Prove to me that Jesus was the son of God

[burythehatchet]

any more so than any other person.

Thank you.

[ezgoingrl]

1. Because it's written, that's why.

n/t

[jeffrey_X]

30. Who wrote it, man?

I hope you can do better.

[Charlie Brown]

33. Is this a Monty Python quote? n/t

[leesa]

36. Oh brother. You must be an easy mark for propaganda!!

Too funny! So the rabbis and other scribes make up these socio-political control fantasies and you are still falling for it 2000+ years later

[jdj]

49. you can really tell so much of this comes from the age when

only the higher class and clergy were literate and being able to read was like owning a porsche or a BMW is today, made ya kinda look like a higher class person.

I mean it's inconceivable that all of humanity would lay down their common sense and farmer sense and follow something written in a book, unless it was a very chic and class-climbing thing to do, as in "everybody who is anybody is doing it".

Tragic for the human race for millenium to come, of course, but nonetheless.

[mrstick]

2. hellllllo, haven’t you read the bible?

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

5. I subscribe to the Old Testament; not in there.

:)

[Disturbed]

7. Mormons swear that.

John Smith was visited by an angel called Maroni. Anyone believe that besides Mormons? The bible is just another book of fairy tales.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. But. like most faerie tales, there's some good wisdom to be found there

and some utter crap... but the good makes it worth checking out now and then.

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[LiviaOlivia]

47. Disturbed, you didn't get that right.

If you are going to knock them get the names right. Google it.

[LDS Jock]

111. if you don't know what you are talking about, then don't

It is Joseph Smith, and the angel Moroni.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Sorry, no can do

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Dookus]

4. can't be done...

some will say he died and was resurrected, then you'll say "prove it" and etc. etc. etc.

It's just gonna get ugly fast.

[burythehatchet]

9. so the world is going over a cliff because of fairy tales?

(rhetorical question)

[Dookus]

13. Yes

that would seem to be the case.

[alittlelark]

73. Uh, all they have to do is read it.....

Christ's words are the antithesis of all the foul hate the * spews.

[VioletLake]

6. You must be reading my mind. ;) n/t

[Lengsel]

8. we

We're all sons and daughters of God.

[burythehatchet]

12. agree

that's why I worded it to say "any more so..."

[Lengsel]

17. oh, i see.

i was going through here pretty fast and didn't see that. sorry.

[roguevalley]

15. He was a great teacher who got coopted by a buncha power-mad

secular hoo-doos. Don't blame him for the hatred done in his name. I think he would weep if he knew.

[burythehatchet]

19. personally his name is very meaningful to me

I revere his spirit as I do several other people.

[alittlelark]

11. Holy Jeebus!!!! are you some sort of....

.... disbeliever?????? Good for you!!!! JESUS TAUGHT LOVE, TOLERANCE, AND ACCECTANCE.


JEEBUS TEACHES FEAR, INTOLERANCE, And An Abscence of LOVE.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Is Jesus heavier than a duck?

If he weighs the same as a duck he's made of wood! :think:

[LeftyMom]

22. Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

[VioletLake]

16. What it comes down to is this:

One has to be "enlightened" enough to make that leap of faith. That's the magic. :crazy:

[dreamcollector]

18. It's extremely unlikely that there was an historical Jesus.

The entire Christian myth was lifted lock stock and barrel from Egyptian sources. Every detail. It's a deep dark secret, like the stolen American election of 2004 and the truth about 9/11. But the facts are available. Try reading THE PAGAN CHRIST by Tom Harpur. The early Catholic Church murdered thousands of pagan for daring to say, "Hey, wait a minute, you stole Jesus Christ from pagan sources 100%." Then they put it out and about that J.C. was a true human being in history which was a completely different kettle of fish. Don't believe it? Read Harper. It's documented and it can't be denied.
But hey, can you imagine anything dumber than believing in The Rapture? Folks get lifted right outta their clothes and taken straight up to heaven. If I didn't know better I'd think a whole lotta family members got raptured up at my daughter's cuz there's empty clothes lying all over the floor.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Check out this website:

http://www.raptureletters.com/letter.html


<snip>
:Dear Friend;

This message has been sent to you by a friend or a relative who has recently
disappeared along with millions and millions of people around the world."
<snip>
:evilgrin:

[Karenca]

71. AYE YIY YIY.....

O8) :wtf: O8)

[burythehatchet]

86. thanks for the laugh

I know what your daughter's room looks like now.
:)

[Minstrel Boy]

20. Is this any different than

Prove to me that Mohammed was a Prophet

or

Prove to me that Jews are the Chosen People?

