The mental states of the religious "prophets"

[kharvel]

Were Jesus and Mohammed schizophernics? Did Moses have megalomaniac tendencies in the same vein as Joseph Smith?

http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_436.shtml

According to all medical encyclopaedias and psychiatric reference books, schizophrenia is any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, being accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.

Just about everything of what is said in the Bible and the Koran about the founders of those two creeds, points in the direction of a biochemical imbalance in their brain. These men showed systemic signs of delusion in their behavior.

They claimed to have heard heavenly voices, which is a typical symptom of this disease. People with schizophrenia tend to hear, see, feel or smell things that are not there. Just as in a dream, where fantastic events can not be distinguished from real ones. Thus, the hallucination of a voice is perceived in the brain just like a real person talking.

In present times psychiatrists and psychologists have reported millions of cases of people who claim identical things, consisting of two or more voices conversing with each other. However, nobody else has ever been able to hear the voices. Not the doctors, not the nurses, and not even the family members of the patient. That was exactly the situation for Jesus and Mohammed. Only they heard the voices and it was not because they were the chosen ones. It was simply because the others did not suffer from that neurological disequilibrium.

Since in modern times religion does not play a powerful role in the lives of people, many of the persons assuring to have heard voices did not claim it came from God. In ancient times when the belief in the divine was omnipresent, everybody assured it came from above.

Whether in the past or in present times, in all cases the person always clings to these beliefs even after the beliefs are shown to be false. That is a typical symptom and that is what Jesus and Mohammed did. In their times many contested their claims with strong rational arguments but both clung on to their unsubstantiated ideas.

A researcher has claimed that Moses was high on drugs when he "heard" the words of a god and "saw" a burning bush.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080304120710.ad7gm7i6&show_article=1

High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

What similarities do you see between Moses's apparent hallucinations and his documented megalomania (see Exodus 7:1 and his efforts to lead a disparate group of people)? Was Moses just another Joseph Smith of his time? Was Judaism just an ancient and different version of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

These questions were triggered by the heavy discussion of the Bible and Koran on this forum. To wit, if Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses were just ancient versions of L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, respectively, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the works by the modern prophets? The writings from any of the New Age cults founded by modern schizophrenics could be just as relevant, if not more so, as the Bible (http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_newage/grp_newage_index.htm). The writings of the Branch Davidians may be a more modern replacement for the Koran. Of course, the Book of Mormon is a natural replacement for the Old Testament.

The words and proclamations of the modern schizophrenics and hallucinogen users are just as good as the words and proclamations of ancient schizophrenics and hallucinogen users.

[redmaxx]

Stop and think for a second, what if there is a God. Could you really apply those labels?

[kharvel]

Stop and think for a second, what if there is a God. Could you really apply those labels?

If there is a God, how do you know that he was or was not speaking through Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, and other personalities that claimed to be representatives of God?

[mohater]

If there is a God, how do you know that he was or was not speaking through Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, and other personalities that claimed to be representatives of God?

Opportunism that is exploited is a pretty deciding factor that shows who is genuine, and who is not.

[kharvel]

Opportunism that is exploited is a pretty deciding factor that shows who is genuine, and who is not.

Certified schizophrenics are not known to be opportunists by the virtue of their schizophrenia (eg. they cannot help but hear voices in their head and see things that are not there).

[mohater]

Certified schizophrenics are not known to be opportunists by the virtue of their schizophrenia (eg. they cannot help but hear voices in their head and see things that are not there).

Sun Myung Moon is damn rich BECAUSE of his "religion". Quite a bit of opportunism there.

[Hurricane]

If there is a God, how do you know that he was or was not speaking through Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, and other personalities that claimed to be representatives of God?

http://www.i4m.com/think/jpeg/joseph_smith.jpg

If you like South park and haven't seen the episode entitled "All about the mormons", it is one of the funniest episodes ever. They tell the story of Joseph Smith and as they discuss it in song talking about things that just don't make sense, they follow it up with a chorus about a dozen times that goes:

"dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb"

Finally they have a segment where his scribe's wife, Lucy Harris, doubts his prophecy and they reverse the chorus to:

"smart smart smart smart"

Mormons are some of the friendliest people you will ever meet...I just don't agree with their prophet. Interesting website that compares the South Park episode to the actual teachings of Mormonism:

http://www.i4m.com/think/southpark/

[vangolu]

http://www.i4m.com/think/jpeg/joseph_smith.jpg

If you like South park and haven't seen the episode entitled "All about the mormons", it is one of the funniest episodes ever. They tell the story of Joseph Smith and as they discuss it in song talking about things that just don't make sense, they follow it up with a chorus about a dozen times that goes:

"dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb"

Finally they have a segment where his scribe's wife, Lucy Harris, doubts his prophecy and they reverse the chorus to:

"smart smart smart smart"

Mormons are some of the friendliest people you will ever meet...I just don't agree with their prophet. Interesting website that compares the South Park episode to the actual teachings of Mormonism:

http://www.i4m.com/think/southpark/


That was a good episode but I liked the movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124819/) better

[kharvel]

Sun Myung Moon is damn rich BECAUSE of his "religion". Quite a bit of opportunism there.

And Mohammed was no different. What is your point?

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html

Islam as a vehicle to wealth and power is clearly demonstrated. Muhammed himself received, by "divine" decree, a fifth of all booty captured in war,

"To whichever village you go and settle therein, there is your share therein, and whichever village disobeys Allah and His Messenger, its one-fifth is for Allah and His Messenger and the remainder is for you." 41

The rest, of course, went to the Muslim followers who took part in battle. Hence, it was good money to be in the business of warfare as a Muslim. After conquest, Islam was further strengthened by the "three choices" option imposed upon conquered peoples. Subject nations were offered one of three choices: Accept Islam and become members of Dar es-Salaam; pay the jizyah, the unbelievers tax; or death 42. Either way, Islam benefited materially. Unbelievers either became Muslims and contributed to the enhancement of Islamic warmaking, booty-gathering, and social strength; or they became direct sources of revenue for Islamic states; or else they ceased to be "in the way" of Islam's expansion. Mohammed and his religion's attraction to wealth truly bears witness to the Biblical record found in I Timothy 6:10, "For the love of money is the root of all evil...".

[holyschmoley]

I wonder how long till this thread gets censored - deleted.

[bonkman]

I wonder how long till this thread gets censored - deleted.
the fact that you have an account shows your sig is wrong :)

[JackHandey]

I wonder how long till this thread gets censored - deleted.

I dunno... I plan to wait a couple days before getting involved... I was in the middle of a lengthy reply when the last one was deleted.

[ripcurl]

Jesus was not a prophet. He is only considered a prophet by Muslims...

This thread, like those before it, belongs in the crapper.

[kellymich]

Were Jesus and Mohammed schizophernics? Did Moses have megalomaniac tendencies in the same vein as Joseph Smith?

http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_436.shtml

A researcher has claimed that Moses was high on drugs when he "heard" the words of a god and "saw" a burning bush.

These questions were triggered by the heavy discussion of the Bible and Koran on this forum. To wit, if Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses were just ancient versions of L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, respectively, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the works by the modern prophets? The writings from any of the New Age cults founded by modern schizophrenics could be just as relevant, if not more so, as the Bible (http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_newage/grp_newage_index.htm). The writings of the Branch Davidians may be a more modern replacement for the Koran. Of course, the Book of Mormon is a natural replacement for the Old Testament.

The words and proclamations of the modern schizophrenics and hallucinogen users are just as good as the words and proclamations of ancient schizophrenics and hallucinogen users.

The genuine “religious experience” is very close to the experiences of the mentally ill… the only difference is that the mentally ill are drowning in the stuff (the contents of the unconscious) that the mystic is able to swim. The reason people take drugs is because it opens up a path to an experience in the subconscious-- but the drugs usually eventually destroy the person and a person ought to be able to have the experience without the drugs.

A religious teacher without a deep emotional religious experience would be utterly worthless to anyone … in our day and age the ordinary man and work slave is held up as the penultimate example of what man ought to be and psychiatrists are extremely wary of anyone with much passion... and our greatest illusion has become the godess reason.-- so immediately if anyone has any kind of experience whch cannot be quantified by an Algorithm the modern psychiarists becomes sceptical. Of course Psychiatry itself is not even a hard science-- It is the most anti scientific than any of the medical specialties.

An L Ron Hubbard is a lot different from a moses a jesus and a muhammed, Hubbard really was just crazy.-- he was, from all accounts, an exceptionally vicious, disgusting and mediocre man. An arrested decaying schizoid putrescence... who caused his followers much pain and confusion.

[kharvel]

The genuine “religious experience” is very close to the experiences of the mentally ill… the only difference is that the mentally ill are drowning in the stuff (the contents of the unconscious) that the mystic is able to swim.

And who exactly is qualified to determine that someone is drowning or swimming in the experience?

An L Ron Hubbard is a lot different from a moses a jesus and a muhammed, Hubbard really was just crazy.-- he was, from all accounts, an exceptionally vicious, disgusting and mediocre man. An arrested decaying schizoid putrescence... who caused his followers much pain and confusion.

But the same thing could be said by others about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.

The problem is that one man's crazy person is another man's religious figure. Another problem is that nobody really knows how schizoprhenic Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed were when they were alive. If one were to go back in time, one could tell for sure whether they had an "arrested decaying schizoid putrescence" or a more gentle form of schizophrenia (and megalomania in Moses/Mohammed's case). L. Ron Hubbard was a modern figure and he was analyzed and documented so thoroughly that one could come to the reasonable conclusion that he had an "arrested decaying schizoid putrescence". We have no such modern documentation about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed and just because we don't have such documentation does NOT mean that they were not cut from the same cloth as L. Ron Hubbard.

What we do know about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed is what was written in ancient text by the supporters of these figures from two thousand years ago. Fanatics of religious sects are made from the same cloth and will do anything to promote their gurus in the best possible light. Therefore, their accounts are unreliable in determining the true psychological state of their prophets/gurus in the same detail as for L. Ron Hubbard; however, they do show in general that all 3 men had a form of schizophrenia and/or megalomania.

At best, we can safely assume that Moses and Mohammed were schizophrenic or drug-using megalomaniacs while Jesus was just plain schizo and at worst, we can conclude that they all had an "arrested decaying schizoid putrescence".

[awer25]

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

I haven't seen any evidence of this, and its assumed truth forms the basis of the article's hypothesis. In any case, it's obvious that this is not an unbiased work seeking the truth as to what happened, as "Benny Shanon" is a drug user himself (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960403.html):

When Professor Benny Shanon, professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, reads the verse, he recalls a powerful hallucinatory experience he had when he visited the Amazon and drank a potion made from a plant called ayahuasca.

I enjoyed this response :

A characteristic of psychotropic agents is that they produce disordered thinking, paranoia and hallucinations. There is a stark difference between a visionary and a hallucinator. Crackpot theories arise all the time after taking hallucinogens, Timothy Leary was a pathetic example. However Moses did not hear "tune in, turn on, drop out". Nobody designs, say, a new computer chip after a psychotropic drug-induced vision. And the Ten Commandments do not represent weird disordered thinking, but logical and considered visions for a moral life. If Moses had followed the edicts of hallucinogenic plants, we would to this day be wandering around in circles in the desert inspecting our navels, as this guy is doing. He does acknowledge that he arrived at his unprovable, untestable, illogical "theory" after taking that Amazon plant over 100 times. Well, testability is the difference between philosophy and science, so at least he has the proper audience for this silly junk science.

[Jhaan]

C.S. Lewis said that Jesus was either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Until this thread, I didn't think there was anyone who seriously considered the third option.

[kharvel]

Has anyone seen the season 4 premiere of Battlestar Galactica? In that episode, the deification of Gaius Baltar by his followers and the depiction of Baltar as Jesus is a great example of how ordinary and/or schizophrenic human being can be turned into a "prophet" or "messenger" of a "true God".

[XXnarg]

Has anyone seen the season 4 premiere of Battlestar Galactica? In that episode, the deification of Gaius Baltar by his followers and the depiction of Baltar as Jesus is a great example of how ordinary and/or schizophrenic human being can be turned into a "prophet" or "messenger" of a "true God".A fantasy is offered as a legitimate example?

Fiction can be used successfully to illustrate a point, but it should never be considered to be an example of real life.

[kharvel]

A fantasy is offered as a legitimate example?

Fiction can be used successfully to illustrate a point, but it should never be considered to be an example of real life.

What is it they say?

Truth can be stranger than fiction.

[bonkman]

I haven't seen any evidence of this, and its assumed truth forms the basis of the article's hypothesis. In any case, it's obvious that this is not an unbiased work seeking the truth as to what happened, as "Benny Shanon" is a drug user himself (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960403.html):


I enjoyed this response :
actually, the molecular bio technique PCR was rumored to have been invented via an acid trip. However, with the evidence offered by Shanon to back his claim, he would fail any proofs class I've ever taken.

[Night_Runner]

Has anybody here heard of the Taiping rebellion? It took place in the mid-nineteenth-century China and 50 million people died as a result, making it one of the bloodiest conflicts and the bloodiest civil war in history. The leader of the rebellion had failed an exam that had to be passed in order to get a job in the government (a very difficult exam, I must add). The fatigue and stress drove him insane... He had read a Chinese translation of the Bible around that time, went in a coma after his failed exam and, when he finally woke up, he said (and I'm paraphrasing, of course): "I am Jesus's little brother. We have work to do."

Of course, most of the people who joined him in their rebellion against the Qin dynasty and the Europeans didn't quite believe him, but it only took one passionate (though profoundly insane) man to start that bloodbath. However, had he won, he and his supporters would have been the ones writing the history, and we would probably know him as a great religious leader...

[XXnarg]

What is it they say? Truth can be stranger than fiction.Are we having a pithing contest? :lmao:

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

"It's such a pleasure to write down splendid words - almost as though one were inventing them." ~Rupert Hart-Davis

A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a witty person, but a pebble in the hands of a fool. ~Author Unknown

I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals and Miscellaneous Notebooks, May 1849

Quotes are nothing but inspiration for the uninspired. ~Richard Kemph

The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. ~Somerset Maugham

The hunter for aphorisms on human nature has to fish in muddy water, and he is even condemned to find much of his own mind. ~Francis H. Bradley

People will accept your idea much more readily if you tell them Benjamin Franklin said it first. ~David H. Comins

He wrapped himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors. ~Rudyard Kipling

Some for renown, on scraps of learning dote,
And think they grow immortal as they quote.
~Edward Young, Love of Fame

Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it. ~Santayana, Essays

Platitude: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true. ~H.L. Mencken

[kellymich]

And who exactly is qualified to determine that someone is drowning or swimming in the experience?

There are no absolutes for things like this... but the best psychiatrists like Jung, for example, write convincingly about the differences between the genuine religious experience and the crack up.


What we do know about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed is what was written in ancient text by the supporters of these figures from two thousand years ago. Fanatics of religious sects are made from the same cloth and will do anything to promote their gurus in the best possible light. Therefore, their accounts are unreliable in determining the true psychological state of their prophets/gurus in the same detail as for L. Ron Hubbard; however, they do show in general that all 3 men had a form of schizophrenia and/or megalomania.

At best, we can safely assume that Moses and Mohammed were schizophrenic or drug-using megalomaniacs while Jesus was just plain schizo and at worst, we can conclude that they all had an "arrested decaying schizoid putrescence".

I don't think we can "safely assume" as you say that Moses Mohammed or Jesus were schizophrenic megalomaniacs. It is possible but it cannot be "safely assumed" by any strech of the imagination... we don't have much historical information about these men which does make it difficult to paint them in a accurate light-- I will grant you that.

The religion and teaching of at least Jesus and Muhammed is specifically non ego centric which leads one to suspect that the orientation of these men radiated from the center of the self which is not megalomania or self aggrandizement but rather the unobstructed self.-- if true this would make their lives valid for their time, place and culture.

In our culture, our artists are supposed to fulfill the role of sage seer and prophet. It is they who are supposed to lead the way, teach us how to sing, and show us the light. That is why when our artists do not do their job properly our society begins to black out and plunge resolutely toward destruction.

Their function is what in former ages was supposed to be the role of the religious prophets.--Namely the care of the soul. Think of what life would be without music etc. etc. and you will begin to understand the importance of these people. Think of the difference of a bach, a shakespeare or even a tina turner compared to an L Ron Hubbard on peoples lives and you might be able to understand the difference between a valid experience and an invalid one. Christ and Muhammed were probably valid for their time and place... although they have mostly ceased to be vitally relavent and have been grossly misinterpreted.

I would agree that these religions have by in large outlived their usefulness and have all but disqualified themselves for the future but I am not ready to pass judgement on something that may have been perfectly valid in its day and age. To judge what happened 200, 1000, or 3000 years ago by modern value standards is just not appropriate, to my mind. When one looks at aztec society, or japanese society, or ancient greek society, we should not presume to think that we can understand the complexities of the experiences of the people, the culture, or their leaders and prophets. They may have been perfectly rotten-- but we cannot say that. What we can say, I think, is that religions like christianity and islam have almost ceased to fullfill the function that they should be fulfilling and that it is probably best to let them go-- they have outlived their usefulness-- they have overstayed their welcome-- they have become a feeble toothless selfish angry old man that spreads worry, misery, and doom whereever they go. It is not we who need to be defensive, it is they... everything that they have tortured and maimed stands in accusation against them and mocks them.

[Jhaan]

In our culture, our artists are suppose to fulfill the role of sage seer and prophet. It is they who are supposed to lead the way, teach us how to sing, and show us the light. That is why when our artists do not do their job properly our society begins to black out and plunge resolutely toward destruction.

Don't artists follow, rather than lead? Said another way, don't they reflect society more than they shape it?

Christ and Muhammed were probably valid for their time and place... although they have mostly ceased to be vitally relavent and have been grossly misinterpreted.
.

Isn't this statement an interpretation?

[kharvel]

I don't think we can "safely assume" as you say that Moses Mohammed or Jesus were schizophrenic megalomaniacs. It is possible but it cannot be "safely assumed" by any strech of the imagination... we don't have much historical information about these men which does make it difficult to paint them in a accurate light-- I will grant you that.

OK, I stand corrected. No "safe" assumptions can be made about the actual realities of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed

The religion and teaching of at least Jesus and Muhammed is specifically non ego centric which leads one to suspect that the orientation of these men radiated from the center of the self which is not megalomania or self aggrandizement but rather the unobstructed self.-- if true this would make their lives valid for their time, place and culture.

The problem is that the religion and teachings of Moses (Judaism), Jesus (Christianity), and Mohammed (Islam) cannot be traced directly back to these three men. That is to say, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed did not themselves write the respective main religious texts of their religions (except maybe the 10 Commandments by Moses). And it is those texts by which those three religions revolve around. Those texts were written by their followers and modified over hundreds of years. For this one, I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that the texts would have depicted Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed in far better light than they actually were in real life. After all, nobody wants to be accused of following the religion of madmen/megalomaniacs/charlatans/etc.

[awer25]

The problem is that the religion and teachings of Moses (Judaism), Jesus (Christianity), and Mohammed (Islam) cannot be traced directly back to these three men. That is to say, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed did not themselves write the respective main religious texts of their religions (except maybe the 10 Commandments by Moses). And it is those texts by which those three religions revolve around. Those texts were written by their followers and modified over hundreds of years. For this one, I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that the texts would have depicted Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed in far better light than they actually were in real life. After all, nobody wants to be accused of following the religion of madmen/megalomaniacs/charlatans/etc.

I do believe the Old Testament is considered to be given to Moses and the Jews by God and not written by followers.

[Night_Runner]

I do believe the Old Testament is considered to be given to Moses and the Jews by God and not written by followers.

I believe that was what kharvel said: Moses (not his followers) wrote the 10 Commandments. Whether or not it was divinely inspired is a different question.

[awer25]

I believe that was what kharvel said: Moses (not his followers) wrote the 10 Commandments. Whether or not it was divinely inspired is a different question.

I know, but the 10 Commandments are a very small section (word-wise) of the whole Old Testament. I was just adding that the whole thing should be mentioned, not just the one part. I probably should have written that more clearly ;)

[JackHandey]

Don't artists follow, rather than lead? Said another way, don't they reflect society more than they shape it?

While artists may use others as a muse, whether they are leaders or followers is not intrinsic. Some artists simply show us how they see the world, and let us form our own opinions about what that means. Others not only illustrate how they see the world, but where they see that going. Those are the ones that Kelly is referring to, I think.

He might be of the mind that those are the more memorable ones, and perhaps they do have more influence. However, I think they do us a disservice. They have just as great of a danger of losing relevance, and people have just a great of a danger failing to realize that as religious followers. When we follow others without scrutinizing their reasoning, we fail to understand that they are not infallable.

I prefer the artists that simply reveal their perspective, and provide it only as a snapshot from their mind. They do not allow people to let their minds atrophy from disuse. Anything that discourages thought, simply weakens us as creatures.

[kellymich]

Don't artists follow, rather than lead? Said another way, don't they reflect society more than they shape it?

The real role of the artist, if it were properly understood, is as a creator… the artist actually doesn’t create a thing, he merely discovers and shows us what is already there but by his unique vision and power he gives it to us in its wholeness. Unfortunantly most of our artists are not aware of their proper role or of the tremendous responsibility that comes with that role (they are literally responsible for making or breaking millions of lives). If they don’t do their job properly millions will be lost to worldly men who care about nothing but self aggrandizement … an artist is of course influenced by the society in which they live, there is no getting around that, but his real role is not to follow but to lead, he builds his art on the traditions and work of his precursers and predecessors… the reason that we probably don’t hold them in higher esteem in our day and age is that there are not that many good ones around. Every two bit nobody calls themselves an artist these days—I am talking about the real artists.

