Any Christians out there?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


The average Jew and early Christian wasn't literate either.

Doesn't matter about the average. It matters about what was written. The Norse had an alphabet but untill Snorri Sturlison started writing down the sagas and myths that alphabet was used almost exclusively for labels on monuments and such. No books to speak of by Vikings. Even Beowulf was written in England by monks not in Denmark by the Norse.

You're using humour, however, to evade a reasonable point.

You do like to make that bogus accusation. I didn't evade. I answered. The humor was added in WITH the answer. I guess you just didn't realize the accuracy of it.

In addition to the historicity of the so-called "ordinary" events, there is an enormous legacy of witnesses who testify to personal encounters with God.

Like Oral Roberts. I am so impressed. I told you before that inherently personal and unverifiable claims are meaningless given that humans are fully capable of convincing themselves of the most spectacular nonsense. Take a look at the link Caligastria has in his sig or the Book of Mormon and that is a moder humans not a bunch of illiterates living in an age of superstition and ignorance as was the case at the time of Jesus and the Old Testament.

Most interestingly, these witnesses are transnational.

And your point? So are witnesses to Grey Aliens. Especially since Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Mass delusion becomes a very tenuous and strained interpretation when the totality of the Christian experience and claims is taken into account.

Mass delusion is nothing new nor only limited to the past. In fact there are very few mass delusions including christians ones. They are almost all individual delusions like Oral Roberts. Occasionaly a few people have the same one or at least claim to have the same one as in Fatima. Or in the case of the two girls that claimed to have taken pictures of faeries, or the groups of people that think if they can't see something it clearly it qualifies as evidence of an alien space ship.

[Lincoln]

Of course Etheired is the only one not subject to mass delusion. Everyone is deluded but him.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Doesn't matter about the average. It matters about what was written. The Norse had an alphabet but untill Snorri Sturlison started writing down the sagas and myths that alphabet was used almost exclusively for labels on monuments and such. No books to speak of by Vikings. Even Beowulf was written in England by monks not in Denmark by the Norse.



You do like to make that bogus accusation. I didn't evade. I answered. The humor was added in WITH the answer. I guess you just didn't realize the accuracy of it.




Like Oral Roberts. I am so impressed. I told you before that inherently personal and unverifiable claims are meaningless given that humans are fully capable of convincing themselves of the most spectacular nonsense. Take a look at the link Caligastria has in his sig or the Book of Mormon and that is a moder humans not a bunch of illiterates living in an age of superstition and ignorance as was the case at the time of Jesus and the Old Testament.



And your point? So are witnesses to Grey Aliens. Especially since Close Encounters of the Third Kind.



Mass delusion is nothing new nor only limited to the past. In fact there are very few mass delusions including christians ones. They are almost all individual delusions like Oral Roberts. Occasionaly a few people have the same one or at least claim to have the same one as in Fatima. Or in the case of the two girls that claimed to have taken pictures of faeries, or the groups of people that think if they can't see something it clearly it qualifies as evidence of an alien space ship.

There are too many misconceptions in this post to waste time beyond saying that you have an extremely limited understanding of the sociological phenomenon of Christianity and the Christian claim to an experience with God. The fact that you have compared it with alien sightings is telling. The Christian claim is infinitely more complex and widespread and not as easily explained by your appeal to the human ability to deceive onself.

[Ethelred]

There were no misconeptions, except perhaps yours. You just didn't like your religion being subjected to camparison with other untestable claims.

The Christian claim is infinitely more complex and widespread and not as easily explained by your appeal to the human ability to deceive onself.

It certainly is explained that way. You have tried to deny this bit of reality before. You just keep denying and closing your eyes but the fact is that the principles are the same. Unsupportable claims are made. Some people believe them. They convince others without any real evidence. You are convinced without any real evidence. You have one set of books and you think that because others believed that enough for you. I know you disagree with the simpification but it what it really comes down to.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
There were no misconeptions, except perhaps yours. You just didn't like your religion being subjected to camparison with other untestable claims.

