Miracles

[mikeh]

I dont think the new text.. is slopping thinking or sloppy evidence...if you say so.....then hmmmmm

 

the discussion here is sloppy or worse....

 

------------------

 

let me back up if the new text in bible or old, jewish text, "sloppy" or insane...etc:

 

and show it

 

I am not saying that the new testament is sloppy. I am saying that anyone who reasons that it contains within it the proof that its assertions are historically accurate is guilty of sloppy thinking. The new testament is a grouping/editing/modifying/censoring collection of old tales written by unknown authors at unkown times based on unknown sources, and has not, as far as I know, ever been verified (in terms of the descriptions of Jesus, rather than of the society in which he lived) by reference to real contemporaneous evidence from the time during which the central figure, on which the gospels are based, lived.

 

To accept the gospels as, well...gospel...in the sense of being true.... requires either the abandonment of reasoning or...well...a failure to understand logic.

 

To view them as possibly bearing some relationship to actual events....that seems eminently reasonable, since there are some known historically accurate references in the gospels. But, our libraries and bookstores are full of fiction which incorporates many accurate references to historical truth. Yet we don't view WWII novels or movies as historically true merely because they get the dates and locations of, say, the D-Day invasion correctly. Saving Private Ryan was not a documentary. Why assume that the gospels are?

 

That's the sloppy thinking to which I made reference. Alternatively, if you prefer...being 'based on a true story', which they may well have been doesn't make them accurate any more than movies advertised as such are documentaries. The makers of such movies jazz them up, by inventing dramatic events...why not at least accept that, absent proof to the contrary, the writers of the gospels may have used the same tactics? After all, isn't that more probable than that some carpenter's son was able to defy the laws of the universe as we now know them to be (but which were not understood in the same way back then)?

[mike777]

if the gospels......granted we. I. define those..... are a failure of logic.....christians need to rethink.....

 

"the gospels are important......"

[y66]

There are 1,001 and one things that I don't bother disproving each and every day...  I seem to do quite well for myself without disproving the existence of

 

"God"

"Allah"

"Zeus"

"Xenu"

Flying Saucers

a decent fat free yogurt

Try these guys.

 

Planning a last supper? Their apple wood smoked mozz is to die for.

[helene_t]

Mikeh, please don't waste your time arguing with idiots. Your efforts are more appreciated in the bridge forums.

[kenberg]

Mikeh, please don't waste your time arguing with idiots. Your efforts are more appreciated in the bridge forums.

Should I take it from this that when the rest of us get bogged down in religious discussion you don't think it is any loss to the bridge threads?

 

Joking, joking.

[Winstonm]

Mikeh, please don't waste your time arguing with idiots. Your efforts are more appreciated in the bridge forums.

Should I take it from this that when the rest of us get bogged down in religious discussion you don't think it is any loss to the bridge threads?

 

Joking, joking.

Not a joke - it's an argument from this postulate: It is possible that maximally great interaction can occur in all forums...

[luke warm]

Mikeh, please don't waste your time arguing with idiots. Your efforts are more appreciated in the bridge forums.

Should I take it from this that when the rest of us get bogged down in religious discussion you don't think it is any loss to the bridge threads?

 

Joking, joking.

Not a joke - it's an argument from this postulate: It is possible that maximally great interaction can occur in all forums...

or ken could be right

[vuroth]

The only thing worse than taking some event with insufficient information as a miracle is ferociously debating the truth or falseness of the event. There's a whole lot out there that can never be proven one way or another, and having faith is an unassailable position.

 

What drives me nuts is the other stuff - people who chose faith over evidence on things like the age of the earth, evolution, astrology.

 

It's also important to note that the JREF still hasn't handed out its large cash prize.

[kfay]

After all, isn't that more probable than that some carpenter's son was able to defy the laws of the universe as we now know them to be (but which were not understood in the same way back then)?

Mike, as a lawyer I thought you knew...

 

Ignorance of the law means you don't have to follow it.

[mikeh]

After all, isn't that more probable than that some carpenter's son was able to defy the laws of the universe as we now know them to be (but which were not understood in the same way back then)?