Because I find all three challenges equally disagreeable.

[burythehatchet]

21. nope, no different at all. Just thiought I might have better luck asking

about the J-man

[VioletLake]

23. It is different than the first choice.

It's not quite as difficult to prove that a person was a prophet.

[President Kerry]

65. eg-friggin-zactly!!!

that's why i don't do religion!

[ChiciB1]

24. Anyone Ever Read Much of Joseph Campbell???

His book on Myths and Mythology is GREAT!

[Cleita]

25. Prove to me that She had a son instead of a daughter.

eom

[pinto]

26. I'm a son of God...My name ain't Jesus, but that's the point.

I actually think its a hoot. I love being a son of God. Seriously, no cut on religion intended. But that's the point, isn't it, of the Jesus ministry......

[VioletLake]

27. That is the point, although I'm not sure its necessary to use the word

"god."

[pinto]

28. Yeah....n/t

[SomeYoungGuy]

31. Are you suggesting he was or wasn't?

I'm not sure how to frame my response since sarcasm or lack thereof doesn't always flow through the wire.

Are you looking for proof for your own spiritual reasons or are you taking what might be construed as a cheap shot against those who believe he is?

[Kazak]

32. I think...

Jesus was the reprsentative of God...is the better translation.

:shrug:

[alcuno]

34. If we could prove it, it wouldn't be called faith.

[On the Road]

35. You Would Have to Believe in the Torah

and that the Jews were the chosen people. And that the collective opinion of people like John, James, the common people, and pretty much everyone who opposed the Romans meant something.

[journalist3072]

37. Scripture References

The proof is in the Scriptures!!!!! And here are 2 scriptural references for you that prove that Jesus is the Son of God!


Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17)


Mathew chapter 16 verses 13 to 18:

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

[Charlie Brown]

38. Can't do it

It's a decision and a personal acceptance that's entirely based on faith. The historical record is null of any "proof" of the resurrection or the phenomena surrounding the birth of Jesus. It is faith and hope that Jesus died for the benefit of mankind that binds Christians, and that's what makes them different than atheists or other religious followers.

Josephus is the only credible historian who says a word about Jesus, and only that he was crucified by Pilate. "Proof" is not what Christianity or any other religion is about, but mutual love for your fellow man and personal devotion to God.

I am always appalled by Christians or religious oligarchs who attempt to justify their faith by looking at the natural world. This arrogance takes something very profound and unique away from the individual who finds solace in the hope of salvation offered by Jesus Christ.

[VioletLake]

46. The "salvation" is in the message, not the man.

The opposite claim encumbers the message.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it represents an end of reason. People who wear their rebellion against reason like a badge shouldn't expect other people to accept that badge's "authority."

[Charlie Brown]

68. You're saying any religious beliefs represent an end to reason?

I must respectfully disagree. Some of the most brual oppression to reason has occurred in secular states (Soviet Union, China). My post was not addressing people forcing others to accept "authority," but the importance of religion to individuals. If you are offended by the fact that people have religious beliefs, then I have to ask why? What harm is it doing you?

[VioletLake]

69. You can disagree with something I didn't say all you want.

It doesn't change what I said. Let's start again.

[Charlie Brown]

72. Okay. What were you saying?

"ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It represents an end to reason."

How did I misinterpret that?

[VioletLake]

74. The "salvation" is in the message, not the man.

Is it possible that this constitutes a religious belief?

[VioletLake]

79. Add for Charlie Brown:

The man is great too; there have only been a few like him. Accepting him as a man makes the message infinitely more accessible and useful to people's lives, which I believe is what he intended.

The message doesn't need a supernatural seal of approval. After 2000 years of recorded history, its value is apparent.

Let's accept reason and logic and imagine for a second that Jesus was just like you and me; imagine what he would think about his deification.

[Charlie Brown]

80. You are right about that

Christianity does not require a supernatural seal of approval to validate it. The Founding Fathers accepted Jesus as just a profoundly moral human being.

But that's no reason to look down on people who see him as more than "just like you and me." Most denominations of Christianity express the belief that Christ died for the sake of humanity, and that the Resurrection epitomizes the concept of victory over sin (and death). Muslims believe that Muhammad had visitations from heaven, and that God spoke directly through him when dictating the Qu'ran. Jews believe in the happenings at Sinai, Babylon, Jericho, etc., and so on. These beliefs have become integral to each religion, and define them in a more peculiar way than just following a set of rules or examples. Their followers are very passionate about them, and they should not be written off as simply ignorant.