Isn't this statement an interpretation?

Of course it is an interpretation... just as calling me an infidel would be "an interpretation". It is my view of what I believe to be the increasing sterility and irrelevence of these religions in our day and age. Nietzsche wrote about some the problems with the monotheistic religions which I think are very relevant . I realize that to a christian or a muslim the things I say hit very hard and so I want them to understand that I do not say it with disrespect or as a personal attack on individuals. I don't hold individuals responsible for religions or historical movements. I think that these religions are no longer, in large, serving people the way they are supposed to. I think that among some christian and muslim saints and seers the religion may still function as intended but that for the vast majority, it is just not working. It is my hope that these religions some day disapear from the face of the earth-- many of the the values of these religions, in my opinion, are simply too botched and lead to such gross misinterpretation that I think it best we let them go. A genuine christianity and islam will always be possible and even necessary for some people... but lets leave it to the saints and specialists that don't get confused by the differences between connotation and dennotation and are able to skillfully handle the dreadfully jumbled values that come with these religions. In the hands of louts these religions are ungovernable steeds of the worst order... And horror of horrors, what is wrong with the type of christian and muslim who must attempt to impose his will on the entire earth, usually by the sword and coercion-- haven't we all had enough of this kind of thing ? What is wrong with the christain and muslim who can't live along side people with different values... is their faith so shaky that it crumbles at first contact with something that is different ?

[kellymich]

The problem is that the religion and teachings of Moses (Judaism), Jesus (Christianity), and Mohammed (Islam) cannot be traced directly back to these three men. That is to say, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed did not themselves write the respective main religious texts of their religions (except maybe the 10 Commandments by Moses). And it is those texts by which those three religions revolve around. Those texts were written by their followers and modified over hundreds of years. For this one, I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that the texts would have depicted Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed in far better light than they actually were in real life. After all, nobody wants to be accused of following the religion of madmen/megalomaniacs/charlatans/etc.

Every biography ever written has probably fudged about its subjects life… no doubt.
If we were to get the real biography of anyone we probably couldn’t take it.

These men were founders, lawgivers, and in some cases supposedly seers into deeper truths and realities... there is little doubt that their disciples had every reason to mythologize them and paint them in a flattering light... I understand this as a given however and it doesn't disturb me.

These were all men with families, sexual lives, fears, hopes, wants, loves, hates, desires etc. etc.-- for example an accurate portrait of jesus entering puberty and becoming sexually aware would probably upset many christians-- but it would be accurate unless he was physically unhealthy in which case lack of sexual desire and sex would not be a virtue but a disease.

In short, at some point in jesus's life he was probably just another kid with a hard on-- which of course the biographers omit. But it is not essential to his message for us to know this... I agree that mythologizing jesus has gone way to far at times. They turned him into apollo the sun god -- acending and decending all over the place-- floating in the air-- which of course, is all pure foolishness except for its symbolic value.

Biographers and disciples know no shame as is well known... One needs to know how to read mythology and understand allegory to try to understand the actual worth, or lack of worth, of these men.

Moses's great contribution was in founding a civil society. In Jesus's case he converts the ancient forms into a religion that no longer has need of outer forms and symbols to achieve its goal -- more accurately he dynamited the entire jewish priesthood, state, and all of the outer forms and symbols of the religion but he nevertheless promised his followers a mystical union with God without the priesthood and outer forms. Nevertheless, it required a scholarly mind of the first order to be able to do this which is generally not associated with mental illness. To understand the subtleties of the ancient jewish law and to accurately be able to make the distinction between what the law implied and inferred, between outer forms and inner forms, was something only reserved for the most literate initates of the jewish priesthood and to create new values was something only reserved for the prophets...and this Jesus did-- he created values. He revalued all of jewish theology. It is from his life alone that the concept of "all men are equal" (before God) and the "intrinsic worth of all men" even exists in the western world. To even put the name of Jesus in the same sentence as an L Ron Hubbard is silly to my mind. Hubbard created nothing...

However Jesus' teachings, were to the jewish aristocracy, incredibly subversive. If accepted, it really would mean the end of everything with which they were familiar including the basis for the existence of the ancient jewish state.-- no small thing. So perhaps, in the end, Jesus really did deserve his cross. The point is well taken that we know very little about these actual men but I think we need to look at what was created to attempt to judge the worth of these individuals. The dignity of an "immortal soul and as a son of god" for each man from the highest to the lowest regardless of rank and qualification was the creation of Jesus and its ramifications have been profound. Without it, all the modern western assumptions on these boards regarding the nature of justice would simply not exist. It is by no means a given that we should believe "all men are created equal"-- this is a value judgement which first entered the world from one or two minds.-- the creators of values.

All one has to do is look at the scriptures and values of the great Hindu prophets who created no less than four classes of men and four sets of differing values in regard to them in comparision to Jesus’s conception to understand the profound differences that result. Every person on these boards who whines about "justice" and "equality" is forever indebted to jesus for that concept.-- some people are so enamored of these concepts that they would even do violence to themselves or others. But In hinduism a permanent race of slaves that never revolted was created for 1500 years and it was called HOLY. 1500 years . Whew ! Values are not harmless things as we can see and the 20 or 30 minds who are the creators of all the values we live by which have since become codified and taken for granted are not insane, they are geniuses. Jesus' spirit lives on best not in the christian religion, ironically enough, but in the concepts of equal rights and equality of souls which is a matter of the most profound faith for most westerners. Even if he was insane, he would have to be given credit for this.

[kharvel]

I do believe the Old Testament is considered to be given to Moses and the Jews by God and not written by followers.

I highly doubt that it was "given" to anybody by a god. It is far more logical and reasonable that the Old Testament was written by mere mortals based on THEIR interpretation of the events that may or may not happened in reality.

If you would like to argue this point further, I would ask you to consider the following logic:

Religion A claims that their bible was given by their god.

Religion B claims that their bible was given by their god.

Religion C claims that their bible was given by their god.

Ad infinitum.

I know, but the 10 Commandments are a very small section (word-wise) of the whole Old Testament. I was just adding that the whole thing should be mentioned, not just the one part. I probably should have written that more clearly

I'm stating that because of the very strong association between Moses and the 10 commandments, it is more than likely that Moses wrote those commandments himself. I am further asserting, as per my earlier commentary, that whatever he wrote came out of his own mind, whether it was hallucinogen-induced or not. It was convenient for him to claim it came from a god as such a claim would engender wide acceptance of his commandments by the general population. If Moses was already considered a great religious figure by his people, then his claim would have been accepted with little question and thus, the history of Judaism was written accordingly.

As for the main Old Testaement text itself (as well as the Torah), secular scholars have agreed that they were written by the disciples and it is doubtful that both were written by Moses itself. As such, those text can be contaminated by the thought processes of the disciples and it does not tell us how Moses was like in reality.

[Jhaan]

... Unfortunantly most of our artists are not aware of their proper role or of the tremendous responsibility that comes with that role (they are literally responsible for making or breaking millions of lives). If they don’t do their job properly millions will be lost to worldly men who care about nothing but self aggrandizement

You empower artists a hell of a lot more than I do, but I think we agree on their purpose. I see them as revealers of the mystic truths of God. They put words to things like beauty, power, and holiness - things best described through art. From that, we can get a small glimpse into the spiritual reality that surrounds us.

What is wrong with the christain and muslim who can't live along side people with different values... is their faith so shaky that it crumbles at first contact with something that is different ?

As one who wishes the extermination of these beliefs, can I ask the same of you?

[burninator]

As for the main Old Testaement text itself (as well as the Torah), secular scholars have agreed that they were written by the disciples and it is doubtful that both were written by Moses itself.

And what do religious scholars make of this claim?

[kellymich]

As one who wishes the extermination of these beliefs, can I ask the same of you?

Yes your point is well taken... I can get along with most muslims and christians.

An elimination of a religion which is no longer working is not the extermination of people... I simply want it to fade away which is something people will have to come to for themselves. I don't advocate violent means to eliminate these religions. Modern life has probably forever broken these religions monopoly on the world and the sooner they realize that they are not the sum of all things the better we can all get along-- the violence in the name of religion we see today is probably a result of individuals trying to screw the world back to a former time and place ... The great islamic empires and works, al andalus and others, will forever resonate in the imagination of men-- but it is, in my opinion, time to go forward. But each individual must decide for themselves... if they wish to be christian or muslim that is their business as I would hope they would recognize my right to choose the kind of life, religion and philosophy I wish for myself. A good christian or muslim is sometimes worth their weight in gold-- they really are. A bad one is a nuisance without equal.

[SpearmintRhino]

the fact that you have an account shows your sig is wrong :)

LOL no...Maybe he just got a warning?? His Signature refutes your comment!!

[JackHandey]

I wonder how long till this thread gets censored - deleted.

i just thought about you signature. There is a right way, and a wrong way to respond to things. I have questioned almost every single warning that I've managed to receive. I''ve picked up a few along the way, myself. I don't generally do it in a disruptive manner.

You should just PM the mod that gave you the warning, and make your case. I have always received a response, although it's not usually what I had hoped for as a result in the end. I have learned what the limits are for the most part, and I try to do my best to respect them. I don't get as many warnings as I used to anymore.

[khorne55]

As for the main Old Testaement text itself (as well as the Torah), secular scholars have agreed that they were written by the disciples and it is doubtful that both were written by Moses itself.

Since the Torah claims that the Jews are God's chosen people I think it is safe to say that it was written by Jews. Hey, wasn't Moses a Jew? Hmmm

[buyerandseller]

Has anybody here heard of the Taiping rebellion? It took place in the mid-nineteenth-century China and 50 million people died as a result, making it one of the bloodiest conflicts and the bloodiest civil war in history. The leader of the rebellion had failed an exam that had to be passed in order to get a job in the government (a very difficult exam, I must add). The fatigue and stress drove him insane... He had read a Chinese translation of the Bible around that time, went in a coma after his failed exam and, when he finally woke up, he said (and I'm paraphrasing, of course): "I am Jesus's little brother. We have work to do."

Of course, most of the people who joined him in their rebellion against the Qin dynasty and the Europeans didn't quite believe him, but it only took one passionate (though profoundly insane) man to start that bloodbath. However, had he won, he and his supporters would have been the ones writing the history, and we would probably know him as a great religious leader...

First of all, the Taiping rebellion was based on nationalism. Europeans occupied China, and people responded to that, not because of any religious overtones. If some country occupied America, you think it's going to take a religious revolution for us to get pissed at the governemnt to let that happen? or do you think we're gonna get pissed at the government and do something about it no matter what.

Secondly, the rebellion was against the Qing dynasty, not the Qin dynasty.

[buyerandseller]

I highly doubt that it was "given" to anybody by a god. It is far more logical and reasonable that the Old Testament was written by mere mortals based on THEIR interpretation of the events that may or may not happened in reality.

And in that statement lies the answer as to why having an argument about religion is completely useless and dead-ending.

If you believe in God, your answers will be based on God, whereas, if you don't believe in God, you can't really relate to those answers.

I believe the Ten Commandments was given to the Jews by God because it says so in the Bible.

How can someone who doesn't believe in God nor the Bible relate to that answer?

[buyerandseller]

And what do religious scholars make of this claim?

Since they're religious scholars who wasted their lives studying something only used by madmen, charlatans, schizophrenics, and meglomaniacs, they have a vested interest in continuing to press on to the general public the validity of this tool to oppress the masses, so therefore anything they say about religion cannot be taken seriously. Only a secular scholar can be truthful about the claims.

[mohater]

And Mohammed was no different. What is your point?

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html

Very different. That verse has verses preceding and and following it that give more guidance.

Mr. Moon is the sole benefiter of his businesses and his religion. With regards to religious rules, the people who were inspired never kept the money. As they were the leaders, they distributed the alms and the charity.

It's fairly pointless to get in a fight using links, since you can pretty much find anyone proving anything online.

[Hurricane]

actually, the molecular bio technique PCR was rumored to have been invented via an acid trip. However, with the evidence offered by Shanon to back his claim, he would fail any proofs class I've ever taken.

Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, is a complete moron! I met him the day before he won the Nobel Prize and we debated for about 15 minutes on whether HIV caused AIDS (he said it didn't) before some professors intervened. I left remarking it is amazing that someone so talented in his field can be oblivious to other areas of science! During his talk, he slipped in several slides of naked women throughout. He joked he did this to keep the audience's attention. It definately kept mine but offended a lot of females professors and students in the audience to the point the Dean of Science had to sent out a public apology for his talk. He even admits he was "tripping" when the idea of PCR came to him so I wouldn't be surprised to find out he is a drug user.

[mohater]

Since they're religious scholars who wasted their lives studying something only used by madmen, charlatans, schizophrenics, and meglomaniacs, they have a vested interest in continuing to press on to the general public the validity of this tool to oppress the masses, so therefore anything they say about religion cannot be taken seriously. Only a secular scholar can be truthful about the claims.

That's probably, from a sourcing standpoint, one of the most ignorant things I have ever read posted here.

[buyerandseller]

That's probably, from a sourcing standpoint, one of the most ignorant things I have ever read posted here.

good, then I made my point perfectly. ;)

[talgot]

That's probably, from a sourcing standpoint, one of the most ignorant things I have ever read posted here.

He was being sarcastic.

[Hurricane]

A characteristic of psychotropic agents is that they produce disordered thinking, paranoia and hallucinations

Couldn't the same be said for Hillary Clinton or Obama? Amazing liberals are the first to condemn Jesus but the first in line to vote for BHO or HRC. I guess everyone has their own prophet!

Disordered thinking: Both want to raise taxes and start Universal healthcare (which will make SS/Medicare contributions look like pennies on the dollar) when we are in a recession and while the left argues that people don't have as much money as they use to. BHO thinks kids listening to the vile words of Imus are poisonous to their minds but has no problem letting them grow up listening to another racist leading the sermons at his church.

Paranoia: BHO asked for secret service months before anyone else ever had even though it was stated that their was no known threat; seems to believe racism against blacks is real but has no comprehension of reverse racism; and has played the "race card" for the past 6 months.

Hallucinations: BHO has visions of his parents meeting during riots at Selma and making sweet love to produce Obama himself even though he was born 4 years prior; believes Kennedy personally brought his father over on scholarship even though Kennedy wasn't involved in the program for another two years after his father was already in school here; and thinks he was a Professor when in fact he was a lecturer (this would be akin to a speech writer saying he was President). HRO remembers racing from Air Force one to a bunker under the threat of sniper fire whizzing by her.

[mohater]

I didn't see kharvel make the claim that only secular scholars should be used. That's a pretty far fetched extrapolation.

[buyerandseller]

He was being sarcastic.

:evil: Shhhhh

[darkfrog]

And in that statement lies the answer as to why having an argument about religion is completely useless and dead-ending.

If you believe in God, your answers will be based on God, whereas, if you don't believe in God, you can't really relate to those answers.

I believe the Ten Commandments was given to the Jews by God because it says so in the Bible.

How can someone who doesn't believe in God nor the Bible relate to that answer?

Re-read Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Ten Commandments is not what most people think they are. The bible does not explicitly mention that the 17 statements that we now consider the Decalogue is the actual Ten Commandments.
The 17 statements I am referring to has been grouped into 10 laws, but even the Jews, Catholics and Protestants disagree on how to group them hence somewhat different sets by each religion.

The scriptures simply start out with, "And God spoke all these words." These 17 statements were spoken verbally by God directly to the people. Afterwards the people expressed great fear about having God speak directly to them, and they said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die." (Exodus 20:19).
Here they are:
1. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
2. You shall have no other gods before me.
3. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
4. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.
5. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. 5. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
6. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
7. Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
8. but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.
9. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
10. Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
11. You shall not murder.
12. You shall not commit adultery.
13. You shall not steal.
14. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
15. You shall not covet your neighbor's house.
16. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife,
17. or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

After this incident the Lord talks to Moses privately and goes on for three chapters detailing a multitude of laws about how the Hebrews are to conduct themselves (Exodus chapters 21,22,23). Finally the Lord says to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and commands I have written for their instruction." (Exodus 24:12). There are no details explaining exactly what the Lord writes on these stone tablets. It would be logical if the Lord wrote the entire law on the stone tablets, starting with the commandments he verbally told the people, followed by everything in chapters 21, 22, and 23. Laws need to be written down so that they may be referred to later on. If the laws are not written down then we are left at the mercy of whoever claims to know what the laws are.
These are the stone tablets that Moses destroys.

So then the Lord says to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke." (Exodus 34:1). Note that nothing is said about the Lord needing any help in creating the first set of stone tablets, but for making a duplicate copy the Lord this time asks Moses to bring him a replacement set.

Moses goes up the mountain with the replacement set of tablets, and the Lord says to Moses, "I am making a covenant with you," after which the Lord recites the list of commandments that form the covenant. However, these commandments which the Lord gives are nothing like the ten commandments we are familiar with (Exodus 34:10-26). After reciting the commandments to Moses the Lord says to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel" (Exodus 34:27). Note that even though the Lord originally said, "I will write on them [the replacement tablets] the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke," the Lord now tells Moses to do the writing, and what he tells Moses to write on the tablets are the words of the covenant.

Here now, quoting from the Bible, is the covenant the Lord makes with Moses:

Exodus 34:10-26
Then the LORD said:
1. I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. Obey what I command you today.
2. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
3. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you.
4. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles [That is, symbols of the goddess Asherah].
5. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
6. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.
7. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
8. Do not make cast idols.
9. Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
10. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.
11. Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck.
12. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
13. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
14. Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year [That is, in the fall].
15. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel.
16. I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
17. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
18. Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
19. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

The reading immediately concludes with Exodus 34:27-28 which I quote, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.' Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the Ten Commandments."

According to Exodus these are the real Ten Commandments of the Bible.

Does anyone find it interesting that what we now consider the Ten Commandments were never actually called that in the bible but a completely different set of covenants was?

[buyerandseller]

Re-read Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Ten Commandments is not what most people think they are.

They were given to Moses from God according to the Bible, that's all I'm concerned about. :)

[Jhaan]

darkfrog, doesn't Deut 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2010%20:1-5;&version=47;) clear up some of that confusion?

[burninator]

I didn't see kharvel make the claim that only secular scholars should be used. That's a pretty far fetched extrapolation.
He didn't at all, which is why I wondered aloud for what reason he chose to qualify the scholars as being "secular".

[Parafly9]

I like asking the opposite question: what if all the people we label as insane, really are on to something ? :D

[kharvel]

They were given to Moses from God according to the Bible, that's all I'm concerned about. :)

And the Bible was written by mortal men.

[buyerandseller]

And the Bible was written by mortal men.

who were led by God, the one that you don't believe exists. See Post #41 for my reply :)

[kharvel]

I like asking the opposite question: what if all the people we label as insane, really are on to something ? :D

That is a very VALID question and is in concordance with Kharvel's Second Law.

If one is going to accept the words of certain people labeled as insane, one must accept the words of ALL people labeled as insane.

For example, if one is going to worship Jesus, one should also worship any gentle certified schizophrenic who claims to be speaking to God and have "visions" and other characteristics often associated with Jesus.

[kharvel]

who were led by God

Or so the mortal men claimed. I claim to be led by The Schwartz. Do you accept that The Schwartz exists and is with me and possibly with you?

What about Ahura Mazda? Zoroastrians claim to be led by Mazda. Do you accept that Ahura Mazda exists?

What about this or that god that other people claim to be led by? Do you also believe that these gods exist as well?

[Doctor_Wu]

That is a very VALID question and is in concordance with Kharvel's Second Law.

If one is going to accept the words of certain people labeled as insane, one must accept the words of ALL people labeled as insane.

For example, if one is going to worship Jesus, one should also worship any gentle certified schizophrenic who claims to be speaking to God and have "visions" and other characteristics often associated with Jesus.

What does the 2nd law say about science? Since science can study mental illness it can also disprove the possibility of revelation?

[buyerandseller]

Or so the mortal men claimed. I claim to be led by The Schwartz. Do you accept that The Schwartz exists and is with me and possibly with you?

What about Ahura Mazda? Zoroastrians claim to be led by Mazda. Do you accept that Ahura Mazda exists?

What about this or that god that other people claim to be led by? Do you also believe that these gods exist as well?

sorry, I'm not going to get into a religioous discussion online. see post #41 for explanation :)

[mohater]

He didn't at all, which is why I wondered aloud for what reason he chose to qualify the scholars as being "secular".

My guess is it's a self classification by the people who made that claim.

[bonkman]

Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, is a complete moron! I met him the day before he won the Nobel Prize and we debated for about 15 minutes on whether HIV caused AIDS (he said it didn't) before some professors intervened. I left remarking it is amazing that someone so talented in his field can be oblivious to other areas of science! During his talk, he slipped in several slides of naked women throughout. He joked he did this to keep the audience's attention. It definately kept mine but offended a lot of females professors and students in the audience to the point the Dean of Science had to sent out a public apology for his talk. He even admits he was "tripping" when the idea of PCR came to him so I wouldn't be surprised to find out he is a drug user.
What do you call a med student who graduates at the top of their class?

Doctor.

What do you call a med student who graduates at the bottom of their class?

Doctor.

[kharvel]

What does the 2nd law say about science? Since science can study mental illness it can also disprove the possibility of revelation?

I don't understand your question. Can you please expand on it and provide a little more elaboration?

[burninator]

My guess is it's a self classification by the people who made that claim.
Which begs the question ;)......

[darkfrog]

darkfrog, doesn't Deut 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2010%20:1-5;&version=47;) clear up some of that confusion?
No. The phrase “ten commandments” occurs just three times in the bible. Two of these are in Deuteronomy: chapters 4 and 10 tell us that the ten commandments were written on two tablets of stone, but neither chapter says what the ten commandments actually were. The other reference to the ten commandments occurs in Exodus as I pointed out is mentioned AFTER the list is of rules.