It certainly is explained that way. You have tried to deny this bit of reality before. You just keep denying and closing your eyes but the fact is that the principles are the same. Unsupportable claims are made. Some people believe them. They convince others without any real evidence. You are convinced without any real evidence. You have one set of books and you think that because others believed that enough for you. I know you disagree with the simpification but it what it really comes down to.

Your misconceptions continue. . . I have no problem with you making comparisons between alien sightings and the Bible . . . I find it funny . . . and the only people you are going to sway are the naive or misinformed because as I said above, the fact that you make those comparisons is very telling of your lack of knowledge with respect to the sociology of religion and in particular, the sociology of Christianity. It is so ironic that you lambaste popular science and creation science yet you employ popular religion and anti-religion invective with impunity. It is almost entertaining if it were not for my strange, almost compulsive, desire to respond all the time, which tires me out. It also reminds me, I need a nap.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


Your misconceptions continue. . .

Perhaps you just weren't able to express yourself THIS time. I had no misconptions in that first post. If there were any in the second that its your fault because you just contradicted your previous statement.

I have no problem with you making comparisons between alien sightings and the Bible . . . I find it funny . . .

The fact that you have compared it with alien sightings is telling.

Its telling that you have a problem anyway. Its telling that you claim to have no problem while having one.

So if you said what you meant perhaps there would be less cofusion.

and the only people you are going to sway are the naive or misinformed because as I said above, the fact that you make those comparisons is very telling of your lack of knowledge with respect to the sociology of religion and in particular, the sociology of Christianity.

Only to someone like you that refuses to see the similarities and only want to see the differences which have no relevance to my point since it is the similarity of the lack of evidence combined with belief. I can't help it if you insist on remaining blind to it.

It is so ironic that you lambaste popular science and creation science yet you employ popular religion and anti-religion invective with impunity.

With efficacy which drives you claim that I don't understand without any reason or though behind your claim except that you need to deny it.

There is nothing wrong in my pointing to other beliefs without evidence to compare to your beliefs that have no more evidence. You deny this every time it comes up.

I will continue to compare the comparable. Most likely you will continue to have this fantasy that they are not comparable. So far you have to even try to show why you think they aren't so I see no reason at all not to continue with it.

It is almost entertaining if it were not for my strange, almost compulsive, desire to respond all the time, which tires me out. It also reminds me, I need a nap.

You need to think sometime before you deny relevant issues. People believe in all kinds of things that are clearly wrong. Everytime I point that out you have this same fit. You NEVER justify it. You make bogus claims that are entirely based on there being more christians then UFO believers. Numbers don't help if the people are believing without evidence as you are doing.

[ckweb]

Your error Ethelred is that your comparison is beyond an over-simplification. The point of comparison that you see between alien sightings and Christian experience is so superficial as to be funny. The sociological dynamics between the Christian experience are so much more complex than those behind the alien sightings controversy; to compare them on the basis of two attempts to believe in something without physical proof is absurdity. I am truly surprised that you can not appreciate that fact.

And, I am not contradicting myself by saying I have no problem with you making the statement: as I said, it is so funny that it only helps my case, at least with those you are not naive or misinformed. I argue against it only to correct/inform your misconception of the issue not because I have a problem with you making the statement. Open up some textbooks; investigate the issue; and you'll see that the divergence between the two phenomenon you are trying to compare is so great as to make it laughable. Only a small part of the issue is numbers. . .

As I stated three posts (or so) ago, addressing your misconception by recounting the basics of sociology (and also psychology) of religion will simply take too much time and this forum is hardly the appropriate place to do it. The classroom is more suitable.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You have one set of books and you think that because others believed that enough for you. I know you disagree with the simpification but it what it really comes down to.