What would Jesus think of his deification?

It's hard to say. As Jesus continually referred to God as his "Father" and informed people of his "return" (presumably in another life), it's reasonable to assume that Jesus viewed himself as special and something more than just a regular guy. He told the disciples that the only way to the kingdom of heaven was through him. These words are open to intrepetation, but you could certainly read them as an admission of his Deity. Thus, I can't hold it against people who have taken this belief to heart. There's nothing naive about looking beyond nature for answers to our existence.

[VioletLake]

88. It is a matter of interpretation.

I interpret it according to nature, reason and logic, but I don't "look down" on people who interpret it differently. That said, I do think that the deification and the "leap of faith" it requires is counterproductive to Jesus' message. I would even go as far as to say that most, if not all of Christianity's failures can be traced back to this.

[burythehatchet]

87. great quote

People who wear their rebellion against reason like a badge shouldn't expect other people to accept that badge's "authority."

[Az]

39. Still waiting for evidence that he existed at all

But that has no bearing on what people believe. And its not their job to prove it to you unless they volunteer to take on the job.

[DownNotOut]

40. Faith is not science.

[Az]

41. But science can study faith

Though what people decide to take from that study is up to them.

[Tacos al Carbon]

42. So far tonight

We've had a racist anti-white thread, a bigoted anti-Semitic thread and now an anti-Christian thread. What a lovely place DU is tonight.

[Az]

43. Its stress

People do not behave their best under stressful conditions. They lash out at the things that most worry them. They strive to drive out anything that is percieved as threatening.

There are also agitators present. Reveling in Bush's win they are seeking to press their advantage by invading the oppositions turf.

[geomon666]

44. I agree

Let me know when the anti-orgy thread has started. I'll have the pitchforks ready.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

45. For real. It's all about the love, isn't it?

:shrug:

[JanMichael]

48. Asking for proof of the existence of Jesus

is not anti-Christian.

It's a stupid question on a political General Discussion forum; and it's lazy thinking, but it's not "anti-Christian."

[Tacos al Carbon]

50. The hell it's not

It's not an honest question meant to receive an honest answer.

Let me ask you this:

If someone on Free Republic started a thread stating "Prove to me that Mohammed was a prophet more than any other person" would you seriously be arguing that the thread wasn't anti-Muslim?

[JanMichael]

53. Oh for God's sake. This is Stephanie

not Michael.

I have been sweating my ass off as a returning student of Theology (I am 41 by the way, and am doing this with NO student loans or credit cards)..and I want to be a minister.

I am Episcopalian.

Currently, we are studying the MYTH of Jesus...asking ourselves if he did indeed exist, and what we MIGHT know of him.

Ridiculous.

This is a stupid thread; it's an internet forum, and you shouldn't be so freaking worked up over it.

Stephanie

On edit: furthermore, any thread that starts out with "prove it" or something to that stupid effect should be your first clue that you are dealing with a person who is thinking on a Jr. High level....Hell, I laughed reading this stuff. If this person really has an interest in whether or not Jesus was an actual person, or the actual son of God, then he or she has access to all the information that humans currently have. I wish them luck.

[VioletLake]

54. Saying someone is a prophet

is quite different than saying they're the son of god.

I have no problem accepting Jesus as a philosopher and prophet.

[Az]

59. Sorry but it is a question in bad form

We don't demand proof of such things. It may be appropriate to ask for evidence. But proof? Thats asking for too much.

[BeTheChange]

57. And exactly how many posts in this thread used it as an opening..

to make an anti-christian statement? Id say more then the people honestly seeking for an answer to the question.

[JanMichael]

58. So what?

Do you care what other people think of your faith?

[BeTheChange]

61. No. I dont.

But I do think bigots often arent as liberal as they would like to believe.

The poster you responded to was comparing the thread to the other delightful bigoted topics on DU tonite. Can you comprehend the corrolation now without challenging with any further silly and unrelated questions?

[VioletLake]

62. It makes some people uncomfortable

to be challenged in the only way that puts "faith" into perspective: stripping it of its special protection from reason and logic. Nothing is above being questioned.

The poster's wording could have been better, and perhaps the thread belongs in another forum, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with asking the question.

[Az]

63. So often the problem is semantics and phrasing

If people thought such things through a bit more the world would be a more peaceful place. And likewise, if people allowed for errors in communication and tried to sort them out instead of pouncing on the poorly chosen phrasing there would be more peace.