The covenant I mentioned above is given in two places, firstly in Exodus 20 and then, slightly reworded, in Deuteronomy 5. Neither chapter refers to them as the ten commandments! The former does not give them any title, while the latter defines them as the statutes and ordinances (or ‘statutes and judgments’ in the KJV). The statutes and ordinances are not the commandments, but something distinct. This is clear from several references in the bible, among them the previously mentioned Deuteronomy chapters 4 and 10.

The number of edicts is not even ten; it is not really clear where one ends and the next begins, but in Exodus 20 there are at least fourteen and arguably more. The last one is the rather precious “neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.”

True, there is a brief interlude after verse 17. But this is due to a disturbance among the people, not due to God. When God resumes speaking, there is nothing whatever to suggest that his statements from verse 22 onwards are in any way different from, or less significant than, what he has been saying up until then. If verses 2-17 were to be part of “the N commandments”, then verses 22-26 must be as well.

The story of the ten commandments starts in Exodus chapter 19 where God arrives in a thunderstorm and Moses goes up the mountain for the first time. God tells Moses to keep the rest of the people away – Moses gets a monopoly on hearing what God has to say.

(Incidentally there is an oddity here which I can't resist mentioning, although it is not really relevant here. In chapter 19 God also gives instructions to the priests. Only at this time there weren’t any priests – Aaron is appointed as first priest in Exodus chapter 40!)

In chapter 20, God gives the list of edicts of which the first few have become popularly known as the ten commandments (and which I call the Supposed Ten Commandments). As I said above, the number is not actually clear. The words “thou shalt” or an equivalent phrase occur 19 times in the chapter. The edicts are not given a name (such as “ten commandments”) and in fact the word “ten” does not occur in the chapter.

But this is just the start of what God has to say. In chapters 21 to 23 he goes on to give an enormous list of edicts, covering everything from the seduction of virgins to stealing sheep. Chapter 21 has several rules about the keeping of slaves, which was not forbidden at all, and 21:20-21 even says it is permitted to kill a slave. Stealing a slave however is punishable by death (21:16) as is cursing ones parents (21:17).

In Chapter 24 God says he will give Moses tablets of stone “with the law and the commandment”. Then he embarks on an immensely long description of the requirements for the ark of the tabernacle and the clothes of the future priests, which fills chapters 25 to 30 inclusive.

In Chapter 31 God reiterates the importance of keeping the sabbath and says that anyone who works on a Saturday shall be put to death. To make sure the point gets across, he then says it again. And then he gives Moses the tablets of stone, the “tables of the testimony”.

In Chapter 32 Moses finally brings the tablets of stone down the mountain, written on both sides.

But what was actually on the tablets? It is not at all clear. If it is everything that God has said since Moses first went up the mountain, the tablets must be the size of houses, which makes carrying them an interesting challenge. It could be everything said from the point that God first announced he would give Moses stone tablets, but that is still chapters 25-31 – an awful lot. It seems reasonable that only part of what has been said is inscribed on the tablets, but there is no indication what that part is. Certainly there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is specifically the first 17 verses of chapter 20.

And then finally it happens: in Chapter 34 Moses cuts two new tablets of stone, goes up Mount Sinai, and God writes on them “the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” And this time we are told what they are, and they are explicitly identified as the ten commandments.

Actually they are rather curious. They consist of eight of the rules from the middle of Chapter 23, rewritten in a different order, one rule from all the way back in Chapter 13, long before the Israelites got anywhere near Mount Sinai, and one completely new rule which hasn’t been mentioned before!

Nonetheless, Exodus 34:10-26 is the one and only place in the bible where the Ten Commandments are explicitly given. I won't repeat them here.

One confusion factor is formed by Deuteronomy 5:22, which talks about “these words” (the ones normally associated with being the TC) being written on tablets of stone. This clearly conflicts with Exodus 34. Either Deuteronomy is in error, or it refers to yet another set of tablets, not mentioned in Exodus. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that Exodus 34 contains the only set of edicts labeled as the “ten commandments”.

The NT muddies the waters further. Misreading and misquoting the Tanak is not rare in the New. For example Mark 1:2-3 quotes a passage supposedly from Isaiah which does not actually occur there. Similarly Matthew 27:9 refers to a non-existent passage from Jeremiah, (something similar is in Zechariah and is probably what Matthew had in mind), while Matthew 2:23 and John 17:12 refer to supposed scriptural passages which do not exist anywhere in the Tanak

It seems to be in this spirit that Mark 10:19 quotes Jesus as saying: “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.” This summarizes five of the edicts from Exodus 20, calling them commandments, and adds one – “defraud not” – which does not come from Exodus at all. Luke (18:20) ‘corrects’ this by dropping “defraud not”. Matthew (19:18) also drops “defraud not”, but instead adds “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, which also does not occur in Exodus.

It seems somewhat appropriate that the run-up to this – in Matthew, anyway – has: “ ‘if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments’. He saith unto him, ‘Which?’ ” A very good question.

Note also that Matthew 22 talks with great emphasis of the two commandments, neither of which comes from Exodus.

All in all, it seems that some people have put two and five together, and made ten. Nowhere does the NT mention, or list, ten commandments.

Here's a link that tries to explain some of this but I don't think it is as in depth as it could be http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

You also have to ask yourself, was it Mt. Sinai or Mt. Horeb? From Wikipedia:
Horeb, is the mountain at which the book of Deuteronomy in the Hebrew Bible states that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God. It is described in two places (Exodus 3:1, 1 Kings 19:8) as הַר הָאֱלֹהִים, the Mountain of God or perhaps Mountain of the gods.

In other biblical passages these events are described as having transpired at Mount Sinai, but though Sinai and Horeb are often considered to have been different names for the same place, there is a body of opinion that they were different locations,[1]. In any case there is no direct evidence that they were identical. Passages earlier in the narrative text than the Israelite encounter with Horeb indicate that the ground of the mountain was considered holy (Exodus 3:5).

[Doctor_Wu]

I don't understand your question. Can you please expand on it and provide a little more elaboration?

Revelation is the idea that man can have truths revealed to him by a god.

The possibility of revelation cannot be disproved by science.

In an attempt to square science with the idea of divinity you have placed these allegedly divine men in categories of mental illness. This is the best science can do with this subject. Science can put the founders of religion in categories... but it cannot disprove the possibility of divinity.

Hearing voices must = insane. Hearing the voice of a "god"... must be impossible?

Yet... that cannot be proven. Are we still scientists?

[mammothwoolly]

Are we still scientists? No, but I play one on TV.


But in all seriousness, this thread has given me more laughs then I have experienced in a long time. All in 67 posts! Kharvel negating his own rules, Darkfrog arguing for a different set of ten commandments, Jesus as a meglomaniac, Dr Wu correctly pointing out the inadequacies of scientific research into religion (again, but no one seems to respond to him), Buyerandseller whipping out the sarcasm, which Mohater misinterprets....

This thread has it all.



Oh, and neither Jesus nor Moses nor Mohammad were meglomaniacs. Although I must say that my understanding of Buddhism suggests that Siddhartha Gautama may have been depressed or perhaps suffered from the self-hatred associated with modern Americans.

[awer25]

I highly doubt that it was "given" to anybody by a god. It is far more logical and reasonable that the Old Testament was written by mere mortals based on THEIR interpretation of the events that may or may not happened in reality.

If you would like to argue this point further, I would ask you to consider the following logic:

Religion A claims that their bible was given by their god.

Religion B claims that their bible was given by their god.

Religion C claims that their bible was given by their god.

Ad infinitum.


Personally, I don't care to debate this online because it takes way too much time (I realize the irony in that statement after I wrote all of this...), but I have to comment on your "logic".

Person A claims that 2+2=3

Person B claims that 2+2=4

Person C claims that 2+2=5

Using your logic, we should say that none of these people can be right. You could even add to your original list "Group D claims that there is no God". I think we could all agree that there is an actual truth out there (whatever it may be), so as long as we are all making claims, what gives one group the right to step outside "the list" and judge the others that remain?

I'm not here to make claims over who is right or wrong, but just to state that I feel you are making too strong a claim based on too many assumptions. Your claim that "it is far more logical and reasonable that the Old Testament was written by mere mortals" should state something like "it seems to me that the Old Testament was written by mere mortals". You cannot claim that it is "far more logical and reasonable" without a basic understanding of what it says (please don't take that statement as a personal attack for that is not my purpose). For example, if you don't understand the differences between דבר, אמר, צו or םחא (all translate to English as "said" but are completely different), you are going to miss the idea the text is trying to convey.

My only point is just that without a basic understanding of the text (and in most cases, English translations unfortunately don't cut it), you shouldn't make such strong claims that it is illogical or unreasonable.

I'm stating that because of the very strong association between Moses and the 10 commandments, it is more than likely that Moses wrote those commandments himself. I am further asserting, as per my earlier commentary, that whatever he wrote came out of his own mind, whether it was hallucinogen-induced or not. It was convenient for him to claim it came from a god as such a claim would engender wide acceptance of his commandments by the general population. If Moses was already considered a great religious figure by his people, then his claim would have been accepted with little question and thus, the history of Judaism was written accordingly.

Here, I need to point out that the 10 Commandments were not the only connection between the Jews, Moses and God. If so, it would be relatively easy to state that it's possible that Moses just wrote them down and told the people that God spoke to him. However, from the time that the Jews left Egypt, there were numerous miracles that occurred (according to the text of course), including God speaking to them as a whole. If the Jews did in fact leave Egypt with around 3 million people (the most widely held number), this is a large number to fool. Part of what is written in the Old Testament was an account of what happened, not just laws to follow. How do you fool 3 million people into believing that they just heard God when they didn't, or that the sea split when it didn't, or that they followed into the desert a pillar of smoke during the day and a pillar of fire at night if they didn't.

As for the main Old Testaement text itself (as well as the Torah), secular scholars have agreed that they were written by the disciples and it is doubtful that both were written by Moses itself. As such, those text can be contaminated by the thought processes of the disciples and it does not tell us how Moses was like in reality.


As far as I know the Old Testament and the Torah are one in the same. If you want to claim that it was introduced to the Jewish people sometime between the exodus from Egypt and approximately 300 years later, you run into other problems (see link to "Part Two" below). I used the "300 year later" date because by this time the Jews were settled in Israel, had a government and a supreme court, and we have many texts from this time period that make reference the Old Testament.

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything one way or another. I just want to state that certain things are not necessarily "far more logical and reasonable", especially as there are many proofs, all based on strong logic and reason, that the Old Testament is authentic. For example, Dr. Gottleib, Ph.D, a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins, has a four-part lecture on it's authenticity that is amazing. If you want to look at this from a logical perspective, I urge you to listen (Part One (http://audio.simpletoremember.com/gottlieb/HistoricalverificationoftheTorah-StandardsProphecy1.mp3), Part Two (http://audio.simpletoremember.com/gottlieb/HistoricalverificationoftheTorah-SinaiMiracles2.mp3), Part Three (http://audio.simpletoremember.com/gottlieb/HistoricalverificationoftheTorah-JewishSurvival3.mp3), Part Four (http://audio.simpletoremember.com/gottlieb/HistoricalverificationoftheTorah-Higherqualitylife4.mp3))

[buyerandseller]

That is a very VALID question and is in concordance with Kharvel's Second Law.

If one is going to accept the words of certain people labeled as insane, one must accept the words of ALL people labeled as insane.

For example, if one is going to worship Jesus, one should also worship any gentle certified schizophrenic who claims to be speaking to God and have "visions" and other characteristics often associated with Jesus.

Agreed, homosexuals should also have no problem with 40 year old men wanting to have sex with 5 year old boys, siblings having sex with one another, or people having sex with animals (they're animals, they always want it). In fact they should encourage that, because people should be allowed to express their sexuality anyway they want.

[darkfrog]

As far as I know the Old Testament and the Torah are one in the same. If you want to claim that it was introduced to the Jewish people sometime between the exodus from Egypt and approximately 300 years later, you run into other problems (see link to "Part Two" below). I used the "300 year later" date because by this time the Jews were settled in Israel, had a government and a supreme court, and we have many texts from this time period that make reference the Old Testament.

The Torah is only part of the OT. The Jewish people refer to the OT as the Tanak (I mean why would we use the term Old Testament when we deny the divinity of the NT?)
The Torah is the first 5 books, Genesis through Deuteronomy, often referred to as the Five Books of Moses since those are the ones considered that he wrote.
The Tanak is actually not a real word but an acronym that is made up of the 3 sections of the OT (The original Hebrew alphabet had no vowels so TNK would still be pronounced Tanak), Torah (Books of Moses), N'vi-im (Prophets), and K'tuvim (Writings).

[awer25]

The Torah is only part of the OT. The Jewish people refer to the OT as the Tanak (I mean why would we use the term Old Testament when we deny the divinity of the NT?)
The Torah is the first 5 books, Genesis through Deuteronomy, often referred to as the Five Books of Moses since those are the ones considered that he wrote.
The Tanak is actually not a real word but an acronym that is made up of the 3 sections of the OT (The original Hebrew alphabet had no vowels so TNK would still be pronounced Tanak), Torah (Books of Moses), N'vi-im (Prophets), and K'tuvim (Writings).

You are absolutely correct, and my apologies. I don't normally use "Old Testament", so I didn't really give the term proper thought. I'm used to the terms Chumash and Nach lol.

[redmaxx]

I highly doubt that it was "given" to anybody by a god. It is far more logical and reasonable that the Old Testament was written by mere mortals based on THEIR interpretation of the events that may or may not happened in reality.

Only if you presuppose that there can't be a god. Your argument also extends to other ancient texts describing events of the time, so why do we believe them about specific events that happened then?

If you would like to argue this point further, I would ask you to consider the following logic:

Religion A claims that their bible was given by their god.

Religion B claims that their bible was given by their god.

Religion C claims that their bible was given by their god.

Ad infinitum.

In and of itself, that doesn't prove which one or any of them are not given by god.

I'm stating that because of the very strong association between Moses and the 10 commandments, it is more than likely that Moses wrote those commandments himself. I am further asserting, as per my earlier commentary, that whatever he wrote came out of his own mind, whether it was hallucinogen-induced or not. It was convenient for him to claim it came from a god as such a claim would engender wide acceptance of his commandments by the general population. If Moses was already considered a great religious figure by his people, then his claim would have been accepted with little question and thus, the history of Judaism was written accordingly.

But you have no actual basis to claim that. In this case based upon what is available (no Moses to question) you would need to actually disprove the existence of God to conclusively prove that it came from Moses himself. Anything else is...a belief. :lol:

[iamiam]

No. The phrase “ten commandments” occurs just three times in the bible. Two of these are in Deuteronomy: chapters 4 and 10 tell us that the ten commandments were written on two tablets of stone, but neither chapter says what the ten commandments actually were. The other reference to the ten commandments occurs in Exodus as I pointed out is mentioned AFTER the list is of rules.

The covenant I mentioned above is given in two places, firstly in Exodus 20 and then, slightly reworded, in Deuteronomy 5. Neither chapter refers to them as the ten commandments! The former does not give them any title, while the latter defines them as the statutes and ordinances (or ‘statutes and judgments’ in the KJV). The statutes and ordinances are not the commandments, but something distinct. This is clear from several references in the bible, among them the previously mentioned Deuteronomy chapters 4 and 10.

The number of edicts is not even ten; it is not really clear where one ends and the next begins, but in Exodus 20 there are at least fourteen and arguably more. The last one is the rather precious “neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.”

...
http://img.youtube.com/vi/fMMg-L7Lqu4/2.jpg (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=167454&sdtid=788433&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DfMMg-L7Lqu4&sa=X&oi=video_result&resnum=1&ct=thumbnail&usg=AFQjCNFvHr1eGnfGL0I8Q5BbPUYfbOpcLw)YouTube - Moses Ten Commandments - Mel Brooks (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=167454&sdtid=788433&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMMg-L7Lqu4)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[redmaxx]

If one is going to accept the words of certain people labeled as insane, one must accept the words of ALL people labeled as insane.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html :lol:

[awer25]

http://img.youtube.com/vi/fMMg-L7Lqu4/2.jpg (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=167454&sdtid=788433&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DfMMg-L7Lqu4&sa=X&oi=video_result&resnum=1&ct=thumbnail&usg=AFQjCNFvHr1eGnfGL0I8Q5BbPUYfbOpcLw)YouTube - Moses Ten Commandments - Mel Brooks (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=167454&sdtid=788433&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMMg-L7Lqu4)

:lol: :lol: :lol:


FINALLY THE TRUTH! :rofl2:

[kharvel]

Revelation is the idea that man can have truths revealed to him by a god.

The possibility of revelation cannot be disproved by science.

In an attempt to square science with the idea of divinity you have placed these allegedly divine men in categories of mental illness. This is the best science can do with this subject. Science can put the founders of religion in categories... but it cannot disprove the possibility of divinity. Hearing voices must = insane. Hearing the voice of a "god"... must be impossible?

OK, I think I understand your question. I have several approaches to tackle your question and I'll use them all here.

First of all, by definition, revelations do not exist in a vacuum. Their existence are defined by the existence of a god(s). Science has tried in vain to identify supernatural phenomena caused by an artificial entity. If the existence of a god (ANY god, demon, ghost, zombie, vampire, werewolf, devil, etc.) can be proven TODAY, then the existence of revelations is proven by default. I'm sure there are many arguments and hearsay evidence showing that this or that god exists but that's another topic in itself.

But here is a more powerful argument. The more fundamental reason that science is skeptical about the claim of the existence of revelations and gods is that there are so many claims about so many gods in the first place. But what really drives the skepticism is the fact that each claimant disputes the claims of others. For example, the followers of Mohammed claim that only their god exists while the followers of Zarushtra claims that only Ahura Mazda is the true god. In other words, the followers of certain revelations by certain persons themselves attempt to deny validity of the revelations by other persons. The followers of Jesus will themselves deny the revelations of David Koresh or Joe Schmoe in Mental Ward #120 and vice versa.

How does one avoid this Tower of Babel of revelations? Either one must accept all claims about gods (and thus all revelations) or one must accept none. If one were to accept the revelations of Jesus, one must also accept the revelations of Joe Schmoe in Mental Ward #120.

Science has chosen to take the latter approach to Kharvel's Second Law, namely that "Hearing voices must = insane. Hearing the voice of a "god"... must be impossible?"

If one does not find the denial of revelations and gods to be logical and reasonable, then one is faced with the rather disturbing prospect of accepting that all revelations must be true (unless there is a way verify such revelations). If those revelations are accepted as true then one must also accept that the gods associated with such revelations must also exist. Ahura Mazda exists. The Schwartz exists. Allah exists. Yaweh exists. Morgan Freeman exists. Krishna exists. The Great Spirit exits. And so on and so forth.

One must deny ALL or one must accept ALL.

[kharvel]

Oh neither Jesus nor Moses nor Mohammad were meglomaniacs.

Did you know them very well in person?

[redmaxx]

How does one avoid this Tower of Babel of revelations? Either one must accept all claims about gods (and thus all revelations) or one must accept none. If one were to accept the revelations of Jesus, one must also accept the revelations of Joe Schmoe in Mental Ward #120.

Your silly laws are blinding you to the obvious logical fallacy you are committing here. :crazy:

[kharvel]

so as long as we are all making claims, what gives one group the right to step outside "the list" and judge the others that remain?

Because the others are also stepping outside "the list" and judging others. So why not engage in this timeless ritual?

Your claim that "it is far more logical and reasonable that the Old Testament was written by mere mortals" should state something like "it seems to me that the Old Testament was written by mere mortals". You cannot claim that it is "far more logical and reasonable" without a basic understanding of what it says (please don't take that statement as a personal attack for that is not my purpose). For example, if you don't understand the differences between דבר, אמר, צו or םחא (all translate to English as "said" but are completely different), you are going to miss the idea the text is trying to convey.

But if the topic is about who wrote the text itself, does it matter what idea the text is attempting to convey?

My only point is just that without a basic understanding of the text (and in most cases, English translations unfortunately don't cut it), you shouldn't make such strong claims that it is illogical or unreasonable.

I'm not saying the contents of the text is illogical or unreasonable. I am merely stating that it is logical and reasonable that the text was written by human hands.

Part of what is written in the Old Testament was an account of what happened, not just laws to follow. How do you fool 3 million people into believing that they just heard God when they didn't, or that the sea split when it didn't, or that they followed into the desert a pillar of smoke during the day and a pillar of fire at night if they didn't.

The account was written and originated by a single person, correct? Joe Schmoe in Ward #120 wrote in the "Book of The Schwartz" that 1 billion people in this world witnessed the force of The Schwartz as it emptied the Mediterranean. Does it mean that 1 billion people actually saw The Schwartz empty the Mediterranean?

there are many proofs, all based on strong logic and reason, that the Old Testament is authentic. For example, Dr. Gottleib, Ph.D, a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins, has a four-part lecture on it's authenticity that is amazing.

I never claimed that the Old Testament was not authentic. I simply claimed that it is logical and reasonable that the Old Testament was written by humans for human consumption, in the same way that "The Book of The Schwartz" was written by a human hand.

[kharvel]

Your silly laws are blinding you to the obvious logical fallacy you are committing here. :crazy:

And what logical fallacy is that?

[redmaxx]

And what logical fallacy is that?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

[kharvel]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

Do us all a favor and demonstrate why the fallacy is applicable to the following logic:

1) Jesus had a revelation. His revelation is accepted as true.

2) Joe Schmoe in Mental Ward #12 had a revelation. His revelation MUST be accepted as true because of #1.

Note the following: Joe Schmoe has a beard and wears a robe and speaks in "tongues".