Mike, as a lawyer I thought you knew...

 

Ignorance of the law means you don't have to follow it.

Sorry, as a lawyer, I can assure you that that is wrong. However, I suppose a physicist might take a different view...or is that a metaphysicist?

[Winstonm]

After all, isn't that more probable than that some carpenter's son was able to defy the laws of the universe as we now know them to be (but which were not understood in the same way back then)?

Mike, as a lawyer I thought you knew...

 

Ignorance of the law means you don't have to follow it.

Sorry, as a lawyer, I can assure you that that is wrong. However, I suppose a physicist might take a different view...or is that a metaphysicist?

Are you trying to tell me the Sergeant Schultz defense (I know nothing!) doesn't work? :P

[kenberg]

Mikeh, please don't waste your time arguing with idiots. Your efforts are more appreciated in the bridge forums.

Should I take it from this that when the rest of us get bogged down in religious discussion you don't think it is any loss to the bridge threads?

 

Joking, joking.

Not a joke - it's an argument from this postulate: It is possible that maximally great interaction can occur in all forums...

or ken could be right

Another miralce!

[bid_em_up]

Yet we don't view WWII novels or movies as historically true merely because they get the dates and locations of, say, the D-Day invasion correctly. Saving Private Ryan was not a documentary.

Have you actually seen "Saving Private Ryan"?

[mikeh]

Yet we don't view WWII novels or movies as historically true merely  because they get the dates and locations of, say, the D-Day invasion correctly. Saving Private Ryan was not a documentary.

Have you actually seen "Saving Private Ryan"?

Yes....compelling movie....but still a work of fiction.

 

I remember reading that the beach scenes were traumatic for veterans of the actual invasion. That didn't surprise me because of the hectic cinematography and the willingness to depict death and injury. But surely no one thinks of the movie, as a whole, as historical fact?

 

I don't recall if the mission to recover the last 'ryan' son was based on fact, but even if it were, the details were created to entertain us, not to present a factual view of history.

 

While I have never seen nor hope to see, in real life, scenes of violence such as those in the movie, I happen to work in a business that is frequently depicted in movies and television, and I am sure that it is no surprise to you to learn that what I and others in my business do bears very little resemblance to how the media portrays us...any more than Dr. House is a fair protrayal of a medical doctor.

 

We have NO reason to believe that the gospels were not written with a similar (note, I do not say 'identical') desire to dramatize the life of the character upon whom they were based. Indeed, logic suggests that even if the authors intended to be factual, error and embellishment would likely have crept in since the information would have been at the very best 3rd hand and quite likely far, far more remote in origin from any eye-witness. Indeed, we can see that there are inconsistencies between the various gospels, even if we ignore those rejected, for political reasons, by the early church.

 

I believe that it is generally accepted that, for example, the works of Homer are not historically accurate, even tho it is also now accepted that there was a Troy, and that there were wars and seiges and sackings of the city. Thus there are elements of truth in the homerian epics...and maybe there really was an Achilles, or a Helen. But no Christian would accept that any of the then-accepted gods directly intervened in the struggle.

 

Thus the blind, and literally unthinking acceptance, by the credulous, of the accuracy of the gospels strikes me as very, very funny.....except for the incredible harm that has been committed by those very people and the power structures that have been built on their foundation.

 

To paraphrase Voltaire: if you can get people to believe the absurd, you can get them to commit atrocities. That sums up organized religion very nicely.

[PassedOut]

Thus the blind, and literally unthinking acceptance, by the credulous, of the accuracy of the gospels strikes me as very, very funny.....except for the incredible harm that has been committed by those very people and the power structures that have been built on their foundation.

 

To paraphrase Voltaire: if you can get people to believe the absurd, you can get them to commit atrocities. That sums up organized religion very nicely.

No doubt about it, organized religions have caused tremendous harm over the centuries. But so have officially atheistic governments.