[BeTheChange]

56. And this is different then any other night how?

I should really stop reading DU, its starting to make me more cynical and just completely tired of bigots calling others bigots.

It's all the friggin same. This is just more socially-acceptable in the liberal crowd it seems.

Im a democrat because Im a Christian and that is just what most people fail to consider in their constant christian bashing.

[President Kerry]

66. those are not threads that all express the same views..

yeah, there'll be stuff you'll disagree with. So what, go put in your 2cents! That's why i love DU

[burythehatchet]

102. if you see that as an anti-christian thread

then you are mistaken. btw, if debate distresses you, you probably oughta mosey.

[The Straight Story]

82. Science is a lot of faith as well

Look at most any science topic. Global Warming? Lots of scientists think the whole thing is bunk. String theory? Still up in the air and some think it is wacked out, others swear by it? Big bang? See string theory (and the excellent Nova show on it).

Difference between faith and science - science tries to prove something and some other scientists agree while others don't buy it until further proof - but they still work on finding the truth. Religion is similar, some wait on the day of 'proof' to those who don't subscribe to the belief, but instead of proving it themselves to others they live within the framework of their beliefs and let others do the same (though still trying to convince them - much like scientists try to convince each other their theory is right without being able to give total proof).

Science and religion are not so far apart at the base.

[youngred]

91. No one says it is

that's why it's called faith and not science.

The whole point of a belief in God is NOT that you have proof, but that you believe anyway. That's what the story about Thomas after the resurrection is all about

[GumboYaYa]

51. You can't .

That's what they call the leap of faith. If you don't make it you can never understand it.

[Taverner]

52. We are all the sons of God, therefore

Jesus was the son of God
Buddha was the son of God
Krishna was the son of God
You are the son of God

[elshiva]

70. Amen, and Daughters, too.

We are all God's Children. Jesus, Buddha,and Krishna are our brothers. They are special only in that they practiced what they preached, pure sweet love.
Blessings Y'all!

[burythehatchet]

103. shhhhhhh

don't tell the answer yet!

[kodi]

55. prove to you? who the hell are you that someone has to convince you

either you believe it or you don't.

only a fucking adolescent schmuck spits in someone else's holy water.

[burythehatchet]

108. ...and only a

douchbag would pop in with nothing to say. Have a great day asshole.

[kodi]

110. you sigline joe campbell and don't even understand what he said

as to your threatening private email to me

i am soooooo.... :scared:

your ignorance of the meaning of christianity and its sacred texts is profound.

its a rarity for me to encounter one so willfully proud of his ignorance, but, there you are in all your glory.

in the gospels, jesus referred to himself as the son of man, which in and of itself was chock full of old testament biblical prophesy and he used it to show a link back to ancient tradition. luke (the greek) started calling him the son of god relating the term to greek/egyptian religious symbolism (think Horus, who was a son of god, rose from the dead, with a cross as a symbol as well).

but whatever, whoever said it is not the point at all now, because you were not serious nor intending to have a serious discussion. if you were, you could have easily checked out a myriad of websites on this topic to enlighten you (you could start with the jesus seminar site and publications on this with the click of your mouse) but you didn't, did you?

nope, you wanted to show off how enlightened you were and superior to others who believe in things that well might be absurd to you and me. the difference is that i don't post challenges on web sites to others to defend the absurdities or inconsistencies of their religions.

what kind of person does that? well, i told you already what kind.

people will believe in what they will regardless of what i think or you point out to them in their logic that is absurd.

if you want to discuss christianity (and i am quite certain you don't) and the meaning it brings to one's life, you better have an objective attitude instead of the arrogant one you show here.

if you want to know about why some contemporaries thought jesus was god-like here goes:

"The gospels are only first century narratives from first century interpretations, nothing more and never have been. You must not read them to find the literal truth about Jesus, rather to be seen and read as the way into the Jesus experience they were written to convey. The experience always lies behind the inevitable distortions by the limiting factor of mere words. To see the revelation of truth, you must go beneath the words, and discover the experience that made the words necessary. Only in this manner will the meaning of the words be revealed. Do not identify the text with the revelation or of the messenger with the message. The gospels are not in any literal sense holy, they are not accurate and they should not be confused with reality. The gospels represent the stage in the development of the Christian faith story where ecstatic exclamation begins to be placed into narrative form. The stories in the gospels were designed for a different age, and were to be understood as midrashic writings, not literal ones.