[Jhaan]

One must deny ALL or one must accept ALL.

Or what? How would you classify people who don't fit your mold -- those who neither deny all nor accept all?

[kharvel]

Or what? How would you classify people who don't fit your mold -- those who neither deny all nor accept all?

I should have made my comment a bit clearer.

If one is denying a certain revelation, one must deny ALL. If one accepts a certain revelation, one must accept ALL.

If one neither accepts nor denies, then this whole discussion is irrelevant for that person.

[redmaxx]

Do us all a favor and demonstrate why the fallacy is applicable to the following logic:

1) Jesus had a revelation. His revelation is accepted as true.

In this instance, following the composition fallacy, Jesus has characteristic A (said something that people believe to be true.)

2) Joe Schmoe in Mental Ward #12 had a revelation. His revelation MUST be accepted as true because of #1.

You assume that Jesus is of the same mental class as Joe Schmoe and thus, the whole class must have characteristic A. The compositional fallacy is complete.

There is no required demonstration for false dilemma, you simply don't have to believe in what Joe Schmoe says just because kharvel says you do. By your logic, if I believe in scientists, I must believe in everything all scientists say, which is patently absurd, considering that sometimes scientists come up with conflicting things (see the cell phone cancer debate for starters).

[Jhaan]

If one neither accepts nor denies, then this whole discussion is irrelevant for that person.

So, in your best estimate, how many people fall into this category?

[kharvel]

In this instance, following the composition fallacy, Jesus has characteristic A (said something that SOME people believe to be true.)

Your quote was corrected in bold italic.

You assume that Jesus is of the same mental class as Joe Schmoe and thus, the whole class must have characteristic A. The compositional fallacy is complete.

The problem is that I am assuming the other side which is that Joe Schmoe is of the same mental class as Jesus.

There is no compositional fallacy as long as 1) SOME people believe Joe Schmoe AND 2) Joe Schmoe is of the same mental class as Jesus.

There is no required demonstration for false dilemma, you simply don't have to believe in what Joe Schmoe says just because kharvel says you do.

However, if Joe Schmoe is of the same mental class as Jesus, then the dilemma is why one should believe in what Jesus said and not also in what Joe Schmoe said. Why not treat them both equally?

By your logic, if I believe in scientists, I must believe in everything all scientists say, which is patently absurd, considering that sometimes scientists come up with conflicting things (see the cell phone cancer debate for starters).

So if you believe in a religion, do you agree that it is patently absurd to believe in everything the religion says?

[Doctor_Wu]

OK, I think I understand your question. I have several approaches to tackle your question and I'll use them all here.

First of all, by definition, revelations do not exist in a vacuum. Their existence are defined by the existence of a god(s). Science has tried in vain to identify supernatural phenomena caused by an artificial entity. If the existence of a god (ANY god, demon, ghost, zombie, vampire, werewolf, devil, etc.) can be proven TODAY, then the existence of revelations is proven by default. I'm sure there are many arguments and hearsay evidence showing that this or that god exists but that's another topic in itself.


Even your choice of terminology conceals a faith in the ability of science. Science is going to test a "supernatural" phenomena? For one, the word 'supernatural' means something is outside of nature... that implies that we know the limits of nature, which we do not.

Could science even test something that is outside of nature?



But here is a more powerful argument. The more fundamental reason that science is skeptical about the claim of the existence of revelations and gods is that there are so many claims about so many gods in the first place.But what really drives the skepticism is the fact that each claimant disputes the claims of others. For example, the followers of Mohammed claim that only their god exists while the followers of Zarushtra claims that only Ahura Mazda is the true god. In other words, the followers of certain revelations by certain persons themselves attempt to deny validity of the revelations by other persons. The followers of Jesus will themselves deny the revelations of David Koresh or Joe Schmoe in Mental Ward #120 and vice versa.

Science is skeptical about everything. Which is fine, that's what makes it so good at what it does.

But revelations, if they exist... come along with extreme infrequency... like only a few people in thousands of years. Testing such things is pretty hard. The fact that "god" selects a chosen one to reveal the truth to ... that seems to be an endorsement of the idea that if he exists, god will hide firsthand knowledge of himself from "the many".

The rest of what you are saying about accepting or denying all claims to divine revelation is not logical. The fact of the matter is that it is possible that there is one true god, and that one true god could indeed reveal himself to man via a prophet, or even a succession of prophets if need be... and at the same time there can still be false claims of divinity.

The idea that the truth of divine revelation stands or falls based on the existence of the false prophet is not logical.

There is also the possibility that more than religion one contains truth, and there still be false religions. It's possible that "being" reveals itself to man in a variety of ways in order to appeal to the different cultures, or different personalities.

[kharvel]

Even your choice of terminology conceals a faith in the ability of science. Science is going to test a "supernatural" phenomena? For one, the word 'supernatural' means something is outside of nature... that implies that we know the limits of nature, which we do not.

Could science even test something that is outside of nature?

There is no need to test anything. When I said "supernatural phenomena caused by an artificial entity", I was referring to phenomena that cannot be attributed to nature and that is obviously artificial. The parting of a massive body of seawater in calm and sunny weather for a certain period of time to reveal a specific path along the seafloor for a specific group of people is a bona fide supernatural phenomena that needs no testing. The artificial entity (a god) needs to invite CNN, Al-Jazeera, Fox, NBC, ABC, BBC, CCTV, and other major news network to the shores of the massive body of seawater and execute the phenomena to prove its existence.

But revelations, if they exist... come along with extreme infrequency... like only a few people in thousands of years.

I can also argue that revelations, if they exist, come along with extreme frequency, like only thousands of people in hundreds of years. This point has the same validity as your point.

The fact that "god" selects a chosen one to reveal the truth to ... that seems to be an endorsement of the idea that if he exists, god will hide firsthand knowledge of himself from "the many".

And the purpose of such concealment is. . . .? Surely, if a god wants to be loved by billions (through the major news networks and major blogs), he/she/it will reveal himself/herself/itself to billions instead of doing it through complicated ways like selecting a "chosen" one and telling him/her to spread the religion whether through force or through persuasion.

This reminds me of a gesture that is often made about folks who like to do it complicated instead of simple. A person who does it simple takes a piece of apple in one hand and puts it straight in his mouth. A person who likes it complicated takes the apple in one hand, wraps the arm around behind one's head then attempts to put the apple in the mouth.

Given all these complexities, it is much easier to just conclude that gods don't exist and religion is the invention of a schizophrenic mind.

The rest of what you are saying about accepting or denying all claims to divine revelation is not logical. The fact of the matter is that it is possible that there is one true god, and that one true god could indeed reveal himself to man via a prophet, or even a succession of prophets if need be... and at the same time there can still be false claims of divinity.

There is also an equal possibility that there are many gods and that many gods have revealed themselves to many men and that there are no false claims of divinity.

There is another equal possibility that there are no gods and that the men who claimed to have "spoken" to gods are charlatans, schizophrenics, or megalomaniacs.

The fourth equal possibility is there is some gods and they have spoken to some men in reality and there are some men who claimed to have "spoken" to gods but did not in reality.

So we have 4 equal possibilities. Choose the one that seems the most logical and reasonable given the evidence we have at hand (note that religious texts have been accepted to have been written by human hands).

[Doctor_Wu]

And the purpose of such concealment is. . . .? Surely, if a god wants to be loved by billions (through the major news networks and major blogs), he/she/it will reveal himself/herself/itself to billions instead of doing it through complicated ways like selecting a "chosen" one and telling him/her to spread the religion whether through force or through persuasion.


One of the realms to which we are not privy is the mind of god. Now, it may very well be that human beings are creatures intended to have choice and free will... and a god might have us demonstrate our fidelity to him via free choice. Were god to make his presence known we could not make a free choice. It would be like speeding when there's a cop in the lane next to you. You'd never do it.

It may be that the choice to obey is one that must be freely made in order to have meaning.


Given all these complexities, it is much easier to just conclude that gods don't exist and religion is the invention of a schizophrenic mind.


It may be easier to conclude that for you personally, but that conclusion does not involve any kind of logical proof for the absence of god. Nor is it in any way scientific.


There is also an equal possibility that there are many gods and that many gods have revealed themselves to many men and that there are no false claims of divinity.

There is another equal possibility that there are no gods and that the men who claimed to have "spoken" to gods are charlatans, schizophrenics, or megalomaniacs.

The fourth equal possibility is there is some gods and they have spoken to some men in reality and there are some men who claimed to have "spoken" to gods but did not in reality.

So we have 4 equal possibilities. Choose the one that seems the most logical and reasonable given the evidence we have at hand (note that religious texts have been accepted to have been written by human hands).

This is where we must abandon logic. If we are reasonable we recognize that our choice can only be made via a guess. We assume.

Positivists are in the habit of willfully ignoring our ignorance.

[darkfrog]

There is also an equal possibility that there are many gods and that many gods have revealed themselves to many men and that there are no false claims of divinity.

There is another equal possibility that there are no gods and that the men who claimed to have "spoken" to gods are charlatans, schizophrenics, or megalomaniacs.

The fourth equal possibility is there is some gods and they have spoken to some men in reality and there are some men who claimed to have "spoken" to gods but did not in reality.

So we have 4 equal possibilities. Choose the one that seems the most logical and reasonable given the evidence we have at hand (note that religious texts have been accepted to have been written by human hands).
I find it interesting that modern day prophets are generally believed to be charlatans or mentally ill, Sun Myung Moon, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith (with apologies to mormons here, many people find a lot of problems with him and his story), Charles Taze Russell (same apology to our JW friends here) yet prophets that haven't been around for a much longer time are more widely accepted as genuine. Often the material we have on those others are biographical sometimes many years after their death and we have no firsthand accounts or material written by them. So all we have is hearsay and possible hyperbole. Why do we so easily dismiss contemporary prophets as cult leaders so easily when much of what they say or do are not dissimilar to Muhammad, Moses or Jesus?

[Jhaan]

Well, Darkfrog, in Christianity, there have been false prophets all throughout its history. Read the summaries (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm)of Irenaeus's Against the Heresies. That's been going on for thousands of years. I can't think of anything specific, but aren't there plenty of warnings against false prophets in the OT, too?

There's also a large difference between a theological difference (like between Luther and Calvin) and major theological heresy. Once someone begins to shift the focus off the God of the Bible, then you get into cult-range. It gets real obvious when folks start claiming to BE God, yet live and teach opposite to scripture.

[Demosthenes9]

I find it interesting that modern day prophets are generally believed to be charlatans or mentally ill, Sun Myung Moon, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith (with apologies to mormons here, many people find a lot of problems with him and his story), Charles Taze Russell (same apology to our JW friends here) yet prophets that haven't been around for a much longer time are more widely accepted as genuine. Often the material we have on those others are biographical sometimes many years after their death and we have no firsthand accounts or material written by them. So all we have is hearsay and possible hyperbole. Why do we so easily dismiss contemporary prophets as cult leaders so easily when much of what they say or do are not dissimilar to Muhammad, Moses or Jesus?


I would say that the day inmate #47 from the local looney bin manages to turn water into wine, walk on water or rise from the dead, then we should give him or her the benefit of the doubt.

:)

[darkfrog]

I would say that the day inmate #47 from the local looney bin manages to turn water into wine, walk on water or rise from the dead, then we should give him or her the benefit of the doubt.

:)
As I said, those are all hearsay. You were not there. The gospel authors were not there.

Well, Darkfrog, in Christianity, there have been false prophets all throughout its history. Read the summaries (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm)of Irenaeus's Against the Heresies. That's been going on for thousands of years. I can't think of anything specific, but aren't there plenty of warnings against false prophets in the OT, too?

There's also a large difference between a theological difference (like between Luther and Calvin) and major theological heresy. Once someone begins to shift the focus off the God of the Bible, then you get into cult-range. It gets real obvious when folks start claiming to BE God, yet live and teach opposite to scripture.

But why is Christianity accepted on testimony of people that weren't even witnesses to the events of the NT?

[Jhaan]

But why is Christianity accepted on testimony of people that weren't even witnesses to the events of the NT?

Well, I tend to believe that some were witnesses to the events. Specifically, the Resurrection. I also believe Paul's conversion actually happened the way Luke said it did, and that his many letters were preserved through history to today.

[darkfrog]

Well, I tend to believe that some were witnesses to the events. Specifically, the Resurrection. I also believe Paul's conversion actually happened the way Luke said it did, and that his many letters were preserved through history to today.I'm sorry but which gospel writers do you believe were witnesses? How reliable is the witnesses story 50-80 years later when it was finally written down?

[Jhaan]

I'm sorry but which gospel writers do you believe were witnesses? How reliable is the witnesses story 50-80 years later when it was finally written down?

John and Matthew. Luke obviously wasn't, and Mark hung out with Paul (before splitting to start the church at Alexandria - a church that has records of every leader to him).

I read a book recently that highlighted some of the key words used in the gospels as memory triggers for the oral tradition. "Verily, verily, I say to you" is one of them that I can recall.

But I have to laugh a little about arguing over the oral tradition with a Jew. :)

[darkfrog]

John and Matthew. Luke obviously wasn't, and Mark hung out with Paul (before splitting to start the church at Alexandria - a church that has records of every leader to him).

I read a book recently that highlighted some of the key words used in the gospels as memory triggers for the oral tradition. "Verily, verily, I say to you" is one of them that I can recall.

But I have to laugh a little about arguing over the oral tradition with a Jew. :)

:lol: :lol:
Remember, I'm Jewish but I do not believe in biblical inerrancy let alone authorship.

[JackHandey]

If god is this omnipotent and ubiquitous thing, is complete in and of itself... Then why must this entity create, psychologically toy with, and demand adoration from what must be comparable to insect like intelligence to us?

Either god is imperfect, and has psychological issues (god got lonely, and is like a clingy and posessive ex GF that will punish us in spite, if we don't adore it for all eternity), all the religious texts are full of crap (fraud) and god is not actually like that or we have simply misunderstood god for millenia and got it all wrong (error).

I just can't wrap myself around the idea that something all that powerful being all that interested in us. I certainly do not care if an ant loves or hates me. If I could get enough of them to do my bidding, I might find them useful and be grateful. However, I make no claims to perfection, and acknowledge that my motivations both for finding pleasure in the control and glee at watching it brought to fruition would be entirely selfish in this hypothetical example.

Then there are the questions, "If god is all that powerful, and all that benevolent, why are we abandoned, and why is the world the way it is today"? It would seem to be self evident that god is either a slacker or a sadist. We either ceased to be entertaining enough to keep gods interest, or god has learned to enjoy being a voyeur to our suffering.

I think this would point to those that feel the rapture are simply less than sane to begin with. I also think that the absence of science back when most of these religions were founded made them easier to accept. They have only continued to exist through a perpetual series of indoctinations that start when one has an impressionable mind or when one has screwed up their own life sufficiently that they turn to religion, because they have nothing to lose by it.

I don't think religion is entirely useless, as a whole. I just think society needs something to replace it, and our consternation as a species is a transition from superstition to a pragmatic reason to behave and not screw everything up. Religion was the original source of explainations for what occurs in the world around us. It also told us how to treat each other properly.

However, religion has a few flaws. It is a political tool, as well as a pseudo educational one. When something becomes a political tool by man, it becomes corrupted, inevitably.

Where religion went wrong, was its desire for forced expansion by conquering one's neighbors and expecting them to submit to the god(s) of the invading nation. Not such a big deal when we had a lot of empty space on the globe, minimal transportation and only spears, arrows and swords. Considering that the world is a lot more crowded and there is only 15 minutes from confirmation to impact, we need another reason to not act like savages.

[Jhaan]

:lol: :lol:
Remember, I'm Jewish but I do not believe in biblical inerrancy let alone authorship.

Oh yeah, we definitely know where our lines in the sand are. But, I got a little chuckle out of it. :lol:

If god is this omnipotent and ubiquitous thing, is complete in and of itself... Then why must this entity create, psychologically toy with, and demand adoration from what must be comparable to insect like intelligence to us?


Jack,

Didn't you just confine God to your "insect-like intelligence" and then center the universe around it?

Read your paragraph again, emphasizing the "I"s and "me"s in it...


I just can't wrap myself around the idea that something all that powerful being all that interested in us. I certainly do not care if an ant loves or hates me. If I could get enough of them to do my bidding, I might find them useful and be grateful. However, I make no claims to perfection, and acknowledge that my motivations both for finding pleasure in the control and glee at watching it brought to fruition would be entirely selfish in this hypothetical example.

[Parafly9]

This is an interesting read. Been waiting for a good philosophical thread for a while. All this Hillary vs Obama vs McCain stuff is drainin' on me :D

[Doctor_Wu]

I don't think religion is entirely useless, as a whole. I just think society needs something to replace it, and our consternation as a species is a transition from superstition to a pragmatic reason to behave and not screw everything up. Religion was the original source of explanations for what occurs in the world around us. It also told us how to treat each other properly.

However, religion has a few flaws. It is a political tool, as well as a pseudo educational one. When something becomes a political tool by man, it becomes corrupted, inevitably.


The 'thing' that we replace religion with will also have flaws... probably will become a political tool, or a pseudo educational one. But don't worry... we're already replacing religion with Prozac.

One wonders if that thing that we find to replace religion will itself be a conquering force?



I think this would point to those that feel the rapture are simply less than sane to begin with. I also think that the absence of science back when most of these religions were founded made them easier to accept. They have only continued to exist through a perpetual series of indoctinations that start when one has an impressionable mind or when one has screwed up their own life sufficiently that they turn to religion, because they have nothing to lose by it.

There's another layer that you neglect to mention. There's a pretty heavy intellectual body of work there in the bible... and there are more than a few examples of hella genius people converting later in life.

You paint this, as many do, as being flat... something that attracts rubes or desperate people. Yet a sincere engagement with religious texts is often found to be very rewarding and offers a great deal of insight into the human condition.

[mohater]

Half the analogies about "IF God was" this or that, assume God operates in a medium that can be understood by humans. To do that takes away from God singular uniqueness.

God is the creator of all things, good and bad. When bad happens, it isn't because "God has forsaken someone", I can stab myself, why doesn't God prevent me from doing that?

It's not that God isn't "interested" in us. In Candide, when they reach the whirling dervish and ask about God and how he allows bad to happen, the Dervish's response is "What does the captain of a ship care about the rats below" and slams the door shut. Who knows what is free will, fate, etc - there's no way to KNOW what is what. You can put all the right efforts, and never succeed in life. That's a reality. You can't say "God has forsaken me" - there's no way to show that.

You examples don't follow.

[kharvel]

Half the analogies about "IF God was" this or that, assume God operates in a medium that can be understood by humans. To do that takes away from God singular uniqueness.

God is the creator of all things, good and bad. When bad happens, it isn't because "God has forsaken someone", I can stab myself, why doesn't God prevent me from doing that?

It's not that God isn't "interested" in us. In Candide, when they reach the whirling dervish and ask about God and how he allows bad to happen, the Dervish's response is "What does the captain of a ship care about the rats below" and slams the door shut. Who knows what is free will, fate, etc - there's no way to KNOW what is what. You can put all the right efforts, and never succeed in life. That's a reality. You can't say "God has forsaken me" - there's no way to show that.

You examples don't follow.

There is an equal possibility that there are many gods, not just a single one. For example, the god of Christ, the god of Islam, the god of Jews, the gods of Hindus, the god of Zarushtra, the gods of the Sumerians, the god of the Assyrians, the gods of thousands of different ethnic groups since the beginning of human history, they all exist.

[mohater]

There is an equal possibility that there are many gods, not just a single one. For example, the god of Christ, the god of Islam, the god of Jews, the gods of Hindus, the god of Zarushtra, the gods of the Sumerians, the god of the Assyrians, the gods of thousands of different ethnic groups since the beginning of human history, they all exist.

You're bringing in stats to a place where it has no bearing. There's no "God" measurement, or way to quantify the number of Gods.

The idea behind multiple Gods (from a human understanding) would be like the Greek Mythologies, where they would argue and fight over certain things. If that was the case, the world would be in ruins due to constant conflict on "who" reigns supreme.

Your logic is one of the mains reasons Rome fell. They fell apart internally because everything became acceptable, the norms of society were destroyed, and the society collapsed.

[Parafly9]

The point is, you will never know, because it outside of yours (and mine, and everyone elses) ability to know. It's like trying to do 1000 pullups if you are a 300 pound guy who has never done one in your life. You can't do it.

[kharvel]

One of the realms to which we are not privy is the mind of god. Now, it may very well be that human beings are creatures intended to have choice and free will... and a god might have us demonstrate our fidelity to him via free choice. Were god to make his presence known we could not make a free choice. It would be like speeding when there's a cop in the lane next to you. You'd never do it.

It may be that the choice to obey is one that must be freely made in order to have meaning.

This is a very logical response to my commentary. I applaud you for demonstrating persuasive logic.

Nevertheless, your logic is based on several inconsistencies. Even when the Jewish god commanded the Jews to follow him or else (he actually admitted to being a jealous god!), there existed millions of other human beings that believed in other gods. Why is it that this jealous god revealed himself to a certain ethnic group just once in human history but not to other ethnic groups? You mention that the god may have revealed himself under different guises to different ethnic groups but then it begs the question: wouldn't such inconsitencies lead to warfare and religious genocide, in the name of god? It would be a stretch to assume that the god wanted to test humanity by going under different guises to different folks. And what about the multiple gods of the Romans, Greeks, Hindus, Sumerians, etc.?

Those questions makes me think that the existence of a god is more likely the product of a creative human mind.

It may be easier to conclude that for you personally, but that conclusion does not involve any kind of logical proof for the absence of god. Nor is it in any way scientific.

