chose to do so - exercising free will, tempted by the money.

Well, that's another conversation, but it's impossible to have both free will and an omniscient god that knows the future.

33

Jesus, the Great Convincer?

by Simon in

supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.

erm .... judas betrayed him.

thomas didn't believe he'd come back.

Viviane

'He who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me shall betray me' - Matt 26:23

In what way is that a prophecy?

Viviane were you ever a member of the JW religion or just the college debating society?

Interesting question. It makes a huge assumption, creates a false dichotomy and attempts to belittle the experience that can be gained from learning proper debating.

See, that can go both way, such as "were you ever a JW or did you just wash windows for fun?"

I can come up with many more examples. Suffice to say, I won't.

33

Jesus, the Great Convincer?

by Simon in

supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.

erm .... judas betrayed him.

thomas didn't believe he'd come back.

Viviane

The prophecy is that one of the disciples would betray Jesus. Which one is never specified. The belief is that each disciple had freedom of choice.

Uh, which prophecy?

Yes, I'm very familiar with how propaganda works, which is precisely my point. Propaganda filters out the negative detail in order to maximize the message in favor of the cause

Oh, then I guess you've must have heard of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Tell me, which negative details it filters out? Tell me, since you clearly have looked at all of the propaganda in the world to be able to make that declarative statement about all propaganda in the world, which have you read and studied?

Once again, these aren't negative details, they are central points to the story. Which propaganda in your studies treats major plot points as details?

If you were creating propaganda then you'd be unlikely to write the narrative as it's presented in the gospels.

Why? Please show comparative and contrast propaganda throughout history that you have studied in order to be able to demonstrate this.

The very fact that Simon in the OP can point out the negative aspects is actually unwitting testimony to the honesty of the accounts.

That doesn't make sense and is a non-sequitur. Just because I can point out the flaws in something doesn't mean it isn't what it is. For instance, just because I can point that a person has flaws doesn't make them not a person.

Similarly, just because the gospels are shitty propaganda doesn't make them not propaganda.

For sure, it's no proof that these things happened, but it certainly adds weight to the idea that the authors believed in the things that they wrote and they weren't just going all out for telling a story that would best represent their cause.

Well, "it's" not anything, much less proof, at the moment as you've not presented anything except your opinion, a non-sequitur. Also, you seem to be confused. Are you saying people that write propaganda, by definition, don't believe it? Otherwise, what's to stop them from writing propaganda stories and believing them?

33

Jesus, the Great Convincer?

by Simon in

supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.

erm .... judas betrayed him.

thomas didn't believe he'd come back.

Viviane

And surely therein lies the rub. If it truly were propaganda why on earth would they have included these details?

I think you mean central points to the story? Also, do you not know how propaganda works?

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

1st corinthians 15 12-17. but if it is preached that christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even christ has been raised.

and if christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... .

Viviane

Lanza's main argument seems to be that there is evidence that observation affects causation in the material world.

There is zero evidence for that. If that is his argument, he is misunderstanding the observer effect.

He is suggesting a paradigm shift is in order because the irregularities in the traditional conception of the universe are mounting up

Such as?

If we ask Lanza how his idea is falsifiable it might be a fair question to ask how the traditional view of the world is falsifiable.

Pick an example I will explain it to you.

Why assume it's the former and not the latter?

Because every example of consciousness requires matter and every example of matter we have requires a universe. All of the evidence is on one side of the argument.

Just because it seems a bit Star Trek or Twilight Zone, doesn't mean it's not true. Just because one view is traditional and dominant doesn't in itself make it more rational than an alternative if the alternative has equal explanatory power.

Such is the justification for every ridiculous idea and crackpot theory ever put forth with all of the evidence against it. "Well, you can't prove it's not true". Not only is it a pointless argument to be dismissed without consideration, it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about science.

Just because one view is traditional and dominant doesn't in itself make it more rational than an alternative if the alternative has equal explanatory power

If it has more explanatory power, then that means it must be a hypothesis that is falsifiable, testable and have evidence. So far none of the crackpot theories mentioned have any of that.