"When the gospel stories of Jesus were composed, circa 90CE, they were created to help interpret the meaning of his life. His followers believed that their experience was that in Jesus they had met God, and it was that reality to which they were responding. However like Paul before them, the authors of the gospels were limited by the use of language and the current and prevailing definition of God. God had always been thought of as an external and unlimited source. They saw in Jesus a transcendence and only God could have created him. They were attempting to say that the qualities found in Jesus were then not within the capabilities of human beings to create. Therefore he must have been the product of God’s spirit. To show this and pass on the ecstatic experience they mined both their sacred traditions and their vocabulary in order to speak rationally of what they had experienced by themselves capable."

john spong "why christianity must change or die"

It is the ideas behind the words that are the important things to bring to one’s heart, not the actual details of the fairy tales.

and if you had been actually listening to what joe campbell had said you would have understood the purpose of the christian "son of man/son of god" thesis in an instant, and recognized its importance regardless of its logical inconsistencies, because that is what joe was talking about with myth, and religion.

[burythehatchet]

112. I bow to you superior wisdom

bye

[Tinoire]

60. Whatever for? Go find Him and stick your fingers through the holes

in His hands and feet. You either believe that God promised a Messiah and that Jesus fulfilled the scriptures or you don't. You'll have to undertake your own intellectual journey on this one. Read the OT. See what was promised. See what Jesus fulfilled. From that intellectual exercise will come faith if you're really searching.


"Yea, dogs are round about Me; a company of evildoers encircle Me; they have pierced My hands and feet - I can count all My bones - they stare and gloat over Me; they divide My garments among them, and for My raiment they cast lots." Psalm 22:16-18

[VioletLake]

64. What's the quote a reference to?

Are we dogs and evildoers messing with you and the messiah? Must be righteous being up there on the cross with him. ;)

[Tinoire]

75. Oh ol Yeah! I'm with the people, the populo barbarum, right up there

on the cross...

Just tell me you're not the one with the box of nails in your hand ;)


The only dogs and evildoers I've seen so far are Bush and the DLC. Correct me if I'm wrong ;)

[VioletLake]

76. I wouldn't call what I have in my hand nails,

although I do have 10 of them attached to my hands. ;)

I'm not on this thread to attack evildoers; I'm interested in the questions the thread raises. Believe it or not, I really do care about the subject.

[Tinoire]

89. The quote is in reference to a man named Thomas, aka "doubting Thomas",

He couldn't believe Jesus had risen from the dead until he saw Him, post Crucifixion, with his own eyes. Jesus teased him when they rean into each other and dared him to put his fingers through the holes.

I don't mock you. Faith is a hard thing.


Here's the full quote. It's from St. John 20:24-29:

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord."

But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe."

Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you."

Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

[VioletLake]

93. You're willing to suspend reason and logic

to believe supernatural stories written 2000 years ago by men. You're correct that the value of this "intellectual" exercise escapes some people. "Faith is a hard thing" because it defies reason and logic, not because it's some kind of virtue.

In my opinion, it asks people to believe in something that goes against their nature. It's unnecessary at best and harmful at worst.

"We have god on our side because he sent his son to die for all people. We can't prove it, but read this book, suspend reason and logic, and you have a chance of understanding."

No thanks. The "son's" practical message is good enough for me. :)

[Stunster]

98. You cannot prove the validity

of reason and logic non-circularly. Any attempt at such a proof would have to rely on, and presuppose the validity of relying on, reason and logic.

The great conundrum of epistemology is that the foundations of knowledge cannot themselves be proven. This has led some to adopt anti-foundationalist epistemologies. One adopts theories of reality which appear to explain the data we experience coherently, consistently, elegantly, economically, and so forth. For physical, quantitative data, scientific theories do this job to most people's satisfaction. But some data are apparently non-physical, or non-quantitative. They are the phenomena associated with reason and value, such as:

-- consciousness;
-- rational thought;
-- the reliability of sense-perception;
-- meaning;
-- free will;
-- morality;
-- the 'unreasonable' efficacy of mathematics;
-- aesthetics;
-- profundity and centrality of emotions like love, pleasure, joy, etc;
-- the fine-tuning of the physics governing the universe, rendering it suitable for life;
-- the general orderedness of the universe;
-- religious experience

Theism suggests an explanation for this broad array of experiential data all in one fell swoop, and for many people more naturally or intuitively than materialism or Platonism. I don't claim that this is 'proof', but only that it is an eminently reasonable abductive hypothesis, accounting for a bunch of diverse data economically. Hence it's not surprising that loads of people have essentially made the same inference.