You have forgotten that my faith rests on three, not just two, strands of a cord. You have correctly identified two (and I don't really mind your simplification): (1) a collection of books that I, and others throughout history, hold as sacred and an authoritative witness to the acts of God in history, and (2) the enduring legacy of witnesses, the True Church, who have testified past and present to their personal encounters with God. The third cord that you overlooked but which I have articulated in previous posts and threads is my own personal experience. I have had in my life experiences for which the terms coincidence, fate, probability, contingency, etc. are not adequate descriptors. I have felt an invisible hand in my life that has helped me, guided me, and comforted me as well as given me a sense of purpose and a sense of hope. I have always been critical of this experience and sought through logic and reason to reach a more natural, biological explanation. But, as of yet, in my studies, I have found no suitable replacement that rings more true than the biblical concept of divine providence. In addition to these experiences, I have also experienced rare but powerful moments of extreme lucidity and transcendence. Logic leads me to conclude that only a higher power can endow me with moments, no matter how brief they have been, that grant me insight beyond my normal intellectual capabilities. In Christianity, I have found a sacred book and a community of individuals that are able to contextualize my experiences and root them in a common yet uncommon history. I have found that my experiences and the reality that they have formed in my life correspond to the world expressed in that sacred book and the community of individuals that preserve it. I have found that through participation in that community the power and relevance of my experiences have become even more clearly defined. Finally, I have been able to develop a personal relationship with that invisible hand in the person of Jesus, through prayer, worship, and community.

Eccl 4:12: Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

[Sava]

Give it up Eth... you're not going to change their minds. You just are going to have to be patient and let evolution filter them out.

[loinburger]

Ugh. These threads are a lot more fun when they pit the "calm, collected, supremely rational atheists" vs. the "wigged out fundies."

[Ethelred]

Without yet reading this I can tell your rattled. You have never before made a mono-block post.

I will try to wade through the mass anyway. After all you are not in the habit of making them.

Originally posted by ckweb
You have forgotten that my faith rests on three, not just two, strands of a cord. You have correctly identified two (and I don't really mind your simplification): (1) a collection of books that I, and others throughout history, hold as sacred and an authoritative witness to the acts of God in history, and

A matter of belief with no real support for the God parts. Same for many other religions.

(2) the enduring legacy of witnesses, the True Church, who have testified past and present to their personal encounters with God.

Which I pointed out has no more certainity of veracity than an Oral Robert's claim of seeing an 800 foot Jesus or Whitley Streiber (a man that was a best selling author LONG BEFORE this claim) thinking that Aliens have probed his head.

The third cord that you overlooked but which I have articulated in previous posts and threads is my own personal experience.

I don't overlook it. It goes with Number two. You are just another like Oral Roberts or Whitly Streiber or Paul/Saul. None of it is verifiable. Its just two cords. Not three. You can call yourself a third cord but no one else can. On top of which its hard to judge your own judgment. The best ANYONE can do in that respect is test against reality. You can't do that can you? with your own personal experience? as there is nothing in what you said that looks to have effects outside your head that can tested. There is no way to know if it was real or just something you wanted so desperatly that you formed it in your mind.

This is why I insist on REAL VERIFIABLE evidence. No one should be condemned or even threatened with condemnation for not going on faith. I know you haven't said that yourself but IS PART of Chrisianity. It is in the Bible that salvation can only come through Jesus. That is a demand for belief where there really is no verifiable reason for belief.

I have had in my life experiences for which the terms coincidence, fate, probability, contingency, etc. are not adequate descriptors. I have felt an invisible hand in my life that has helped me, guided me, and comforted me as well as given me a sense of purpose and a sense of hope.

That is what many will say about their own religions and there is no way to see Budhism as another way to Jesus yet Budhists often undoubtadly feel the same way. Heck Adam Smith thought an Invisible Hand guides economies. Its just a social effect, actually Adam Smith said it was AS IF an Invisible Hand. He knew it wasn't real.

Many are comforted by their beliefs. It doesn't make them real. Many are guided by them. Again it doesn't make the beliefs real. Some need this and can't function in a complex society without it. Some just join the Army instead. I don't need it even though it might make my life more comfortable in my mind. I might not fear death but death would still be real. It something that won't change just because I want it too.