 

Over the wide sweep of history, the grip of imaginary forces like gods and devils on people's lives is gradually loosening, but it is a long, slow slog with many ups and downs. Modern religions supplant older ones with more and more elaborate sophistry to keep folks in the fold. That means it's getting harder and harder to convince the credulous.

 

But as Winston correctly points out, no amount of word games, no matter how elaborate, can create a god in reality.

[kenberg]

Maybe carrying a side issue too far: I think that the last Spielberg picture I saw was Amistad. An interesting story that had little to do with actual history. I was fine with Close Encounters and with Raiders of the Lost Ark. Not by any means great movies but entertaining enough. But if someone decides to tackle a historical subject of considerable significance, and certainly importing slaves qualifies, then I would like them to not screw around with the facts.

 

So I skipped Private Ryan. I can stand violence in films, but I don't seek it out, and if I am going to be subjected to it I don't want it to be on behalf of someone's fantasy about how history could have been but wasn't. With a similar response, I saw about half of Oliver Stone's JFK. I can't say "I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine etc" but I was around at the time, it was a great tragedy, and some goofball doesn't get to take my time and money promoting his own fantasies about such an event.

 

Perhaps (well, perhaps anything) this is relevant to the main topic in that my reaction to religion may come from the same region of my brain. Many, certainly not all but not just a few, religious leaders use the threat of divine reprisal to get folks to do things their way. I spent some time when young contemplating plucking out my offending eye as the sermon from the Bible commanded that I do. No doubt I was going to Hell. And Presbyterians believe in pre-destination. Nothing to be done about it. Somewhere along the way, I decided, along with Sportin Life, It Tain't Necessarily So. After I successfully coped with the attempts to scare me with Hellfire, I pretty much lost interest in anything else religious folks had to say. I know there are lots of religious people out there who are far better representations of their faith than was my minister, but I happily do without their beliefs. Just as I can happily do without Spielberg and Stone. In this world I have come to trust some people and to not trust others. We all have to make our own choices. God? Heaven? Hell? Miracles? The CIA killed Kennedy? Nostradamus (as someone told me) predicted 9-11? I think not.

[Winstonm]

God? Heaven? Hell? Miracles? The CIA killed Kennedy? Nostradamus (as someone told me) predicted 9-11?

 

No wonder you are so confused. Let me help you understand:

1) Tony "Big Nose" Nostradamus said "The CIA can go to hell".

2) Miracle was the name of the horse in History of the World, Part I

3) 9-11 is the code to open the lobby door in heaven.

4) God killed Kennedy.

[kenberg]

Thanks, Winston. I knew my Forum friends could help me get through the confusion. What was the old Belafonte song? It was clear as mud but it covered the ground/ and the con fusion made me brain go round.

 

 

Really I think discussions about miracles in a forum like this is apt to lead nowhere. There is no possibility that someone will convince me, none at all. Those who regard some events as actual miracles will have their criteria for assessment in specific cases, but working it through will be done in a different setting. They also will not be changing their minds about miracles existing, they will only be debating specific cases.

 

I think I need to withdraw from further discussion of religious matters. The arguments are tired, I'm tired. Not that I ever keep these resolutions.

[babalu1997]

well somehow i used to be dropped off at the church by my parents, never acquired the taste and stopped going after fst communion

 

same happened with my siblings

 

then when i was about age 15 or perhaps 16, there was some kind of crisis between my parents-- which explanation was never received by us and they went to be counseled byt some church folks.

 

and they started going to church-- i never did resume-- my siblings went until they felt like stopping-- my mother it seems used it as opium, i suppose, i could never understand what type of soothing she got from it.

 

 

strangely enough, i ahve obeserved friends and family over the years got through conversion in times of crisis and depression and it appears to me they use it as opium.

 

maybe it is cheaper and healthier than prozac.

 

religion is boring. it is hipocrisy.

 

from the time we are children we know to stay away from priests and that altar boys are used by priests and no one talks about it.

 

i feel the same way about miracles.

 

but it is sure a good way to make a living.

[Winstonm]

I hope you don't withdraw. You bring a levelheadedness into the discussion that helps keep it on keel.