That the physical world should exhibit such profound, intelligible order, and that it should produce from this physical order not only life and consciousness, but all the phenomena associated with reason and value, invites the construction of a theory, or the positing of a theoretical reality, to account for it all, in a way analogous to how electric and magnetic phenomena invite the construction, on the basis of abductive inference, of an overarching theory which posits a theoretical entity---Maxell's electromagnetic field---to account for electrical and magnetic phenomena. But the EM field is itself intrinsically invisible and intangible.

Another intrinsically invisible, intangible, theoretical entity
famously posited by science is curved space, to account for
gravitational phenomena, as proposed by Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity. Would it be a good answer to Einstein to say of curved
space that it doesn't explain anything? That we can make do with
the observed fact that bodies fall to the center of massive objects,
without having to postulate unobservable purely theoretical entities
that cause the bodies to fall in that way, especially
counter-intuitive ones like curved space?

Of course, the quantitative law-likeness of physical science lends itself to predictions about future observations. But even theism can suggest certain kinds of prediction about future experiences. For instance, let me make a prediction based on my theistic hypothesis,
which I don't think can be explained on a materialist hypothesis: that
if you were to be promised an abundance of material wealth, pleasure,
plastic surgery to make you (more) attractive, and brain surgery to make you hyper-intelligent, and an abundance of medicine to ensure that you'd have a long, healthy life---all provided for free, on the sole condition, that you burnt alive a few dozen small children--- you will feel a strong sense of moral obligation not to burn those kids.

According to materialists like Dawkins, your genes are selfish,
and selfish genes are all there really is to you. So, if that's
so, let's test it, and here's a test for what you will experience
under certain conditions.

Of course, what I expect to happen is that Dawkins & Co. will qualify
and refine their selfish gene theory so that it will accord with your predictable moral revulsion. Naturally, I find that supremely ironic. Their theory has to be so jiggered about with that it can never be
falsified---the very thing that they accuse theists of doing.

But then, maybe science and theology aren't so different after all.

[VioletLake]

99. First of all, I'm not arguing against the existence of "god."

And I'm certainly not arguing against our drive to understand the mystery of our existence. I just don't agree that certain hypotheses are eminently reasonable.

The question is: Was Jesus the son of God any more so than any other person?

I believe that the question has a reasonable answer. In response #80, Charlie Brown said: "There's nothing naive about looking beyond nature for answers to our existence."

It is naive to look beyond nature without an understanding of what it is that one is looking beyond. Blowing off rational explanations in favor of the far-fetched is naive at best and deluded at worst.

The point isn't to go "beyond" nature, it is to go to the edge of nature. To understand the mystery we must explore the limits of nature, not deny it. We will get it one day - when we have undeniable evidence. This is the only process that will yield a genuine "truth." The supernatural approach has a tendency to sabotage this process by insisting that there's no need to explore nature for the answer because the "truth" is already known; it is a shortcut that results in something not quite worthy of being called "truth."

Human spirituality is evolving with science; they are meant to work together. Until they both agree that the mystery has been solved, I will resist premature claims from both sides. The fact that we don't know the answer keeps us focused on the problem. I'm comfortable with an open-ended, "seeking" spirituality. I'm willing to work for the real thing, even if I never experience it personally.

Add: btw, my personal work/contribution is decidedly in the spiritual column. :)

[Stunster]

101. There are actually pretty strong

philosophical arguments against the possibility of naturalizing reason, or morality.

Hilary Putnam has one in a well-known article entitled "Why Reason Can't Be Naturalized".

And of course, the famous Scottish philosopher, David Hume (as well as G. E. Moore) argued that one commits what is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy by trying to give naturalistic accounts of morality (though Hume and Moore drew very different conclusions from this).

Naturalism, from a theist's point of view, systematically begs the question (commits the logical fallacy of petitio principii) against the possibility that the normative properties we associate with reason and morality don't have a naturalistic explanation.

How so? Well, consider the possibility that these properties don't have a naturalistic explanation. In such a case, there is no way even in principle for naturalistic science to discover that that is so, because the properties in question, ex hypothesi would not be detectable by the methods of naturalistic science.

Theism posits that the normativity associated reason and value is irreducible to physical or material reality. If theism is correct about that, then the natural sciences will never be able to discover that fact. Hence, insisting on confining the scope of our inquiry to the natural, and systematically excluding the supernatural, is an example of 'petitio principii'.

Let us suppose that St Paul really did encounter the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus, as per the Christian account thereof. Wouldn't he be as justified as he possibly could be in believing in Christianity? It seems to me that nothing that you could say to Saint Paul would be as convincing or as persuasive as the experience itself.