The logical proof lies in the contradictions and inconsistencies in the actions/"words" of the gods. Contradictions and inconsistencies are the realm of the human mind, not the mind of a "god".

This is where we must abandon logic. If we are reasonable we recognize that our choice can only be made via a guess. We assume.

Positivists are in the habit of willfully ignoring our ignorance.

Abandonment of logic is the abandonment of free will. Logic is a product of free will and reasoned thinking. And free will, combined with reasoned thinking, is exactly what allows us to navigate our ignorance about certain things.

When faced with 4 equal possibilities, logic allows us to choose the possibility that makes the most sense to us, based on our individual experiences. I am not a positivist in the sense that I recognize that other people's experiences and knowledge may produce logic that would lead them to choose one of the other four possibilities.

Hence, the purpose of this thread itself (and The Podium) is to showcase the logic that led me to choose one of the 4 possibilities and to engage in discussions with other folks, such as yourself, who may use different logic to choose a different possibility.

[kharvel]

The idea behind multiple Gods (from a human understanding) would be like the Greek Mythologies, where they would argue and fight over certain things. If that was the case, the world would be in ruins due to constant conflict on "who" reigns supreme.

A more reasonable and logical interpretation is that the idea behind multiple gods is to attribute certain acts of nature and certain functions of human society to gods. There is Poseidon for the ocean, Hades for hell, Mars for warfare, Aphrodite for sexual prowess, etc.

Your logic is one of the mains reasons Rome fell. They fell apart internally because everything became acceptable, the norms of society were destroyed, and the society collapsed.

I thought Rome fell because of lead in the water.

[redmaxx]

Your quote was corrected in bold italic.

OK... It still means the same thing. :confused:

The problem is that I am assuming the other side which is that Joe Schmoe is of the same mental class as Jesus.

Either way, it doesn't matter. You are saying they are both of the class of mentally ill people.

There is no compositional fallacy as long as 1) SOME people believe Joe Schmoe AND 2) Joe Schmoe is of the same mental class as Jesus.

:shake: It doesn't work that way. I misdefined characteristic A, it should be: Says unprovable things that are true (whether or not you can prove them is irrelevant, let's say that some things he says actually are true). Let's say Jesus has characteristic A. That doesn't mean that Joe Schmoe has characteristic A, just because you put them in the same class, regardless of who believes Jesus or Joe Schmoe.

However, if Joe Schmoe is of the same mental class as Jesus, then the dilemma is why one should believe in what Jesus said and not also in what Joe Schmoe said. Why not treat them both equally?

That's why it's called a belief. :nod:

So if you believe in a religion, do you agree that it is patently absurd to believe in everything the religion says?

No, that's not an equivalent statement. :shake:

[kharvel]

Either way, it doesn't matter. You are saying they are both of the class of mentally ill people.

No, I am saying that Joe Schmoe is in the same class as Jesus.

If you define Jesus's class as a holy figure that speaks to a god, then Joe Schmoe also has the same characteristics.

If you define Jesus as a mentally ill person, then Joe Schmoe has the same characteristics.

This follows Kharvel's Second Law. It is up to you to determine whether Jesus was or was not a mentally ill person and apply the same logic to Joe Schmoe.

Personally, I think Jesus was mentally ill but if you don't think so then Joe Schmoe is not mentally ill either, at least for you.

I misdefined characteristic A, it should be: Says unprovable things that are true (whether or not you can prove them is irrelevant, let's say that some things he says actually are true). Let's say Jesus has characteristic A. That doesn't mean that Joe Schmoe has characteristic A, just because you put them in the same class, regardless of who believes Jesus or Joe Schmoe. That's why it's called a belief. :nod:


How do you know that Joe Schmoe does not have characteristic A? Because of belief.

This is the crux of the argument. You think the goose is true (Jesus) but the gander (Joe Schmoe) is not, even though you have no proof that the gander is not true.

Therefore, it all boils down to personal belief. Based on your own free will and reasoned thinking, you accept the possibility that Jesus is true but not Joe Schmoe even though you don't really know for sure that Joe Schmoe wasn't actually speaking to a god.

I have attempted to provide logical argument showing why the violation of the Second Law as it pertains to Joe Schmoe is not sustainable but if you choose to dismiss this argument, that is your prerogative. That does not make the argument any less logical.

No, that's not an equivalent statement.

It is an equivalent statement if science is considered as just another religion or belief system.

[redmaxx]

That does not make the argument any less logical.

Your argument isn't logical because there isn't any such law. You pretend there is one, but there is not.

[awer25]

Nevertheless, your logic is based on several inconsistencies. Even when the Jewish god commanded the Jews to follow him or else (he actually admitted to being a jealous god!), there existed millions of other human beings that believed in other gods. Why is it that this jealous god revealed himself to a certain ethnic group just once in human history but not to other ethnic groups?

This is just a side note, but to give an answer to your question, unlike the rest of the world the Jews already had a "relationship" with God before Mt. Sinai. They were already practicing parts of Judaism in Egypt, as well as before they even entered Egypt.

[mohater]

A more reasonable and logical interpretation is that the idea behind multiple gods is to attribute certain acts of nature and certain functions of human society to gods. There is Poseidon for the ocean, Hades for hell, Mars for warfare, Aphrodite for sexual prowess, etc.





...THEN one to RULE THEM ALL. So in essence, there was ONE GOD, and others who operated under the highest being's command.

[darkfrog]

...THEN one to RULE THEM ALL. So in essence, there was ONE GOD, and others who operated under the highest being's command.
Actually, in early Canaanite religion, Yahweh was just one of many gods, He was the head amongst other lesser gods like Zeus. Many scholars believe that is why the OT often uses the plural "we" especially in Genesis.

BTW, I never noticed you were in E. Lansing before. Did you just add that to your profile or did I miss it for a long time? I grew up there. Are you at MSU?

[mohater]

Actually, in early Canaanite religion, Yahweh was just one of many gods, He was the head amongst other lesser gods like Zeus. Many scholars believe that is why the OT often uses the plural "we" especially in Genesis.


Maybe, I don't know about that. There might be more behind that (seeing how Semitic languages are much more powerful than English, there might be some meaning behind that "we" other than plural Gods)


BTW, I never noticed you were in E. Lansing before. Did you just add that to your profile or did I miss it for a long time? I grew up there. Are you at MSU?

Haha, it's been there since I signed up for SD. I finished from MSU in 04, never bothered to update my profile. I grew up in Flint, now I'm in Midland.

[kharvel]

...THEN one to RULE THEM ALL. So in essence, there was ONE GOD, and others who operated under the highest being's command.

You are contradicting yourself. It is immaterial if one god is ruling over another god. A god is a god is a god. In any case, Greek mythology has shown that quite a few gods go against the head god in more than one instance.

[burninator]

You are contradicting yourself. It is immaterial if one god is ruling over another god. A god is a god is a god. In any case, Greek mythology has shown that quite a few gods go against the head god in more than one instance.
Is it? Now we are talking personal and cultural definitions. In some people's minds, gods are supernatural beings, regardless of whatever hierarchy you might place them in. For others, God is a supreme being. How can a supreme being be placed under the dominion of another?

[mohater]

You are contradicting yourself. It is immaterial if one god is ruling over another god. A god is a god is a god. In any case, Greek mythology has shown that quite a few gods go against the head god in more than one instance.

What I gather from this entire thread is that:

Everything is equal
No ideas are "bad"

Reality and time tend to show what ideas are worth saving and what ideas are discarded. You can preach all the idealistic things you want, when reality doesn't agree, it won't matter.

If it was multiple gods, and they had humanistic traits, the world would be toast. It's as simple as that.

[kharvel]

What I gather from this entire thread is that:

Everything is equal
No ideas are "bad"

Reality and time tend to show what ideas are worth saving and what ideas are discarded. You can preach all the idealistic things you want, when reality doesn't agree, it won't matter.

If it was multiple gods, and they had humanistic traits, the world would be toast. It's as simple as that.

You might want to elaborate further on your comments as I am not sure what point you're trying to make as it pertains to the current discussion. For example, why do you think that the "world would be toast" if there were multiple gods with humanistic traits? And please explain why and how reality does not agree and what ideas have been discarded.

[mohater]

If the Gods were humanistic like Greek Mythology makes them out to be, the world would be in ruins because of the fighting that transpires above and the damage the world would face due to their attempts to "get back at the other"

[Doctor_Wu]

The logical proof lies in the contradictions and inconsistencies in the actions/"words" of the gods. Contradictions and inconsistencies are the realm of the human mind, not the mind of a "god".

This itself rests on the assumption that all revelations are true. You're temporarily choosing one of the 4 equal options for the purposes of disproving some of the options, namely the ones that allow the possibility of revealed truth.



Abandonment of logic is the abandonment of free will. Logic is a product of free will and reasoned thinking. And free will, combined with reasoned thinking, is exactly what allows us to navigate our ignorance about certain things.

"Abandonment of logic is the abandonment of free will".

I'm not sure if I agree with that. I do think that we can freely choose to abandon logic
The decision to choose one option is a leap of faith. But it's a leap that's freely chosen. Logic can only take us so far. Reason has limits.


When faced with 4 equal possibilities, logic allows us to choose the possibility that makes the most sense to us, based on our individual experiences. I am not a positivist in the sense that I recognize that other people's experiences and knowledge may produce logic that would lead them to choose one of the other four possibilities.

This all seems very post modern... yet not so much. You say there are 4 equal possibilities, and that logic allows us to choose the one the makes the most sense to us. Logic allows us to choose, yes... but we choose based on something besides logic. We choose based on our hunches and guesses.

Further, if the 4 possibilities were really equal, no choice would be possible. Perhaps the issue is that the 4 choices are logically equal... and they are as far as logic can take us... the next step is a leap of faith based on our preconceived notions and our hunches.

[Jhaan]

... the next step is a leap of faith based on our preconceived notions and our hunches.

...and experiences.

[darkfrog]

If the Gods were humanistic like Greek Mythology makes them out to be, the world would be in ruins because of the fighting that transpires above and the damage the world would face due to their attempts to "get back at the other"

I think you are confusing the term humanistic with anthropomorphic.

[mohater]

I think you are confusing the term humanistic with anthropomorphic.

I SURE AM (confusing a noun with an adj that have different meanings)

[kharvel]

This itself rests on the assumption that all revelations are true. You're temporarily choosing one of the 4 equal options for the purposes of disproving some of the options, namely the ones that allow the possibility of revealed truth.

Then it becomes a matter of conjecture and speculation by inconsistent human minds as to which of the revelations are true.

"Abandonment of logic is the abandonment of free will".

I'm not sure if I agree with that. I do think that we can freely choose to abandon logic
The decision to choose one option is a leap of faith. But it's a leap that's freely chosen. Logic can only take us so far. Reason has limits.

I tend to equate logic with reason. So you could say that "abandonment of logic/reason" is the abandonment of free will. That is because it is the very act of reasoning/logical thinking that enables free will. For example, non-human animals cannot reason and therefore, they do not have free will and are driven by animal instincts only.

This all seems very post modern... yet not so much. You say there are 4 equal possibilities, and that logic allows us to choose the one the makes the most sense to us. Logic allows us to choose, yes... but we choose based on something besides logic. We choose based on our hunches and guesses.

But if one cannot explain in a logical manner why one chooses to believe in one of the 4 possibilities, then is one truly exercising free will? Mob/herd mentality is not an exercise in free will, at least in my opinion. Hunches and guesses are what caused the religious conflicts in the first place since the dawn of human history.

Further, if the 4 possibilities were really equal, no choice would be possible. Perhaps the issue is that the 4 choices are logically equal... and they are as far as logic can take us... the next step is a leap of faith based on our preconceived notions and our hunches.

I think we are in agreement to some extent. The 4 choices are logically equal but one must apply one's own personal reasoning and free will to choose one of the possibilities. Personal reasoning would depend on one's preconceived notions and experiences. I would discourage hunches from entering the equation.

[kellymich]

If the Gods were humanistic like Greek Mythology makes them out to be, the world would be in ruins because of the fighting that transpires above and the damage the world would face due to their attempts to "get back at the other"

The greek cosmos was an affirmation of the world… the jewish/Christian/muslim cosmos is a denial of the world. Can there be any greater denial than the fundamental premise that these religions are built on (the world is evil).

I have little doubt which was more “humane”. So much of what makes our lives worth living today is of greek origin. All of the great "humanistic works" have time and time again had to look back to the greeks from shakespeare, to da vinci, to the founding fathers.

Vendetta has not been eliminated by judiasm christianity or islam and it flares up most in those whose lives have been denied. Is there any one more revenge seeking than a muslim who has been wronged by an "infidel" ? -- most vietnamese have forgotten and forgiven the american involvement in vietnam even though their was tremendous suffering.
The Iraqi muslim will probably not "get over it" for 100 years ... Revenge, envy and ressentment is the chief characteristic of our age-- not forgiveness. Of course people don't call it revenge envy and ressentment-- they call it justice.

I am highly sceptical of the jewish christian and muslim religions... and their capacity to bring peace to the world. There was, to be sure, revenge and envy in the greek cosmos ... but I am not so sure other traditions have made it better. The greek gods always looked down on men with a certain amount of irony, indulgence, and humor for their faults... Yaweh is much more stern, murderous, humorless and unforgiving than a greek God ever was.

[mohater]

The greek cosmos was an affirmation of the world… the jewish/Christian/muslim cosmos is a denial of the world.

I have little doubt which was more “humane”. So much of what makes our lives worth living today is of greek origin. All of the great "humanistic works" have time and time again had to look back to the greeks from shakespeare, to da vinci, to the founding fathers.

Vendetta has not been eliminated by judiasm christianity or islam and it flares up most in those whose lives have been denied. There is no one more revenge seeking than a muslim -- most vietnamese have forgotten and forgiven the american involvement in vietnam even though their was tremendous suffering.
The Iraqi muslim will probably not "get over it" for 100 years ... Revenge, envy and ressentment is the chief characteristic of our age-- not forgiveness. Of course people don't call it revenge envy and ressentment-- they call it justice.

I am highly sceptical of the jewish christian and muslim religions.

How do any of the religions attempt to negate human nature (or a denial of the world)?

Where are you getting your information from about Vietnamese people? What about Sri Lankans (or other secular Marxist movements)?

You're claim has it's merit, but it's not quite the catch all you make it to be. The Greeks had plenty of pride, resentment, "honor", etc.. and acted accordingly when interacting with others.

[kharvel]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were founded by single individuals (Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed). The mental states of such individuals are the subject of this discussion. The Greco-Roman religions weren't really founded by any single person. It was a community religion in that sense. The same is true for the Norse, Egyptian, and Hindu religions.

[redmaxx]

I am highly sceptical of the jewish christian and muslim religions... and their capacity to bring peace to the world. There was, to be sure, revenge and envy in the greek cosmos ... but I am not so sure other traditions have made it better. The greek gods always looked down on men with a certain amount of irony, indulgence, and humor for their faults... Yaweh is much more stern, murderous, humorless and unforgiving than a greek God ever was.

:huh:

Did you skip over all the passages where God is patient, loving, open to reason, etc.?

[Jhaan]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were founded by single individuals (Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed). The mental states of such individuals are the subject of this discussion. The Greco-Roman religions weren't really founded by any single person. It was a community religion in that sense. The same is true for the Norse, Egyptian, and Hindu religions.

Moses? Where do you get that idea from? If true, what God were the Israelites worshiping in Egypt?

Re: Jesus. How would you categorize Paul?

[Doctor_Wu]

Then it becomes a matter of conjecture and speculation by inconsistent human minds as to which of the revelations are true.

Maybe so.

But we can't impose consistency b/c it appeals to some need we have for order... or some need we have for measurement. We can't measure theology. We can't say, for example, that Christianity is false b/c Zeus is false.


I tend to equate logic with reason. So you could say that "abandonment of logic/reason" is the abandonment of free will. That is because it is the very act of reasoning/logical thinking that enables free will. For example, non-human animals cannot reason and therefore, they do not have free will and are driven by animal instincts only.


Yet reason itself is the device by which we come to discover the limitations of reason. Reason cannot carry us back to the beginning of time in order to "prove" what force (or absence thereof) is responsible for the origin of the universe.


It is reasonable to recognize the limits of reason. I believe it's also reasonable for individual men contemplate the origin of man... and they are thus compelled to decide something... they seem compelled to choose. It is then that they take that leap of faith and decide what to believe... they either believe in a creator, or they don't... but both options represent an extra-reasonable presumption, aka a guess.

Only the agnostic is willing to admit that he does not know, and leave it at that. All other options represent a guess. Any attempt to choose a theory requires one to exercise faith.


But if one cannot explain in a logical manner why one chooses to believe in one of the 4 possibilities, then is one truly exercising free will? Mob/herd mentality is not an exercise in free will, at least in my opinion. Hunches and guesses are what caused the religious conflicts in the first place since the dawn of human history.

Any of the 4 options can defended logically... there are logical reasons to believe any of them. But at bottom all represent a guess.



I think we are in agreement to some extent. The 4 choices are logically equal but one must apply one's own personal reasoning and free will to choose one of the possibilities. Personal reasoning would depend on one's preconceived notions and experiences. I would discourage hunches from entering the equation.

Your hunch is that god does not exist and that religion is false.

[kkamann]

Do us all a favor and demonstrate why the fallacy is applicable to the following logic:

1) Jesus had a revelation. His revelation is accepted as true.

2) Joe Schmoe in Mental Ward #12 had a revelation. His revelation MUST be accepted as true because of #1.

It appears that Kharvel is framing the argument as a syllogism, which is at the core of deductive reasoning. Simply put, a syllogism asserts that:

if A=C; AND
if B=A; THEN
B=C

Or in other words:

If divine revelation = accurate (A=C); AND
If Jesus = divine revelation (B=A); THEN
Jesus = accurate (B=C)

And consequently:

If divine revelation = accurate (A=C); AND
If Schmoe = divine revelation (D=A); THEN
Schmoe = accurate (D=C)

Or you can combine them into one argument (similar to what Kharvel did):

If divine revelation = accurate (A=C); AND
If Jesus = divine revelation (B=A); AND
If Schmoe=divine revelation (D=A); THEN
Jesus and Schmoe = accurate (B=C and D=C)

You can take this result a step further with yet another syllogism:

If Jesus = accurate (B=C); AND
If Schmoe = accurate (D=C); THEN
Jesus = Schmoe (B=D)

There is no flaw in this type of reasoning (syllogisms). We all use this logic of syllogisms everyday (i.e. “Eating fruit is healthy. Chewing/swallowing an apple is eating fruit. Therefore chewing/swallowing an apple is healthy.”) I can see his point and happen to agree with it.

But to play devil’s (err…Jesus’) advocate for a second, the opposing viewpoint might respond with something like this. Although the syllogism might be sound logic, his argument is invalid because of the fallacy of “many questions”. One of the premises in his argument is a presupposition, not necessarily agreed to by the "Jesus Team" (that Schmoe had a divine revelation). Using a presupposition as a premise in itself is not a logical fallacy. But if the presupposition isn’t agreed to by the other side, the argument containing it becomes fallacious via the “many questions” fallacy. This is where the rub is.

The “Jesus Team” would most likely agree to the other the premises (presuppositions) of the argument. They would agree to the fact that a divine revelation is accurate and that Jesus actually received a divine revelation. But they would not agree that Schmoe actually received a divine revelation from God in the same manner as Jesus ("divine" meaning directly from the “real” God, "authentic"). They say that Jesus proclaimed and received a divine revelation, while Schmoe merely proclaimed it, but didn’t actually receive it from God. So D doesn’t equal A. If this side actually thought Schmoe really did hear a revelation from their God, they would inevitably reach the same conclusion as Kharvel. But they don't.

Although the “many questions” fallacy might invalidate this particular argument (at least for the “Jesus Team”), it certainly doesn’t mean their position is valid either. Their logic breaks down with a closely related fallacy: the well-known “begging the question” or “circular argument” fallacy. They would say that God’s revelations are expertly handed down to humans, requiring purposeful discernment with dedicated study/prayer/etc. and truly insane people are incapable of this. Schmoe is insane (and Jesus wasn’t). Therefore God didn’t give Schmoe a revelation, which reinforces that God’s revelations require skills/behavior insane people don’t have, which reinforces that Schmoe didn’t get a revelation, and so on .

However, over on the “Anti-Jesus Team”, each premise is viewed the same way (i.e. Jesus proclaimed it and Schmoe proclaimed it). From this perspective and for this argument, whether it actually happened is irrelevant, since nobody can verify it actually happened. They are simply comparing the words that were spoken, which both sides agree on. But the argument breaks down, for the same reason as it did for the other side (“many questions”). The "Jesus Team" would presuppose that proclaiming AND actually receiving a divine revelation is accurate. But this is not the presupposition of the “Anti-Jesus Team”. Their presupposition is that merely a proclamation of a divine revelation is not necessarily accurate (A may or may not equal C)

I’ve over analyzed this WAY too much and spent WAY too much time writing this post. I suppose it’s par for the course in a forum called “The Podium”. If anyone is still reading this at this point and is actually following it, you’re a either a genius or need to get a life. (I’m sure I fall into the latter category).

[trancepire]

God is the creator of all things, good and bad. When bad happens, it isn't because "God has forsaken someone", I can stab myself, why doesn't God prevent me from doing that?
No, from what I've seen folks generally blame "the devil" for the bad stuff.

God gets credit for good, Satan gets credit for bad, human gets to feel good about either.

You're bringing in stats to a place where it has no bearing. There's no "God" measurement, or way to quantify the number of Gods.

The idea behind multiple Gods (from a human understanding) would be like the Greek Mythologies, where they would argue and fight over certain things. If that was the case, the world would be in ruins due to constant conflict on "who" reigns supreme.
Is that absolutely necessarily true? Maybe the gods all get along and don't care to step on one another's holy toes.