I have always been critical of this experience and sought through logic and reason to reach a more natural, biological explanation. But, as of yet, in my studies, I have found no suitable replacement that rings more true than the biblical concept of divine providence.

I am sure you you won't as long you really believe. I have occasionly seen people be more clear on the details. They don't hold up to critical evaluation. Not yet anyway. Oh you can say things are to improbable but usualy people haven't a clue as to what the odds are AND don't notice that for each person that beat the odds others failed. What christians do to explain the failures is to claim they must not have had enough faith.

Its luck. Good or bad its just luck some of the time and the people that had bad luck were likely just as faithful as the people that had good luck. Luck is real. Anyone that says there is no such thing as luck is conning themselves. Sometimes things just go wrong or right due to random chance.

A cosmic ray hits an ion and scatters a gamma ray through a young childs DNA in one cell that has a genetic flaw that otherwise would never show. The child develops cancer and some Christian writes well meaning stuff about why bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people as well. Its often just a matter of random chance.

In addition to these experiences, I have also experienced rare but powerful moments of extreme lucidity and transcendence.

Big deal. I can do it too. Trances are not the exclusive province of religion. I just don't pretend to myself that it has cosmic significance. It been called the Ah ha syndrome in some forms. In others its just a trance. To quote from a budhist meditation practice 'If you see Budha on the road kill him' why? because its not real and its getting in the way of the meditation.

There is big advantage to mysticism where the founder is not thought by the followers to still exist. They won't let the inherent hallucinatory effects of meditation get in the way of further meditation and prayer is nothing but meditation by another name.

Logic leads me to conclude that only a higher power can endow me with moments, no matter how brief they have been, that grant me insight beyond my normal intellectual capabilities.

Thats not logic. Its barely even wishfull thinking. Logic entails assumptions and if your assumptions are invalid you cannot come to a correct conclusion. You assumption is that its your religion. I can see the same claims made for other religions even for ones we both know are crap. So logic is not involved in your conclusion.

In Christianity, I have found a sacred book and a community of individuals that are able to contextualize my experiences and root them in a common yet uncommon history. I have found that my experiences and the reality that they have formed in my life correspond to the world expressed in that sacred book and the community of individuals that preserve it.

Right there you were utterly dependent on assumptions of questionable reality. The Book is sacred. Why? because people that believe in it believe in it. Because people raised in the teachings of that book have managed to think like people that were raised with the teachings think they should.

I have found that through participation in that community the power and relevance of my experiences have become even more clearly defined. Finally, I have been able to develop a personal relationship with that invisible hand in the person of Jesus, through prayer, worship, and community.

Yes for most religion is a social phenomana. Hermits are few and far between. You community has guided you and you have guided your community. Its self reinforcing. Its not verifiable. Its based on book that isn't verifiable in any of the parts that deal with claims of devine intervention or mystic happenings or miracles and many of the claims should be verifiable except that every time you see one you decide its just a story.

Tell me what passage in the Bible that CAN BE TESTED do you feel must be real. Are there ANY that you are willing to admit should be verifiable. Remember I am talking about non-mundane things. We have covered this enough allready. Other syestems of myth and legend have REAL events in them mixed with purest myth and every time I mention one you pitch a fit.

This is the first time the fit reached monoblock-proportions.

Eccl 4:12: Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

Tell it to Alexadre. I can cut through three strands of poor logic just as fast two if the knife of my logic is sharp enough. Especially when you ONLY HAVE TWO and not three. Your claim of a third is merely a personal variation of the second and is no more verifiable either to others and most likely not even verifiable to yourself since your description would fit many people in other relgions that you believe in just as little as I do.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sava
Give it up Eth... you're not going to change their minds. You just are going to have to be patient and let evolution filter them out.

They breed faster. And thats a survival advantage.

I don't expect to change minds. At least not in a single post or even over many. People must change their own minds. I can only say what I think.