The reason theism has seemed a reasonable hypothesis to many people is because the nature of their religious experiences have been so compelling, to the extent that when non-believers come along and say "We need to test this scientifically, etc", the reaction is likely to be along these lines:

"Oh dear. They just don't understand. The presence of God is not the type of thing that one can do a scientific test for---but it is immeasurably more convincingly real and meaningful and transformative than the outcome of any scientific test ever could be."

Here's an illustration of what I mean. Alvin Plantinga is a very well-known Christian and professional philosopher, based at Notre Dame (though he's Protestant, not Catholic). In a book entitled PHILOSOPHERS WHO BELIEVE, Plantinga recounts such an experience he had while a student at Harvard:

One gloomy evening (in January, perhaps) I was returning from dinner, walking past Widenar Library to my fifth-floor room in Thayer Middle.... It was dark, windy, raining, nasty. But suddenly it was as if the heavens opened; I heard, so it seemed, music of overwhelming power and grandeur and sweetness; there was light of unimaginable splendor and beauty; it seemed I could see into heaven itself; and I suddenly saw, or perhaps felt with great clarity and persuasion and conviction that the Lord was really there and was all I had thought. The effects of this experience lingered for a long time; I was still caught up in arguments about the existence of God, but they often seemed to me merely academic, of little existential concern, as if one were to argue about whether has really been a past, for example, or whether there really were other people, as opposed to cleverly constructed robots. ibid. pp. 51-52.

I was very struck when I read this passage, as I have had two not dissimilar experiences in my life. I feel it's a bit like trying to explain an orgasm to someone who's never had one, only worse. And the demands for scientific proof or testing seem not a little ridiculous afterwards, as if someone was asking you to prove that this was your hand.

So insisting on natural scientific method as the be-all and end-all of rational inquiry, rational belief, or knowledge strikes me as a) misguided as a matter of fact; and b) logically deficient, since it commits the fallacy of begging the question.

[VioletLake]

104. Once again, I'm not arguing that dreams, visions, etc. have no value.

I've had some interesting ones myself. If you like, I can tell you all about them, and you can decide what they're worth. I certainly won't make the claim that my dreams and visions give me the authority to speak in god's name.

I'm not insisting on natural scientific method as the be-all and end-all of rational inquiry, rational belief, or knowledge. I'm insisting that it's approximately 1/2 of the be-all and end-all. ;)

This is what it comes down to for me:

I believe that there is something worthy of the name "God," but I can't tell you what it is. My best (imperfectly educated) guess is that God is the universe's gestalt.

I believe that God "works" through the laws of nature, (from the inside out if you will).

I believe that universe/life/existence represents a challenge for God, and our purpose is to play a key role in overcoming this challenge.

I believe that we have the potential to know God one day, (in life, not just in dreams and visions).

For now, I'm in love with the mystery; it can be quite "orgasmic." ;)

[VioletLake]

109. As for Jesus:

In my opinion, Jesus was an enlightened man who embodied and transmitted a political philosophy designed to create the kind of world needed to solve the mystery of our existence.

[burythehatchet]

106. Tinoire, in your posts I read a very highminded and arrogant 'tude

there is a fine line between faith and ignorance, and a canyon between faith and religion.

[burythehatchet]

105. my friend, I hold more faith in my heart than you could possibly imagine.

[youngred]

67. Faith

I don't need to prove it to you or anyone. Prove to me that he wasn't. I believe it to be so. If you don't want to believe you're free not to. I'm not going to force belief on you, and no one should.

[burythehatchet]

97. Prove to me that he wasn't

can't prove a negative.

I know you won't force me to believe but I fully expect the government under which I live to do so.

[youngred]

100. I know you can't

my point was you can't prove either way, you believe or you don't.

I will fight with you to make sure that government doesn't force you to dis/believe whatever you want.

[Dirk39]

77. He wasn't ....

Hello from Germany,
Paulus somehow was the first Fox-News like PR-Agency I remember. He didn't know Jesus personally, he wrote all the stuff and he supressed "the other truth" that was told by Jesus' brother and the other people, who knew him personally. That Jesus mother was a virgin is among the most absurd PR-stories since - sorry! - Clinton didn't have sex with Mrs. Lewinsky.

Maria had a child without being married. And Paulus was afraid of not being "electable". So he fabricated this story about Maria being a virgin.

Whenever we are desperate about Fox-News etc., we should remember that it wasn't that much better in the past.
Not to mention Jesus struggle against the Roman Empire and what was left of the truth in he bible.