[trancepire]

If the Gods were humanistic like Greek Mythology makes them out to be, the world would be in ruins because of the fighting that transpires above and the damage the world would face due to their attempts to "get back at the other"
Exactly. We'd have nasty stuff like wars, and famine, and natural disasters, and...wait, what?

[Jhaan]

No, from what I've seen folks generally blame "the devil" for the bad stuff.

God gets credit for good, Satan gets credit for bad, human gets to feel good about either.


There are plenty of people angry at God. How many times have you heard, "If God truly loved me, He wouldn't have allowed _________" or "If God really existed, there wouldn't be _______ in the world."?

[redmaxx]

There is no flaw in this type of reasoning (syllogisms). We all use this logic of syllogisms everyday (i.e. “Eating fruit is healthy. Chewing/swallowing an apple is eating fruit. Therefore chewing/swallowing an apple is healthy.”) I can see his point and happen to agree with it.

I'm not saying syllogisms are bad, but this is basically Kharvel's reasoning (following your fruit analogy):

Eating fruit is healthy
Apples are healthy
Apples are fruit
Therefore, eating juniper berries is healthy.

When in actuality, juniper berries are bad for people. There is a fallacy in applying attributes of members of a class to the class of a whole and that was my problem with Kharvel's reasoning and butchering of his "second law".

See what I'm saying? :)

[trancepire]

There are plenty of people angry at God. How many times have you heard, "If God truly loved me, He wouldn't have allowed _________" or "If God really existed, there wouldn't be _______ in the world."?
This is true; that's why I said 'generally'. ;)

As you've pointed out, some people tend to backhandedly blame God for things as another method of freeing humans from blame. I see it as an extension of the "everything happens for a reason" mentality.

[kharvel]

It appears that Kharvel is framing the argument as a syllogism, which is at the core of deductive reasoning. Simply put, a syllogism asserts that:

if A=C; AND
if B=A; THEN
B=C

Or in other words:

If divine revelation = accurate (A=C); AND
If Jesus = divine revelation (B=A); THEN
Jesus = accurate (B=C)

And consequently:

If divine revelation = accurate (A=C); AND
If Schmoe = divine revelation (D=A); THEN
Schmoe = accurate (D=C)

Or you can combine them into one argument (similar to what Kharvel did):

If divine revelation = accurate (A=C); AND
If Jesus = divine revelation (B=A); AND
If Schmoe=divine revelation (D=A); THEN
Jesus and Schmoe = accurate (B=C and D=C)

You can take this result a step further with yet another syllogism:

If Jesus = accurate (B=C); AND
If Schmoe = accurate (D=C); THEN
Jesus = Schmoe (B=D)

There is no flaw in this type of reasoning (syllogisms). We all use this logic of syllogisms everyday (i.e. “Eating fruit is healthy. Chewing/swallowing an apple is eating fruit. Therefore chewing/swallowing an apple is healthy.”) I can see his point and happen to agree with it.

But to play devil’s (err…Jesus’) advocate for a second, the opposing viewpoint might respond with something like this. Although the syllogism might be sound logic, his argument is invalid because of the fallacy of “many questions”. One of the premises in his argument is a presupposition, not necessarily agreed to by the "Jesus Team" (that Schmoe had a divine revelation). Using a presupposition as a premise in itself is not a logical fallacy. But if the presupposition isn’t agreed to by the other side, the argument containing it becomes fallacious via the “many questions” fallacy. This is where the rub is.

The “Jesus Team” would most likely agree to the other the premises (presuppositions) of the argument. They would agree to the fact that a divine revelation is accurate and that Jesus actually received a divine revelation. But they would not agree that Schmoe actually received a divine revelation from God in the same manner as Jesus ("divine" meaning directly from the “real” God, "authentic"). They say that Jesus proclaimed and received a divine revelation, while Schmoe merely proclaimed it, but didn’t actually receive it from God. So D doesn’t equal A. If this side actually thought Schmoe really did hear a revelation from their God, they would inevitably reach the same conclusion as Kharvel. But they don't.

Although the “many questions” fallacy might invalidate this particular argument (at least for the “Jesus Team”), it certainly doesn’t mean their position is valid either. Their logic breaks down with a closely related fallacy: the well-known “begging the question” or “circular argument” fallacy. They would say that God’s revelations are expertly handed down to humans, requiring purposeful discernment with dedicated study/prayer/etc. and truly insane people are incapable of this. Schmoe is insane (and Jesus wasn’t). Therefore God didn’t give Schmoe a revelation, which reinforces that God’s revelations require skills/behavior insane people don’t have, which reinforces that Schmoe didn’t get a revelation, and so on .

However, over on the “Anti-Jesus Team”, each premise is viewed the same way (i.e. Jesus proclaimed it and Schmoe proclaimed it). From this perspective and for this argument, whether it actually happened is irrelevant, since nobody can verify it actually happened. They are simply comparing the words that were spoken, which both sides agree on. But the argument breaks down, for the same reason as it did for the other side (“many questions”). The "Jesus Team" would presuppose that proclaiming AND actually receiving a divine revelation is accurate. But this is not the presupposition of the “Anti-Jesus Team”. Their presupposition is that merely a proclamation of a divine revelation is not necessarily accurate (A may or may not equal C)

THANK YOU! You have perfectly described Kharvel's Second Law in logical detail.

I want to clarify a few things in your description. The fallacies apply equally to both sides. In other words, whatever fallacies one team may find in another team's logic, the opposing team would also find the exact same fallacies in the other team.

For example, in the "circular argument" fallacy, BOTH the Jesus team and the Other Jesus team may think that each other's champion is mentally insane.

To avoid this fallacy, each team MUST either recognize and accept that BOTH champions are not mentally insane or recognize and accept that BOTH champions are mentally insane. The purpose of this thread is to logically show that if the Jesus team labeling the Other Jesus as mentally ill, then they must also label the real Jesus as mentally ill given the fact that the only difference between these two men is that one group of humans _believes_ that Jesus actually had divine revelations while the Other Jesus never had it.

In other words, Jesus is the real deal because a group of humans said so. But hey, another group of humans said that the Other Jesus is the real deal and not the real Jesus. Yet another group of humans claim that both men are the real deal. A fourth group of humans claim that neither men are the real deal. Who is right? Therein lies the fallacy.

[Jhaan]

"I'm Spartacus!"
"No, I'm Spartacus!"
"No, it is I!"

Either all the men are Spartacus, or none of them are.

Did I get that right?

[redmaxx]

To avoid this fallacy, each team MUST either recognize and accept that BOTH champions are not mentally insane or recognize and accept that BOTH champions are mentally insane. The purpose of this thread is to logically show that if the Jesus team labeling the Other Jesus as mentally ill, then they must also label the real Jesus as mentally ill given the fact that the only difference between these two men is that one group of humans _believes_ that Jesus actually had divine revelations while the Other Jesus never had it.

In other words, Jesus is the real deal because a group of humans said so. But hey, another group of humans said that the Other Jesus is the real deal and not the real Jesus. Yet another group of humans claim that both men are the real deal. A fourth group of humans claim that neither men are the real deal. Who is right? Therein lies the fallacy.

Given all of the information it is unreasonable to conclude that both are mentally insane or neither of them are. Like this:

I'm the real Kharvel.

Now with this claim, under your logic, either we're both mentally insane (and neither of us are the real Kharvel) or neither of us are mentally insane (and we're both the real Kharvel).

"I'm Spartacus!"
"No, I'm Spartacus!"
"No, it is I!"

Either all the men are Spartacus, or none of them are.

Did I get that right?

That's Kharvel's logic. :crazy:

[kharvel]

"I'm Spartacus!"
"No, I'm Spartacus!"
"No, it is I!"

Either all the men are Spartacus, or none of them are.

Did I get that right?

Correct.

[Jhaan]

Correct.

Then you should watch Spartacus (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/).

[mammothwoolly]

Correct.

I can't believe you agreed to that.

Oh, and BTW, I'm kharvel.

[kharvel]

I can't believe you agreed to that.

Oh, and BTW, I'm kharvel.

Unfortunately for you, I have solid proof showing that only I am kharvel and that I exist.

[JackHandey]

Unfortunately for you, I have solid proof showing that only I am kharvel and that I exist.

However, that does not preclude there being other Kharvels, does it? You might be a specific Kharvel, but there may very well be other ones. I certainly know that aside from a lack of uniqueness to human first names, it is almost impossible to come up with a decent sounding user name for web sites, without someone else using it somewhere.

I have 6 different user names that I use on websites. Which one I use, is dependant on what type of site it is, and if the user name I wanted to use originally was already in use. Some user names I have used for over a decade. I have yet to find a user name that is completely unique to me, although I do have one that I have only found others using it twice, and the guy using it is from Brazil.

You being Kharvel does not negate another being Kharvel, although it does confuse the issue. The question is what one intends to imply with the statement. If someone wants to imply that they use the name Kharvel in one context or another, it is almost impossible to disprove. If they are implying they are the user Kharvel on this site, that is the only thing you could disprove.

[kharvel]

You being Kharvel does not negate another being Kharvel, although it does confuse the issue. The question is what one intends to imply with the statement. If someone wants to imply that they use the name Kharvel in one context or another, it is almost impossible to disprove. If they are implying they are the user Kharvel on this site, that is the only thing you could disprove.

I think we are getting a little mixed up about the discussion. Let me try to get it back on track here.

The logic/syllogism is not about someone claiming to be someone else. It is about someone claiming to have the characteristics of someone else or having done the same deeds as someone else.

So in the case of the Spartacus example, the more appropriate logic would be:

"I am Spartacus. I have done this thing."
"I am John Doe. I have also done the same thing!"
"I am Joe Schmoe. So did I!"
"I am Kharvel. I did it better than Spartacus!"

If the thing that Spartacus did is provable or has been proven, then the logic/syllogism requires one to disprove the statements by John Doe, Joe Schmoe, and Kharvel or absent that, accept the statements as true.

So again, it is not about claiming to be someone else. It is about claiming to have done something that someone else has allegedly done or claiming to have the same characteristics as someone else.

[redmaxx]

Unfortunately for you, I have solid proof showing that only I am kharvel and that I exist.

Really? Oh that's right, because I just logged in as Kharvel and posted that...

:lmao:

Really, you have no proof.

I think we are getting a little mixed up about the discussion. Let me try to get it back on track here.

:crylol: You can't even keep your own argument straight!

So in the case of the Spartacus example, the more appropriate logic would be:

"I am Spartacus. I have done this thing."
"I am John Doe. I have also done the same thing!"
"I am Joe Schmoe. So did I!"
"I am Kharvel. I did it better than Spartacus!"

If the thing that Spartacus did is provable or has been proven, then the logic/syllogism requires one to disprove the statements by John Doe, Joe Schmoe, and Kharvel or absent that, accept the statements as true.

So again, it is not about claiming to be someone else. It is about claiming to have done something that someone else has allegedly done or claiming to have the same characteristics as someone else.


I just posted the same thing in another forum! So now that I have informed you of this, based on your argument you must believe that I either did that, or you didn't post that. Your argument has left no room that I might be lying.

[kharvel]

I just posted the same thing in another forum! So now that I have informed you of this, based on your argument you must believe that I either did that, or you didn't post that. Your argument has left no room that I might be lying.

I do believe that you did post the exact same thing in another forum.

[Jhaan]

So in the case of the Spartacus example, the more appropriate logic would be:


How is changing the scene more appropriate?


If the thing that Spartacus did is provable or has been proven, then the logic/syllogism requires one to disprove the statements by John Doe, Joe Schmoe, and Kharvel or absent that, accept the statements as true.


There's a difference between accepting every statement as a valid theory and accepting every statement as truth.

[JackHandey]

I think we can prove this all by applying Kharvel's second law to all people that claim to be random bastard sons of the lord.

I just sarted thinking about things being good for the goose and the gander... If it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for anyone claiming to be of similar status...

Namely let's tack their proverbial asses to a tree and crucify them, as a standard policy, every single one. If they are resurrected, then what they say is true. If not, they were obviously deluded instead of prevaricators. No one is going to risk crucifiction, if they don't believe they will be resurrected afterwards... No greed is that good. ;)

[mammothwoolly]

Really? Oh that's right, because I just logged in as Kharvel and posted that...

:lmao:

Really, you have no proof.



:crylol: You can't even keep your own argument straight!


I wish you would stop replying to that fake kharvel. I'm the real kharvel. Isn't it obvious?

What, now you don't believe I'm the real kharvel? Hey, if it's good for the goose, it must be good for the gander, so that means that that other guy can't be kharvel either. (Actually, I'm just greedy for his userid. Greed is good, after all.)

[redmaxx]

I wish you would stop replying to that fake kharvel. I'm the real kharvel. Isn't it obvious?

What, now you don't believe I'm the real kharvel? Hey, if it's good for the goose, it must be good for the gander, so that means that that other guy can't be kharvel either. (Actually, I'm just greedy for his userid. Greed is good, after all.)

:rofl2:

I wish I could rep you for that. Why are your reps disabled?

[mammothwoolly]

I'm not interested in reps.... I don't generally post outside of the podium.... I don't know..... ok. I've enabled my reps, so you can rep me (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=10952636&postcount=44) if you like.

I'm just glad the real kharvel could bring some joy to your life. :)

[remishizzle]

I realize this is a theoretical / intellectual forum, and likely the goal of such discussion isn't to arrive at an actual answer or realization, but cook up some heavy discussion and/or debate (beg your pardon to any who are offended by that statement, it is just a sort of a realistic view I've adopted after having many such long discussions).

In fairness to the views of religion, I think the logic applied here is incorrect. You can't intellectualize your way into a firm understanding of religious truth. I find it fascinating how quickly "scientists" dismiss evidence toward the validity of religious claims (dismissing "miracles" as coincidence, religious hysteria and/or emotion) and instead look for some hard evidence, which of course does not exist, leaving them to the realm of intellectual laws and scientific methods that give them all sorts of liberal room in discounting any credibility those religious claims may have.

Followers of supreme beings know that their claims seem skeptical, they don't all suggest you just take their word for it-they submit the idea that each individual can know for themselves whether it is coming from God (or insert other popular divine being here), by going to the source. I can't remember exactly but I think it fits under the basic religious definition and meaning of prayer. The problem with approaching the reality of a religious claim by pure intellectual means if that you've completely discounted the methods which that divine being (or the followers of that divine being) have prescribed to obtain a witness of the truth. It's like having only two suspects in a murder case and refusing to use a lie detector test, even though your detective told you it would help determine who was telling the truth about their innocence, because you see his claims just as fallible as the suspect's (He must be a salesman for them! He's doing it to keep himself in business). Wouldn't it be reasonable to incorporate such claims with at least some relevance? To me, using logical reason to determine the validity of religious claims is like having a sociologist critique the research and methods of a chemist, it's completely a different field. But, I suppose you can at least claim he was a neutral critic, not swayed by the hysteria and conspiracy surrounding the chemistry discipline.

Typically religious claims suggest that you have to have faith, or "test" the claim before that witness of the truth, or revelation, can be realized. In other words you have to practice in order to experience, that is a fundamental truth according to basic Christianity (I am using Christianity as a reference since it is the religious realm I have the best understanding of, I am sure many of you who are more knowledgeable about other religious sects will find suitable comparisons). Scientifically a witness, or method to discriminate among religious claims to expose truth, seems unobtainable since it usually hinges on this faith or belief. This suggests to the skeptic that by desiring such an outcome you have predestined it, that you will convince yourself of a true religious experience belief out of determination or desperation. The skeptic quickly dismisses such results as those of the insane, a hallucination, or outright lie-perhaps even one the believer themselves is truly convinced is real. What of the countless thousands who have such experience and truly believe they are real?

Scientifically let's compare them to those who the claims of those who have had no such experience-who are we left to believe? With opposing viewpoints, does your logic then allow room for both to coexist or do we have to dismiss one or the other? After all we have no hard evidence, yet do we dismiss the majority over the claims of the minute few-since they are the ones supposedly using only scientific logic to make such claims? Also considering that since these "believers" have differing beliefs-or claims of truth, do we dismiss them all as irrelevant, since logically they also cannot co-exist? I would think that by a scientifically analyzing such a phenomenon the result should be more clear-the very lack of hard evidence that science seeks, is the very reason why there are differing beliefs. You have cultural and personal contexts that come into play and influence specific beliefs, does this really seem that hard to imagine? I think it's healthier to think of the studies of religion as almost an R&D lab-if you took a sample of scientists from any profession and had them discuss the deep theoretical aspects of their field, where no major evidence was available, do you believe they would all come to the same conclusions? Of course not, their training and background, their current focus, perhaps even their envisioned ideals for their loved profession would all influence what they would think and/or want to believe. It does not mean they are all incorrect, perhaps some will be proven to be 80% correct, maybe others are 60% correct, it does not mean there is not some basic element of truth that still exists in that claim.

I'm not sure what point is really trying to be made here. People think that Moses was insane? If you take the Bible even at slight historical relevance I would think it would be pretty easy to determine most people in his time would agree with you! Christ was possessed or a schizo-or maybe he was really a follower of the devil? Seems to me I remember something about him being crucified for that. Really I appreciate the search for truth but if you're looking for supporters in discounting religious spokesman I think you already have plenty. :)

In my experience, non-believers who cannot fathom how the believer can so blindly wade into unproven territory has not come to a small but important realization. Many people that hold such religious beliefs come to accept the fact that there isn't an answer for everything-there are certain things that science or our reasoning can't fully explain. Their beliefs typically help fill these holes and give them hope that there is a higher being who does understand-who sees the bigger picture. Unfortunately no amount of logical application will ever truly give a satisfactory answer to the validity of religious claims. So far we have no methods or evidence to justify the validity of either claim, and I highly doubt we ever will.

However, the interesting question remains, if there is a higher power, that wanted us to live a certain way, believe certain truths, wouldn't he want us to know about them? Wouldn't he provide ways to find whether or not religious claims or beliefs were true? I think it is logical to believe so, if not it would provide the same evidence that there was no such higher power at all, since he/she would provide no means for us to realize the truth.

**** This is basically the end of my intellectual discussion, so if you don't want to hear my more religious/spiritual comments feel free to skip ****

I used to be an atheist, I relied on the methods of science and intellect to prove and demonstrate to me what I should believe in. I thought people that believed in religion needed it for a crutch, they couldn't accept the fact that life isn't perfect, people die and are gone forever, or that there wasn't a bigger picture or being out there to make sure my car would get me to work on time. Through a variety of experiences and deeper learning of scientific methods and developments, I came to question my dismissal of the possible validity of religious claims. As I sought the truth I applied all such logic I could find, comparing different sects and asked many of the very same questions brought up in this thread. In the end no amount of intellectual debate or persuasion could give me a satisfactory answer, either way. I began to look to the other side for possible answers.

I eventually came to find my witness, that same witness spoken of in the Bible which comes through the spirit, which speaks pure intelligence, which told me that there was a God, and that he knew and loved me. I could not and still cannot deny that witness, I knew it as surely as I did anything. There is no way I can prove it, just as there is no way anyone can really prove any such claim. But I do know that there is a way that every man can know for himself, and that is from God. I was surprised to find with such a knowledge, came a sense of perspective and freedom in everyday life that I would never have supposed. To quote from C.S. Lewis, it is not that I believe in God like I believe in the sun, not because I can see it, but because of it all things are seen. This is the combination of witness and faith, this is how God intends for it to be. It is stronger than proof, stronger than any evidence, it is the power of God manifest, it is what thousands upon thousands have experienced, and has transformed lives. I know it is real just as surely as I know anything.

[Parafly9]

I can't believe you agreed to that.

Oh, and BTW, I'm kharvel.

:crylol:

So am I!

So either all of us are, or none of us are!

I realize this is a theoretical / intellectual forum, and likely the goal of such discussion isn't to arrive at an actual answer or realization, but cook up some heavy discussion and/or debate (beg your pardon to any who are offended by that statement, it is just a sort of a realistic view I've adopted after having many such long discussions). .


:welcome: we need people like you in the Podium. People who can actually formulate a thought independant of their emotions.

[Parafly9]

I’ve over analyzed this WAY too much and spent WAY too much time writing this post. I suppose it’s par for the course in a forum called “The Podium”. If anyone is still reading this at this point and is actually following it, you’re a either a genius or need to get a life. (I’m sure I fall into the latter category).

Another big :welcome: to another very good potential podiumite. !

[kkamann]

Thanks for the "welcome", Parafly. And a very belated :welcome: to the Podium to you. I guess being called a podiumite is a compliment, especially one who has a very good potential. So I thank you for the props. I'm not sure I want to be a full-strength podiumite. I don't know about any of you, but I tend to spend hours and pour my guts just into one post in this forum. It's salve for the soul, I suppose. But being a salve-covered podiumite can be draining and time consuming (at least for me). I don't know how much salve my soul can take. But it's like a drug. Being able to express my superior intellect and ideas for all of you to consume is addicting. I feel like the world is my burrito. <== not sure what that means, but it sounded good.

As for a reply to keep my podiumite status active:

In my experience, non-believers who cannot fathom how the believer can so blindly wade into unproven territory has not come to a small but important realization. Many people that hold such religious beliefs come to accept the fact that there isn't an answer for everything-there are certain things that science or our reasoning can't fully explain. Their beliefs typically help fill these holes and give them hope that there is a higher being who does understand-who sees the bigger picture. Unfortunately no amount of logical application will ever truly give a satisfactory answer to the validity of religious claims. So far we have no methods or evidence to justify the validity of either claim, and I highly doubt we ever will.