Besides it helps to clarify my own thinking. Otherwise it really would be a waste of my time. Ckwebs's as well as he isn't going to change my thinking without evidence.

Ckweb's ideas on christianity are kind of like a theory that makes no predictions that are different from present theory. This was, for instance, the case for Super Symetry as long as the accelorators weren't powerfull enough. Even now only some versions of Super Symetry MAY be testable and if they fail the test that still won't help with the untestable versions. It has little value except as philosophy untill a verifiable prediction can be found.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger
Ugh. These threads are a lot more fun when they pit the "calm, collected, supremely rational atheists" vs. the "wigged out fundies."

Well they are easier anyway. There are Fundamentalists that are not wigged out. Lincoln tried anyway which was interesting while it lasted. Now he mostly just enters the threads to announce how he doesn't normally enter the threads.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Without yet reading this I can tell your rattled. You have never before made a mono-block post.

It was mono-block because I was only responding to one aspect of that post. The other parts I responded to in other posts. I set the last one off because I thought it might be helpful for you to read a more personalized and subjective argument without frequent breaks. I did not realize mono-blocks have a deeper significance on this board.

Originally posted by Ethelred
A matter of belief with no real support for the God parts. Same for many other religions.

Which I pointed out has no more certainity of veracity than an Oral Robert's claim of seeing an 800 foot Jesus or Whitley Streiber (a man that was a best selling author LONG BEFORE this claim) thinking that Aliens have probed his head.

I don't overlook it. It goes with Number two. You are just another like Oral Roberts or Whitly Streiber or Paul/Saul. None of it is verifiable. Its just two cords. Not three. You can call yourself a third cord but no one else can. On top of which its hard to judge your own judgment. The best ANYONE can do in that respect is test against reality. You can't do that can you? with your own personal experience? as there is nothing in what you said that looks to have effects outside your head that can tested. There is no way to know if it was real or just something you wanted so desperatly that you formed it in your mind.

This is why I insist on REAL VERIFIABLE evidence. No one should be condemned or even threatened with condemnation for not going on faith. I know you haven't said that yourself but IS PART of Chrisianity. It is in the Bible that salvation can only come through Jesus. That is a demand for belief where there really is no verifiable reason for belief.

I know your opinion on this point. . . and you should know that my goal is not proving Christianity but demonstrating its reasonableness. I've already admitted in previous threads that I can not prove the God of Christianity. And you've already admitted that you can not disprove a generic god. I persist, however, in my discussions with you because of your enduring commitment to the idea that Christianity and the Bible is nonsense. I have the outlandish hope that perhaps you might eventually accept the notion that Christianity and the Bible, whether right or wrong, is not nonsense. Pragmatism tells me though that it will only happen over your dead body.

Originally posted by Ethelred I am sure you you won't as long you really believe. I have occasionly seen people be more clear on the details. They don't hold up to critical evaluation. Not yet anyway. Oh you can say things are to improbable but usualy people haven't a clue as to what the odds are AND don't notice that for each person that beat the odds others failed. What christians do to explain the failures is to claim they must not have had enough faith.

It's precisely in the failures that have often felt the providence of God.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its luck. Good or bad its just luck some of the time and the people that had bad luck were likely just as faithful as the people that had good luck. Luck is real. Anyone that says there is no such thing as luck is conning themselves. Sometimes things just go wrong or right due to random chance.

That explanation just does not suffice for me because there appears to me to be a consciousness behind this force you call luck. There is a rhyme and reason to the coincidences, probabilities, contingencies, lucky breaks, unlucky breaks, etc. etc. It seems intelligible.

Originally posted by Ethelred
A cosmic ray hits an ion and scatters a gamma ray through a young childs DNA in one cell that has a genetic flaw that otherwise would never show. The child develops cancer and some Christian writes well meaning stuff about why bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people as well. Its often just a matter of random chance.