Dirk

[Karenca]

78. there are those that conveniently 'forget" that Jesus had a brother.

"Virgin' Mary.

[DemBones DemBones]

85. People may be called "brother" without being a biological sibling.

This was common usage in the time of Jesus.

[Tinoire]

94. Ark of the Tabernacle

In the OT, God commanded that the Ark of the Tabernacle be made of the purest gold and that no man, except the High Priest once a year on the holiest day of the year (Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement), was allowed to enter otherwise it would be defiled because it housed the Divine Presence.

"And let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them" Exodus 25:1-9

The entire Bible is about covenants with, testaments from God. In the Old Testament, nothing was more sacred than that Ark.

That Ark was eventually housed in the Holy of Holies within the Temple, enclosed by a great veil 60 x 30 feet, so thick and heavy that it took 300 priests to hang it (colors were gold, violet, red and green- the liturgical colors of the Catholic Church). It was burnt to the ground by Saddaam's predeccesor, Nebuchadnezzar in 587BC, as God had warned because Israel once again broke the covenant with Him that they would adore Him alone. It was all downhill from there for Israel and there was much lamenting because the "Shekinah" was gone. The entire Temple, by then an empty shell that had formerly housed God, was totally destroyed in 70 AD as Jesus had prophesied with "not one stone left upon another".

"The days are coming when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the Covenant that I made with their fathers the day I yook them back by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt; for they broke my Covenant and I had to show myself their master, but this is my Covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after these days. I will place my Law within them and write it in their hearts. I will be their God and they shall be my people." Jeremiah 31:31-35

The New Covenant was to be the greatest one of them all- unconditional and extended to all human beings, incorporating Gentiles into the body of Christ as spiritual descendants of Abraham, and written in their hearts- not on tablets of stone, a heart to heart relationship.

Anyway... back to the Ark... If you believe Jesus is the New Covenant, superior to the Davidic Covenenant, why would you believe that Mary, the Ark that housed Jesus, the New Covenant, was any less glorious and pure than the old Ark that housed two stone tablets? No man was allowed to enter the old Ark & the same went with the new Ark- Mary, the womb that housed God. To deny Mary's virginity is to deny the divinity of Christ (which I have a feeling my dear friend you don't believe in anyway).

A pure Ark, made of incorruptible wood, acacia, & the purest gold for the "law" of the Old Covenant.
A pure Ark, made of incorruptible human flesh & the purest heart for the Lawgiver Himself.

"Who am I that the Mother of my God should come to me?"
"How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?"

Peace...

[I_Love_Oregon]

81. The actions of his deciples speak volumes

After his death.. a humiliating death on a cross. After being asked to prove his "Godliness" by saving himself.. and failing. After all this, and much more, logic dictates that Jesus' followers should have packed it in and gone back to fishing and all else they did prior to running into Jesus. But instead, they devoted their lives.. and in many cases, gave their lives via brutal deaths for him. Why? Why would they act this way if all he said amounted to lies, and his scam was exposed by his humiliating defeat? Unless this band were each insane, logic dictates that their actions would NOT have led them down the road they all would take by pressing his case and building his church. I believe this could only have been if, indeed, he arose and showed himself to his followers, as the Bible says happened. Something MUST have happened to push them into not only action, but complete dedication.

[Karenca]

83. A little over 500 years ago, mankind KNEW the earth was flat.

'nuff said.

[Selwynn]

84. I can't.

Have a great evening!
Sel

[MellowOne]

90. Without faith it's impossible to please God

He asks us to accept His word as truth. When we accept Jesus as our savior, He fills us with His Holy Spirit which leads us into all truth and understanding.

If you really want proof, ask God. He has proven to me over and over that Jesus is His son. If you truly submit yourself as a follower, He will show you amazing things.

[supernova]

92. Why should I have to?

I'm not sure what your purpose is for asking the question.

[burythehatchet]

107. to confuse you

:eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

95. According to the Qur'an,

Jesus is a prophet, one of a long line of prophets. He is considered the Seal of the Saints. He came into being because God said "Be!" and so it was. In the Unity Sura, it says "God neither begets or is begotten".

[Stunster]

96. It depends how interested you are

but you might want to invest in the purchase of THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD, by N. T. Wright.

I don't think one can prove very much at all in life. I don't think you can prove that people ought to love their children, or that they are conscious beings and not just biochemical gene replicators devoid of conscious understanding of reason and value. The best one can do is show that one's beliefs are reasonable.

I think Wright does this with regard to the subject-matter of his book.