I think this is well written and Shackles represents his side very effectively. Because of the ideas represented in the paragraph above, I think more of myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist (I grew up in a fundamental Christian home). It's the ole' religion-helps-explain-the-unexplainable axiom, which I happen to agree with. However, I am quite steadfast in my mind that the Christian God can't be a valid definition. And it's not because of lack of empirical proof or missing scientific evidence. Nope, the Bible does it all on its own. I simply refuse to believe in a god that would create the universe, only to have nearly all of its creations (humans) endure unimaginable torture for all of eternity, simply because they don't acknowledge his existence. That's just incredibly petty and quite ridiculous for an omnipotent being who made the vast expanse of the universe.

Ironically, I recognize that my thoughts are a statement of faith themselves.

[kharvel]

Thanks for the interesting post, shackles. I'm glad to respond to your comments.

Scientifically let's compare them to those who the claims of those who have had no such experience-who are we left to believe? With opposing viewpoints, does your logic then allow room for both to coexist or do we have to dismiss one or the other?

Religion, by definition, is supposed to provide an universal truth. There cannot be more than one universal truth and thus, if there are two claims to universal truth and neither of those universal truths are experienced by all humans, then one must logically dismiss both claims.

There is a sun and a moon. That is a universal truth accepted by ALL human beings. I would propose that one should find a truth that is universal to all religions (eg. experienced by ALL human beings) and make a religion out of that truth. Such a religion cannot be dismissed since it is accepted and experienced by ALL human beings.

Scientifically a witness, or method to discriminate among religious claims to expose truth, seems unobtainable since it usually hinges on this faith or belief. This suggests to the skeptic that by desiring such an outcome you have predestined it, that you will convince yourself of a true religious experience belief out of determination or desperation. The skeptic quickly dismisses such results as those of the insane, a hallucination, or outright lie-perhaps even one the believer themselves is truly convinced is real. What of the countless thousands who have such experience and truly believe they are real?

The fallacy in the beliefs of the countless thousands is that those believers are themselves skeptics of other belief systems and would dismiss such systems as insane, a hallucination, or an outright lie. The Catholic may be a devout believer of the Virgin Mary but the Jew would dismiss the concept of the Virgin Mary as the product of an insane mind, a hallucination, or an outright lie while the Protestant may dismiss the 600+ commandments of Judaism as the product of an insane mind, a hallucination, or an outright lie. And so on and so forth for all other belief systems.

Scientifically let's compare them to those who the claims of those who have had no such experience-who are we left to believe?

Occam's Razor: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best. There are really two simple solutions available to us:

Solution 1: The existence of supernatural entities (gods) is the product of an insane mind, a hallucination and/or an outright lie.

OR

Solution 2: ALL religious claims made by ANYONE are true.

Also considering that since these "believers" have differing beliefs-or claims of truth, do we dismiss them all as irrelevant, since logically they also cannot co-exist?

If any one claimant is disputing the other claims, then applying Occam's Razor, Solution 1 is true.

I would think that by a scientifically analyzing such a phenomenon the result should be more clear-the very lack of hard evidence that science seeks, is the very reason why there are differing beliefs.

An alternative reason as to why there are differing beliefs is because such beliefs are products of an insane mind, a hallucination, or an outright lie. Furthermore, if one is to scientifically analyze one claim, one must scientifically analyze ALL claims (even claims from certified schizophrenics), just to remain unbiased. Do you really think it is worth going down that route?

You have cultural and personal contexts that come into play and influence specific beliefs, does this really seem that hard to imagine? I think it's healthier to think of the studies of religion as almost an R&D lab-if you took a sample of scientists from any profession and had them discuss the deep theoretical aspects of their field, where no major evidence was available, do you believe they would all come to the same conclusions? Of course not, their training and background, their current focus, perhaps even their envisioned ideals for their loved profession would all influence what they would think and/or want to believe. It does not mean they are all incorrect, perhaps some will be proven to be 80% correct, maybe others are 60% correct, it does not mean there is not some basic element of truth that still exists in that claim.

I am not sure what your point is. Science is another religion, just like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. It just happens to make better sense of our current world but that doesn't mean it has universal truths.

I'm not sure what point is really trying to be made here. People think that Moses was insane? If you take the Bible even at slight historical relevance I would think it would be pretty easy to determine most people in his time would agree with you! Christ was possessed or a schizo-or maybe he was really a follower of the devil? Seems to me I remember something about him being crucified for that. Really I appreciate the search for truth but if you're looking for supporters in discounting religious spokesman I think you already have plenty. :)

The point being made here is that religion, like history, is written by the victors. If Christianity never became successful over the centuries (not because it had compelling religious values but because of politics, warfare, wealth, etc.), Jesus would have been dismissed as yet another mental nutcase and compared in the same light as David Koresh. Look at what is happening with Islam in the Western Christian world - there is fear and loathing of Mohammed and allegations of Mohammed as a megalomaniac pedophile.

In my experience, non-believers who cannot fathom how the believer can so blindly wade into unproven territory has not come to a small but important realization. Many people that hold such religious beliefs come to accept the fact that there isn't an answer for everything-there are certain things that science or our reasoning can't fully explain. Their beliefs typically help fill these holes and give them hope that there is a higher being who does understand-who sees the bigger picture.

What I cannot fathom is why those same religious people would dismiss other religious people as mental nutcases. If each claimant is dismissing other claimants as mental nutcases, then all claims must be dismissed (Occam's Razor). If none of the claimants are dismissing anything then it is a whole different story.

Unfortunately no amount of logical application will ever truly give a satisfactory answer to the validity of religious claims. So far we have no methods or evidence to justify the validity of either claim, and I highly doubt we ever will.

Again, it is all about taking the simplest solution. If religions claims (including those claims from certified schizophrenics) are in conflict with each other, then the simplest solution is to dismiss all claims.

However, the interesting question remains, if there is a higher power, that wanted us to live a certain way, believe certain truths, wouldn't he want us to know about them? Wouldn't he provide ways to find whether or not religious claims or beliefs were true? I think it is logical to believe so, if not it would provide the same evidence that there was no such higher power at all, since he/she would provide no means for us to realize the truth.

The best evidence that there is no higher power is the fact that there are hundreds of higher powers, each with conflicting claims with thousands of followers and different belief systems. On the other hand, if every human being on this planet accepts ALL higher powers being promulgated by anyone then that would be evidence in and of itself of the existence of a higher power(s).

[l9bi7]

I dont think he, the author, is really educated about the matter of religion.

a Religion is not a man, a person or bunch of words from a book. first read those books try to understand them ask question to REAL scholars not undergrads in psychology still living in their dorms. Scholars that spent life long studies .. and then you can consider yourself able to discuss and challenge those things.

One verse on the Kuran says : there is a place on the seas where the water is not salty

in the 20th century, french Marine Scientist Jean Jacques Cousteau found it..

the progression of pregnancy.. how the embryo divides etc etc

well get educated first then start a debate.

Were Jesus and Mohammed schizophernics? Did Moses have megalomaniac tendencies in the same vein as Joseph Smith?

http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_436.shtml



A researcher has claimed that Moses was high on drugs when he "heard" the words of a god and "saw" a burning bush.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080304120710.ad7gm7i6&show_article=1



What similarities do you see between Moses's apparent hallucinations and his documented megalomania (see Exodus 7:1 and his efforts to lead a disparate group of people)? Was Moses just another Joseph Smith of his time? Was Judaism just an ancient and different version of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

These questions were triggered by the heavy discussion of the Bible and Koran on this forum. To wit, if Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses were just ancient versions of L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, respectively, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the works by the modern prophets? The writings from any of the New Age cults founded by modern schizophrenics could be just as relevant, if not more so, as the Bible (http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_newage/grp_newage_index.htm). The writings of the Branch Davidians may be a more modern replacement for the Koran. Of course, the Book of Mormon is a natural replacement for the Old Testament.

The words and proclamations of the modern schizophrenics and hallucinogen users are just as good as the words and proclamations of ancient schizophrenics and hallucinogen users.

[kharvel]

a Religion is not a man, a person or bunch of words from a book.

And this statement is based on what? Please elaborate and provide detailed arguments and show us how exactly monotheistic religions such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc. is not a man, a person, or a bunch of words from a book.

[l9bi7]

And this statement is based on what? Please elaborate and provide detailed arguments and show us how exactly monotheistic religions such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc. is not a man, a person, or a bunch of words from a book.

How can i try to explain to somebody who is not apt to acquire the concept ?!

exactly like telling me that whole milk is bad for the body because it has fat on it !

it is a whole picture ! a greater perspective. and if one is not willing to understand it. there is no business getting nervous about something that won't prosper.

As in any problem solving, you try to understand the causes before inferring any conclusion and that man (author of the article), has done exactly the opposite.

Greetings !

[mammothwoolly]

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.
How can one learn the Tao? It is beyond understanding.
It is only by freeing oneself of understanding that one can become one with the Tao.

Greetings!

[Derek22]

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/xian_cult.html

Technically yes, while the article defends christianity it does show the same similarities.


----

Is Christianity a cult?

In order to answer this question, we must first understand what we mean by the word "cult." When people say that a religious group is a cult, they typically mean that it has one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Overly aggressive recruitment/evangelization
2. False/deceptive teaching, including hyperexclusivism:
1. Prior to the beginning of the group, everyone was lost/condemned/without any true knowledge
2. Only a very small, exclusive set of people (i.e. the group members) will be saved/enter heaven
3. Use of brainwashing techniques, including:
1. Questioning of the group's teaching/leadership forbidden
2. Isolation (physical or forced isolation, or encouragement to break contact with family and friends)
3. Sleep deprivation and other abusive practices
4. Financial exploitation of members (ultimately profiting the leaders)
5. Emotional explotation of young adults, the elderly, etc.

Unfortunately, there are Christian and pseudo-Christian individuals and groups who exhibit one or more of the above characteristics. The purpose of this article is not to prove that any and all Christians or Christian groups the reader may have encountered are not cults or using cultic techniques, but to demonstrate that Biblical-based Christianity is not a cult and does not support the use of cultic practices.

1. Overly aggressive evangelization

Granted, there are many Christians who are too aggressive in their attempts to share their faith, not to mention times in history when people were forcibly converted. Yet forced evangelism and/or conversion are not supported by the Bible.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience... (1 Pet 3:15-16)

When Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, he told them to leave towns that didn't welcome them.[1] When the disciples wanted to punish a town that rejected him, rather than accepting their offer, he rebuked them.[2]

As secondary evidence, it is worth noting that an overseer of the church is to be "respectable, hospitable...not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome...He must also have a good reputation with outsiders..."[3] It's hard to imagine someone who is obnoxious or forceful with non-Christians meeting these qualifications. In fact, all Christians are called "to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men."[4]

2. False teaching: Hyperexclusivism

Of course, whether or not basic Christianity is true or false is a topic of much debate, and this site is devoted to providing reasons to believe in its truth. At any rate, when any group claims to have an exclusive hold on truth, we tend to immediately doubt the claims of that group.

Does Christianity make such a claim? It does claim that Jesus is the only way to God, but it also claims that this path is available to everyone and has been taken by people throughout all of history. It does not restrict membership in heaven to a certain number of people, people who belong to a certain race,[5] or those who joined a very specific church or denomination.[6] Nor does it claim that before the appearance of Jesus (or Abraham or Moses), no one had any access to truth or knowledge of God.[7]

3. Brainwashing

Does Christianity forbid asking hard questions about its doctrines? Again, while some individual Christians have frowned on skeptics, inquisitive children and others who ask hard questions, this is not something prohibited by the Bible, but rather encouraged by it. Jesus not only answered questions from his disciples and nonbelievers, he even brought up a hard question of his own:

Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."

David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" (Lk 20:41-44)

See also the collection of verses promoting critical thinking.

Does Christianity forbid questioning of its leaders and their doctrine or behavior? While the Bible does teach respect for authority figures, it also teaches that all people fall short of perfection.[8] Accusations can be brought against church leaders, if there is a reasonable amount of evidence.[9]

Does Christianity promote isolation of Christians from nonbelievers and their views? While the Bible does caution against being influenced by the evils present in society, it doesn't advocate isolation from society, but rather says that believers ought to participate in society in order to influence it.[10]

Finally, it should go without saying that Christianity is opposed to all forms of physical and emotional abuse. Not only is one of the central tenents of Christianity to love other people as one loves oneself,[11] the Bible also teaches that harming another person is harming someone created by God and loved by God and is comparable to harming God himself.[12]

4. Financial exploitation

Unfortunately, there are Christian organizations whose primary focus is fundraising and who may even resort to deception in order to line the pockets of their leaders. This practice is directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible, which condemns greed and trusting in wealth,[13] giving under compulsion[14] and exploitation of the poor.[15] Despite what such organizations might claim, the Bible doesn't promise material riches to those who follow God or make large donations.[16]

The apostle Paul explained his attitude towards profiting from his preaching in 1 Corinthians 9:11-18. While pastors and missionaries do have a right to be paid for their work, he voluntarily waived this right so that people wouldn't think he was motivated by greed.

5. Emotional exploitation

Do Christians target young adults, the elderly and others who might be vulnerable to exploitation? Christians often do focus evangelistic efforts on a particular segment of society. Is this exploitation? It might be if the evangelists used some of the techniques listed above to bully or deceive their audience, or if their teaching is false and ultimately harmful.

However, the question assumes that evangelization in general, and Christianity in particular, is harmful, which is not necessarily the case. If Christianity is true, then becoming a Christian is not harmful, but is beneficial in many ways (see Why investigate Christianity? for the benefits of Christianity). Since Christianity does fulfill needs, it should be no surprise that people with deeply felt needs are often the ones who become Christians.

If Christians are following Biblical principles when evangelizing, then they are letting people know in a gentle and respectful manner that God cares for them and is able to meet their needs. This is no more exploitive than a food pantry or homeless shelter advertising its services to those it was intended to provide for. Just as churches and religious groups may be exploitive, a homeless shelter could be abusive by harrassing people on the streets, bullying them to come inside and then prohibiting them from leaving. The fact that such an organization can be abusive doesn't mean that all such organizations are abusive or that having such organizations is a bad idea.

[buyerandseller]

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/xian_cult.html

Technically yes,

this should really go in the state of religious prophets thread.

[Hurricane]

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/xian_cult.html

Technically yes, while the article defends christianity it does show the same similarities.

Technically no by the very definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult):

Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. Many religions were considered cults before they became considered religions. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees,[1] but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2]

[Derek22]

"A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing .............................................Who decides what mainstream is, what may be mainstream to one ,may not be to another.

[Hurricane]

"A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing .............................................Who decides what mainstream is, what may be mainstream to one ,may not be to another.

Mainstream can be determined by sampling the population...not a difficult concept so I don't know what you are questioning. That would be like saying cheese to mainstream may not be cheese to another. No! The definition of mainstrean is understood...someone's refusal to accept the defintion doesn't change its meaning.

[Jhaan]

If we define every major religion as a cult, the word loses its meaning.

[IlluminatusCU]

Mainstream can be determined by sampling the population...not a difficult concept so I don't know what you are questioning. That would be like saying cheese to mainstream may not be cheese to another. No! The definition of mainstrean is understood...someone's refusal to accept the defintion doesn't change its meaning.

So the only thing making Christianity not a cult is its large membership? If Scientology/The Moonies/whatever grew to be large enough they would no longer be a cult? Since "cult" is often used as an insult, there must be something more than that to draw a distinction between cults and "legitimate" religions.

[kellymich]

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/xian_cult.html

Technically yes, while the article defends christianity it does show the same similarities.

Some might consider it so... A religion of a God who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world. A justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice. Someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; a fear of a beyond to which death is the portal.

I think one might call into question whether these ideas benefit men ... The scientific truth of such things, is of course, non existant-- one really does need the faith for it.

[kharvel]

It is a cult, based on the founder.

If Jesus has the same mental state as David Koresh and David Koresh is considered by most folks to be a cult founder, then Jesus is also a cult founder and Christianity is a cult.

[hsjpatman]

I believe all religious groups are cults.
Minus the spiked Kool-Aid of course.

[iamiam]

Cult until mainstream, where's the confusion?

[joerocker]

So the only thing making Christianity not a cult is its large membership? If Scientology/The Moonies/whatever grew to be large enough they would no longer be a cult? Since "cult" is often used as an insult, there must be something more than that to draw a distinction between cults and "legitimate" religions.

You hit the nail on the head... It's ALL size. If you can get enough followers no matter WHAT you're teaching...you're no longer considered a cult.

Take this for example:

Some big guy pops up out of nowhere, makes a universe that is bigger than...well...ANYTHING...next he makes life...but just on ONE place. Later he doesn't like how this life that HE created is working out...he knows this because he keeps track of what 7 BILLION people are thinking at all times... Anyway, he decides to send his "son" who is really "himself" down to talk to these "little people"...it's complicated... Anyway, his son really doesn't do THAT much to make an impression, because nobody wrote anything he said down at the time he was saying it. The creator didn't think to put a bug in someones ear telling them that this was important enough to write down. I hear it's because the creator gave everyone "free will", so he can't really interfere. But, you're NOT supposed to USE this free will, you'll get in trouble if you do. So, his son doesn't get much done, is killed by the locals, and brought back home. Oh, I forgot...he REALLY died to pay for a sin committed thousands of years ago by the original two "people" who were tricked by the FORMER right hand man of the creator who was banished but could STILL mess around with what the creator wants...like I said, it's complicated. So, the son goes back to be...himself...AND the creator...to judge those who die. You see, if you DON'T follow the rules exactly...well, you're NOT going to be a happy camper. Anyway, nobody wrote anything down about the son at the time, including the Romans who were REALLY anal about record keeping...anyway...people started to follow this "fictional" man's teachings that weren't written down at the time but everyone KNEW was someone special...oh...30 years later. In fact, MOST of what is written about the son wasn't written until 100 or more years after he was dead. It's really quite the story...you should read it sometime...

[darkfrog]

How about the wackjob at European-American Evangelistic Crusades that considers Judaism a cult (http://www.eaec.org/cults/judaism.htm)? To me labeling every other religion except your own as a cult is in itself cult-like behavior.

[mohater]

It is a cult, based on the founder.

If Jesus has the same mental state as David Koresh and David Koresh is considered by most folks to be a cult founder, then Jesus is also a cult founder and Christianity is a cult.

Your logic doesn't follow.

Here's another example of the logic you're using:

Drowning kills
Water causes drowning
Ban water

[IlluminatusCU]

Your logic doesn't follow.

Here's another example of the logic you're using:

Drowning kills
Water causes drowning
Ban water

That's not the same logical progression. It's not even a complete logical progression.

Drowning kills
Water causes drowning
Anything that kills should be banned (Your unstated premise)
Ban water.

His logic is:
David Koresh did X
David Koresh was considered a cult leader, and his group a cult
Jesus also did X
Therefore, Jesus should also be considered a cult leader, and his group a cult.

[kharvel]

How about the wackjob at European-American Evangelistic Crusades that considers Judaism a cult (http://www.eaec.org/cults/judaism.htm)? To me labeling every other religion except your own as a cult is in itself cult-like behavior.

This is exactly the premise of the whole thread. I just take it to the logical extreme which is:

If a certified schizophrenic or cult leaders (eg. David Koresh, L. Ron Hubbard, et al) claims to be talking to a god and one dismisses such claims as the ravings of a madman or cult leader, then one must also dismiss the claims made by Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed as the ravings of madmen or cult leaders.

If one does not want to dismiss the claims made by Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed, then one must also accept the claims made by a certified schizophrenic or present-day cult leaders.

[joerocker]

This is exactly the premise of the whole thread. I just take it to the logical extreme which is:

If a certified schizophrenic or cult leaders (eg. David Koresh, L. Ron Hubbard, et al) claims to be talking to a god and one dismisses such claims as the ravings of a madman or cult leader, then one must also dismiss the claims made by Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed as the ravings of madmen or cult leaders.

If one does not want to dismiss the claims made by Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed, then one must also accept the claims made by a certified schizophrenic or present-day cult leaders.

Sometimes I think we WOULD be better off if we had dismissed the claims of Jesus and Muhammad! WHY did we decide that THEY are different from the rest?

[mohater]

That's not the same logical progression. It's not even a complete logical progression.

Drowning kills
Water causes drowning
Anything that kills should be banned (Your unstated premise)
Ban water.

His logic is:
David Koresh did X
David Koresh was considered a cult leader, and his group a cult
Jesus also did X
Therefore, Jesus should also be considered a cult leader, and his group a cult.

Right, so he's extrapolating an unknown to a known.

My point was he's taking some unknowns and pushing them as knowns.

Here, I'm taking a known about water and extrapolating it to an unknown conclusion that can never be held to that standard.

[kharvel]

Sometimes I think we WOULD be better off if we had dismissed the claims of Jesus and Muhammad! WHY did we decide that THEY are different from the rest?

This is the attendant question resulting from the discussion of this topic. The strongest theory is that they are considered different from the rest simply because Christianity and Islam are the victors in terms of the number of followers and strength of their establishments. In other words, because they were victors, they could promulgate the legitimacy of their respective founders and write the history accordingly. Obviously, it had nothing to do with whether Jesus and Mohammed actually spoke to a god or not.

It stands to reason that if the Branch Davidians had collected enough followers and had spread their religion far and wide, then David Koresh would have been mentioned in the same breath as Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses. Perhaps in 100 years from now, L. Ron Hubbard would be worshipped as a kind, gentle, and wise man who provided succor to those who faced the hardships of a modern life.

[kharvel]

Right, so he's extrapolating an unknown to a known.

My point was he's taking some unknowns and pushing them as knowns.


You might want to elaborate as to what is "known" and "unknown". It is difficult to understand your point without further elaboration.

[mohater]

You might want to elaborate as to what is "known" and "unknown". It is difficult to understand your point without further elaboration.