I think you are missing the boat on what I meant. I'm not talking about good and bad things happening. I'm talking about how my life is led in directions I never would have expected and the unique ways in which needs are met in timely ways. There is a peculiarity to it all that the concept of "luck" and "chance" just do not cover in my opinion.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Big deal. I can do it too. Trances are not the exclusive province of religion. I just don't pretend to myself that it has cosmic significance. It been called the Ah ha syndrome in some forms. In others its just a trance. To quote from a budhist meditation practice 'If you see Budha on the road kill him' why? because its not real and its getting in the way of the meditation.

I'm not talking about trances like TM and stuff. I am talking about unexpected moments where time seems to stop and you see the world in a wholly other way (not an outer body experience). A trance is induced; my experiences have been unexpected. I had such an experience driving downtown. Luckily I remained immanent enough to drive my car and the moment lasted only for a few seconds even though it felt like more. In that moment, I felt a sense of God's presence and a sense of God speaking to me.

I just don't find the Ah ha syndrome to be a satisfactory explanation; it does not adequately account for causation of the event or consequence.

Originally posted by Ethelred
There is big advantage to mysticism where the founder is not thought by the followers to still exist. They won't let the inherent hallucinatory effects of meditation get in the way of further meditation and prayer is nothing but meditation by another name.

It can be but it also serves a different function.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Thats not logic. Its barely even wishfull thinking. Logic entails assumptions and if your assumptions are invalid you cannot come to a correct conclusion. You assumption is that its your religion. I can see the same claims made for other religions even for ones we both know are crap. So logic is not involved in your conclusion.

Regardless of what you think of the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of my experience, how is it not logical to presume that if I am briefly endowed with a capability above my normal intellectual capacity that its source must be of a higher state of being than my own? The explanation you give does not cut it, except to prove that some religious experiences are mutually exclusive.

Also, I have no doubt that people have real religious experiences in faiths other than my own. My only claim would be that ultimately that real experience, whether they understood it at the time or not, was authored by the God of Christianity.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Right there you were utterly dependent on assumptions of questionable reality. The Book is sacred. Why? because people that believe in it believe in it. Because people raised in the teachings of that book have managed to think like people that were raised with the teachings think they should.

I do not deny that I believe the Book is sacred as a result of the testimony of others. I also added that I believe it is sacred because it comports with my experience of reality and spirituality as well. An additional reason is that I believe it is a truly outstanding and unique historio-cultural artifact of the ANE.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes for most religion is a social phenomana. Hermits are few and far between. You community has guided you and you have guided your community. Its self reinforcing. Its not verifiable. Its based on book that isn't verifiable in any of the parts that deal with claims of devine intervention or mystic happenings or miracles and many of the claims should be verifiable except that every time you see one you decide its just a story.

Tell me what passage in the Bible that CAN BE TESTED do you feel must be real. Are there ANY that you are willing to admit should be verifiable. Remember I am talking about non-mundane things. We have covered this enough allready. Other syestems of myth and legend have REAL events in them mixed with purest myth and every time I mention one you pitch a fit.

I don't have fits except perhaps in your imagined actualization of our discussions. I have used the examples myself too.

There are no events that I feel must be real that can be SCIENTIFICALLY tested given the presently available archaeological record. The problem is a paucity of scientific evidence left behind by God's supernatural interventions in history.

However, you are clearly borne out of an Enlightenment, rationalistic positivism. You require scientific standards of proof. I, on the other hand, am borne out of post-modern humanities and am content with the relative merits in a position. As I've indicated in other posts, I believe and have studied the sociological, anthropological, and ethnographic issues surrounding the Sinai event and the Resurrection, the core issue necessary for the existence of an historical and orthodox Christianity, and I find these events to be likely historical events. No convincing model has been offered to account for the complex dynamics in Christian and Judaic self-understanding and growth if these events did not occur. That is sufficient evidence for me; not for you obviously; but it is for me.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't overlook it. It goes with Number two.

#2 and #3 are different. #2 is second-hand; #3 is first-hand. I don't see that they go together.