You assume everything between Jesus and modern cult leaders are the same.

That's like me saying

"All Catholic priests pedophiles are men, kharvel is a man"
"kharvel is a pedophile"

[joerocker]

This is the attendant question resulting from the discussion of this topic. The strongest theory is that they are considered different from the rest simply because Christianity and Islam are the victors in terms of the number of followers and strength of their establishments. In other words, because they were victors, they could promulgate the legitimacy of their respective founders and write the history accordingly. Obviously, it had nothing to do with whether Jesus and Mohammed actually spoke to a god or not.

It stands to reason that if the Branch Davidians had collected enough followers and had spread their religion far and wide, then David Koresh would have been mentioned in the same breath as Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses. Perhaps in 100 years from now, L. Ron Hubbard would be worshipped as a kind, gentle, and wise man who provided succor to those who faced the hardships of a modern life.

Ah, an educated person...refreshing!

Yes, you have it correct...numbers count. Every time I move, I'm hit up to join this or that church...why? They want to numbers.

The Christian religion...WHY did it take over? NOT because Jesus was so great and it was a "natural" thing for Christianity to dominate... It was when the Roman Emperor converted from paganism, declared Christianity as the "official" Roman religion, that Christianity AUTOMATICALLY became THE religion. It suddenly, with the stroke of a pen, gained millions of "followers".

The Catholic church has it's richness ONLY because it was "The Church of Rome". With that same pen stroke...it became the RICHEST religion too...

Good for you!

[kharvel]

You assume everything between Jesus and modern cult leaders are the same.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck. . . .


That's like me saying

"All Catholic priests pedophiles are men, kharvel is a man"
"kharvel is a pedophile"

Incorrect logic. Try again.

[Doctor_Wu]

For example, in the "circular argument" fallacy, BOTH the Jesus team and the Other Jesus team may think that each other's champion is mentally insane.

To avoid this fallacy, each team MUST either recognize and accept that BOTH champions are not mentally insane or recognize and accept that BOTH champions are mentally insane. The purpose of this thread is to logically show that if the Jesus team labeling the Other Jesus as mentally ill, then they must also label the real Jesus as mentally ill given the fact that the only difference between these two men is that one group of humans _believes_ that Jesus actually had divine revelations while the Other Jesus never had it.

In other words, Jesus is the real deal because a group of humans said so. But hey, another group of humans said that the Other Jesus is the real deal and not the real Jesus. Yet another group of humans claim that both men are the real deal. A fourth group of humans claim that neither men are the real deal. Who is right? Therein lies the fallacy.

There is one very basic and fundamental problem with your entire argument in this thread...

Miracles, if they exist, are miracles b/c they defy reason.

Divine revelation if real, is a miracle.

The idea that miracles do not happen is a presupposition that is unproved... and therefore an article of faith. Just as is the presupposition that miracles do happen.

Assume for a moment... that Jesus is real, and is the son of God... by what logical proposition could we prove it? We could not. We do not have access to the means to do so. It's said he performed miracles... yet we cannot test them, we can only accept the testimony of others. This is not sufficient logical proof. Likewise, we cannot prove that Jesus is not the son of god... and to attempt a 2000 year old diagnoses of insanity presupposes that miracles do not happen. An unprovable contention.

kkamann nearly suggests that you commit the fallacy of many questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions)... I say you are indeed guilty of this fallacy that is committed when "someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved."

This is sometimes known as begging the question - or avoiding the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Variations) -

"In a related sense, the phrase is occasionally used to mean "avoiding the question". Those who use this variation are explaining that the argument lacks a premise, and they have missed the self-circularity of the argument because of it.

Fowler's Modern English Usage classifies begging the question in a somewhat different fashion (for example, in contrast to the meanings from Merriam-Webster,[1] the Oxford English Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary). Fowler states that it is "The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself." This is more commonly known as the fallacy of many questions."

Despite the large quantity of atheist literature that has been published in recent days, it is illogical to presume that we can attempt to disprove revelation on logical grounds.


To avoid this fallacy, each team MUST either recognize and accept that BOTH champions are not mentally insane or recognize and accept that BOTH champions are mentally insane. The purpose of this thread is to logically show that if the Jesus team labeling the Other Jesus as mentally ill, then they must also label the real Jesus as mentally ill given the fact that the only difference between these two men is that one group of humans _believes_ that Jesus actually had divine revelations while the Other Jesus never had it.


This is one of the pitfalls that accompanies positivist logic. Kharvel, your statements in this thread strongly suggest to me that you are a positivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivist).

You speak as though the followers of Christ have a duty to positivist logic that is so strong that they must square their views with your skewed account of reason... and admit that a certified insano is the equivalent of the divine savior. How is that reasonable? (Not to mention the issue of the insano and whether or not he has performed his own miracles.

To a positivist, it is reasonable. B/c the lack of proof of divinity represents an indictment of divinity. But to a rational mind that is not blinded by the philosophy of positivism it is clearly absurd. B/c the rational mind can admit that revelation is possible, while at the same time being unprovable. And to suggest that a follower of Christ must square their thinking with a half understood list of logical fallacies is a maneuver that attempts to rob Christianity of its context as a faith. This is something that the science of logic cannot do.



What is the point of all this? Must we do this b/c religion is objectionable?



----


Religion, by definition, is supposed to provide an universal truth. There cannot be more than one universal truth and thus, if there are two claims to universal truth and neither of those universal truths are experienced by all humans, then one must logically dismiss both claims.

You are moving back and forth between "The Particular" and "The General" with much abandon. You're using conflicting notions of Particular universality to disprove the possibility of universality in General.

Yet again this is not quite reasonable to do.

Just b/c there are competing claims to universality does not mean that we can use them to disprove each other. It's possible that "being" communicates with us in different manners, and further it seems likely that every claim to universality begets a competing counter claim.

Now does this mean that they are both untrue? Not necessarily... we might also look at the various claims of truth and notice the many similarities and conclude that these competing claims of morality actually point beyond themselves toward universal truths.





Occam's Razor: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best. There are really two simple solutions available to us:

Solution 1: The existence of supernatural entities (gods) is the product of an insane mind, a hallucination and/or an outright lie.

OR

Solution 2: ALL religious claims made by ANYONE are true.


How can we set all things equal in this matter?



An alternative reason as to why there are differing beliefs is because such beliefs are products of an insane mind, a hallucination, or an outright lie. Furthermore, if one is to scientifically analyze one claim, one must scientifically analyze ALL claims (even claims from certified schizophrenics), just to remain unbiased. Do you really think it is worth going down that route?


Unbiased? You're already quite biased in your belief in the capability of science to test the divine. It's a positivist bias perhaps... or scientism. But you have yet to conceive of it as a problem... and it is that.

How is it reasonable to presume that science is capable of such an investigation?



What I cannot fathom is why those same religious people would dismiss other religious people as mental nutcases. If each claimant is dismissing other claimants as mental nutcases, then all claims must be dismissed (Occam's Razor). If none of the claimants are dismissing anything then it is a whole different story.

What you're saying here denies the nature of religion. Religion is always particular. Mansfield - "Although one can speak of religion generally as I am doing, religion is always a particular religion; a sociological view of its function misstates that function by making religion too general."



The best evidence that there is no higher power is the fact that there are hundreds of higher powers, each with conflicting claims with thousands of followers and different belief systems. On the other hand, if every human being on this planet accepts ALL higher powers being promulgated by anyone then that would be evidence in and of itself of the existence of a higher power(s).

The use of the term 'evidence' in this instance is too ambitious on your part. This is nothing like evidence, in the proper sense of the term.

[kharvel]

Miracles, if they exist, are miracles b/c they defy reason.

Divine revelation if real, is a miracle.

The idea that miracles do not happen is a presupposition that is unproved... and therefore an article of faith. Just as is the presupposition that miracles do happen.

It is not so much that I don't believe in miracles but it is the fact that there is no consistency in the beliefs about miracles.

Someone may believe in certain miracles but would easily dismiss other miracles. This inconsistency leads me to believe that miracles are the product of the human mind simply because the human mind is inconsistent. Furthermore, miracles are based on hearsay. How does one trust hearsay from inconsistent human minds?

The idea that miracles don't happen is a presupposition proved by the very inconsistency of the human mind.

Assume for a moment... that Jesus is real, and is the son of God... by what logical proposition could we prove it? We could not. We do not have access to the means to do so. It's said he performed miracles... yet we cannot test them, we can only accept the testimony of others. This is not sufficient logical proof.

Agreed.

Likewise, we cannot prove that Jesus is not the son of god... and to attempt a 2000 year old diagnoses of insanity presupposes that miracles do not happen. An unprovable contention.

One does not need to attempt a 2000 year old diagnosis of insanity. One only needs to witness the denial of other claims to prove or at least question that Jesus is not the son of a god.

Jesus and his followers denied the claims of the existence of the Roman gods. If they denied such claims, why should we believe their claims that Jesus is the son of a god? I'll use your argument against Jesus. Jesus and his followers could not have proved that the Roman gods did not exist and therefore he presupposed that miracles did not happen. So if Jesus and his followers denied the existence of miracles as they pertain to the Roman gods, it would be illogical for us to believe the claims of miracles made by Jesus and his followers! It is a proverbial house of cards.

kkamann nearly suggests that you commit the fallacy of many questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions)... I say you are indeed guilty of this fallacy that is committed when "someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved."


Could you please specify which argument or statement of mine has the fallacies that you mentioned?

it is illogical to presume that we can attempt to disprove revelation on logical grounds.

Then how exactly do you suggest we address the denials of revelations by those who themselves claim their own revelations?

This is one of the pitfalls that accompanies positivist logic. Kharvel, your statements in this thread strongly suggest to me that you are a positivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivist).

I have not called for any scientific evidence or logic to prove the existence of miracles, gods, revelations, etc. I have already stated that science is just another religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. and it has many theories that are unprovable, just like the other religions. I would not want to attempt to use one religion to prove the existence or non-existence of another religion.

Would I still qualify as a positivist, despite my statements above?

You speak as though the followers of Christ have a duty to positivist logic that is so strong that they must square their views with your skewed account of reason... and admit that a certified insano is the equivalent of the divine savior. How is that reasonable? (Not to mention the issue of the insano and whether or not he has performed his own miracles.

It is reasonable precisely because the followers of Christ use the concepts of science to certify someone as insane. Do you see the disconnect here? Rather than certify someone as an insano, it would be more consistent and reasonable for the followers of Christ to accord the same respect to that person as they do for other religious figures outside of Christendom (which unfortunately is quite infrequent).

To a positivist, it is reasonable. B/c the lack of proof of divinity represents an indictment of divinity.

No, it is reasonable not because of the lack of proof but because of the fact that the religious programs use the very lack of proof against other religious programs to discredit them. It's called the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is an interesting thought. During my travels to India, Nepal, and Southeast Asia, I came across many Hindus who thought of Jesus not as an insano but as a bona fide religious hero of the same caliber as their religious icons. Despite the lack of scientific proof pointing to the existence of the Hindu gods, the very consistency in their beliefs lends credence to the possible existence of said gods. The Hindus do not dispute or deny the miracles performed by Jesus and in many case, they will not dispute or deny the miracles performed by other persons. Because of their willingness to accept many claims, their presupposition that miracles do happen has stronger credence.

B/c the rational mind can admit that revelation is possible, while at the same time being unprovable.

As long as consistency is present, a rational mind can be comfortable with the possible existence of revelations.

And to suggest that a follower of Christ must square their thinking with a half understood list of logical fallacies is a maneuver that attempts to rob Christianity of its context as a faith. This is something that the science of logic cannot do.

But something that denies other faiths and other miracles cannot be called a faith but the product of an insane or irrational mind possibly influenced by Greed. Why would a faith that presupposes the existence of miracles deny the very miracles promulgated by a different religion? Why is it that they deny the actions/miracles of the Roman gods such as Apollo, Jupiter, Neptune, et al? These denials alone rob Christianity, Judaism, and Islam of their context as faiths.

What is the point of all this? Must we do this b/c religion is objectionable?

We are doing this because the inconsistency in religion is objectionable. Inconsistency is the domain of an irrational or insane mind, possibly influenced by Greed. Any rational person would find that objectionable.

Just b/c there are competing claims to universality does not mean that we can use them to disprove each other. It's possible that "being" communicates with us in different manners, and further it seems likely that every claim to universality begets a competing counter claim.

Now does this mean that they are both untrue? Not necessarily... we might also look at the various claims of truth and notice the many similarities and conclude that these competing claims of morality actually point beyond themselves toward universal truths.

Then one must discard the competing claims and rely on the consistent truths across all claims. The consistent truth is the universal truth and would lead to a consistent religion. A supernatural being is not required to understand the universal truth. Everything else can be dismissed.

Unbiased? You're already quite biased in your belief in the capability of science to test the divine. It's a positivist bias perhaps... or scientism. But you have yet to conceive of it as a problem... and it is that.

How is it reasonable to presume that science is capable of such an investigation?

You misunderstood my comment. When I said "scientifically analyze one claim", I was referring to the analysis of the claims of a certified insano. If certain religions accept the certification of insanity, they are in effect accepting the scientific analysis that led to the certification of insanity. I was posting the question as to why the same scientific analysis for the certification of insanity should not be applied to the founders of the religions. That would be consistent or unbiased in the sense that Kharvel's Second Law is not violated. It matters not whether science is capable of such an investigation or not - what matters is that the investigation is applied consistently.

What you're saying here denies the nature of religion. Religion is always particular. Mansfield - "Although one can speak of religion generally as I am doing, religion is always a particular religion; a sociological view of its function misstates that function by making religion too general."

This contradicts the idea of religion as a harbinger of universal truth. Religion cannot be particular if it attempts to promote "universal" truths. So I am not sure why you think that a particular religion could harbor universal truths that applies to everyone in general.

The use of the term 'evidence' in this instance is too ambitious on your part. This is nothing like evidence, in the proper sense of the term.

So the universality of a belief is not an evidence in and of itself? For example, if every human being believes that grass is yellow and not green, then grass must be yellow. The fact that science claims grass is green is irrelevant since science is just a religion like any other. Universal truths are truths that are accepted by all human beings.

[kellymich]

Ah, an educated person...refreshing!

Yes, you have it correct...numbers count. Every time I move, I'm hit up to join this or that church...why? They want to numbers.

The Christian religion...WHY did it take over? NOT because Jesus was so great and it was a "natural" thing for Christianity to dominate... It was when the Roman Emperor converted from paganism, declared Christianity as the "official" Roman religion, that Christianity AUTOMATICALLY became THE religion. It suddenly, with the stroke of a pen, gained millions of "followers".

The Catholic church has it's richness ONLY because it was "The Church of Rome". With that same pen stroke...it became the RICHEST religion too...

Good for you!

Once in the year grace number one I think--
The Sibyl said, drunken without any drink,
now everything goes wrong oh woe !
Decay! the world has never suck so low
Rome sank to whoredom and became a stew
The Ceasers became beasts, and God a Jew !

Christianity is an extention of Judaism. And judaism's ultimate victory over rome. The conversion of Constantine was the coup de grâce... when the christians finally gained and consolidated power they too used the sword to ruthlessly supress all opposition and the destruction and vandalism of the temples of antiquity hardly has any parallel in history anywhere. Certainly in the ancient world, in any event.

The 20th century saw massive unprecedented destruction and war and there is no historic parallel to it anywhere. Although one could point to the communist/socialist/marxist brutal supression of culture and opposition during that period and find parallels to the methods used by the christains in antiquity. One became a christian for the same reason one became a communist-- it was de rigueur. It was what one did, and when it comes right down to it, it was what one had to do.

[mgoodlin]

Actually, popularity doesn't equate truth. Koresh was a murderer. Jesus is our savior and the son of God that was crucified for your sins and mine and God raised him from the dead. Big difference



This is the attendant question resulting from the discussion of this topic. The strongest theory is that they are considered different from the rest simply because Christianity and Islam are the victors in terms of the number of followers and strength of their establishments. In other words, because they were victors, they could promulgate the legitimacy of their respective founders and write the history accordingly. Obviously, it had nothing to do with whether Jesus and Mohammed actually spoke to a god or not.

It stands to reason that if the Branch Davidians had collected enough followers and had spread their religion far and wide, then David Koresh would have been mentioned in the same breath as Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses. Perhaps in 100 years from now, L. Ron Hubbard would be worshipped as a kind, gentle, and wise man who provided succor to those who faced the hardships of a modern life.

[mgoodlin]

an educated person, how condescending of you. Actually, if you studied history Christianity already was already prevalent in the roman empire. Roman historians verified this claim Constantine only legalized it when he converted. You also assume churches want numbesr, they actually want you to 'join' more out of concern for your salvation.

Ah, an educated person...refreshing!

Yes, you have it correct...numbers count. Every time I move, I'm hit up to join this or that church...why? They want to numbers.

The Christian religion...WHY did it take over? NOT because Jesus was so great and it was a "natural" thing for Christianity to dominate... It was when the Roman Emperor converted from paganism, declared Christianity as the "official" Roman religion, that Christianity AUTOMATICALLY became THE religion. It suddenly, with the stroke of a pen, gained millions of "followers".

The Catholic church has it's richness ONLY because it was "The Church of Rome". With that same pen stroke...it became the RICHEST religion too...

Good for you!

[kharvel]

Actually, popularity doesn't equate truth. Koresh was a murderer.

Do you also believe that Mohammed was a murderer?

Jesus is our savior and the son of God that was crucified for your sins and mine and God raised him from the dead.

But sir, you are a believer of Jesus. The believers of Koresh would deny that Koresh is a murderer and that he was another son of God that was burned in Waco for our sins and God will raise him from the dead in the near future.

As a follower of Jesus, why do you deny the beliefs of the followers of Koresh?

[Jhaan]

Do you also believe that Mohammed was a murderer?


Were the teachings of Koresh and Mohammed the same?


But sir, you are a believer of Jesus. The believers of Koresh would deny that Koresh is a murderer and that he was another son of God that was burned in Waco for our sins and God will raise him from the dead in the near future.

As a follower of Jesus, why do you deny the beliefs of the followers of Koresh?

Were the teachings of Koresh and Jesus the same?

Were the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed the same?

Are the teachings in the Bible and the Koran the same?

Are Judaism and Christianity the same?

Are Christianity and Buddhism the same?

[kharvel]

Were the teachings of Koresh and Mohammed the same?

I think mgoodlin was referring to the actions of Koresh when he accused him of being a murderer.

Were the teachings of Koresh and Jesus the same?

Were the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed the same?

Are the teachings in the Bible and the Koran the same?

Are Judaism and Christianity the same?

Are Christianity and Buddhism the same?

What point are you attempting to make with the questions?

[Jhaan]

What point are you attempting to make with the questions?

You said...


As a follower of Jesus, why do you deny the beliefs of the followers of Koresh?

You imply that the teachings of Koresh are the same as those of Jesus. I want to know how far you're willing to take that belief.

[mgoodlin]

I believe that mohammed was mislead. I believe that Jesus' tomb is empty and the last time I checked Koresh''s was not empty. I believe that Jesus fulfilled God's messianic promise, that he came, he took on the sin of the world and died for that sin. I also believe the testimony that he was resurrected and sits at God's right hand. Koresh did not fulfill any of those claims. You would also be hard pressed to find any of his followers saying he still is the messiah.



Do you also believe that Mohammed was a murderer?



But sir, you are a believer of Jesus. The believers of Koresh would deny that Koresh is a murderer and that he was another son of God that was burned in Waco for our sins and God will raise him from the dead in the near future.

As a follower of Jesus, why do you deny the beliefs of the followers of Koresh?

[mgoodlin]

Many people do things in other's names that do not follow their teaching. Christianity and the Muslim faith both were pressed with the sword. Does that Mean Christ advocated this no. Men killed. Men always have. That is called sin. You forget at Jesus' time many came and claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus came, ministered and backed up what he claimed, That is what I believe based upon testimony., based upon the historical faxt of Jesus' existence and his empty tomb. But most of all on Faith. The same faith you use to say he wasn't God.

I believe that mohammed was mislead. I believe that Jesus' tomb is empty and the last time I checked Koresh''s was not empty. I believe that Jesus fulfilled God's messianic promise, that he came, he took on the sin of the world and died for that sin. I also believe the testimony that he was resurrected and sits at God's right hand. Koresh did not fulfill any of those claims. You would also be hard pressed to find any of his followers saying he still is the messiah.

[kharvel]

You imply that the teachings of Koresh are the same as those of Jesus. I want to know how far you're willing to take that belief.

You misunderstand. I was not implying that the teachings of Koresh are the same as those of Jesus.

I was implying that mgoodlin was throwing rocks at other folks' glass houses from his own glass house.

[kharvel]

I believe that mohammed was mislead.

I believe that Jesus was a schizophrenic. What do you have to say about this belief?

I believe that Jesus' tomb is empty and the last time I checked Koresh''s was not empty.

Zarathustra's tomb does not exist. Does that mean that Zarathustra has never died and is still alive amongst us?

I believe that Jesus fulfilled God's messianic promise, that he came, he took on the sin of the world and died for that sin.

Then why don't you believe the mental patient in ward #12 that claims to be another messiah from a god and is trying to take on the sin of the world and attempting to die for that sin?

[mammothwoolly]

I believe that Jesus was a schizophrenic. What do you have to say about this belief?I believe that this belief is based on positivism, as the great Wu has already pointed out. Indeed, I found his long post mostly on the mark, while I found your post difficult to stomach. While you were trying to disprove his case, you were actually making his case.Zarathustra's tomb does not exist. Does that mean that Zarathustra has never died and is still alive amongst us?Possibly. What does the historical record say about Zarathustra? Is Zarathustra's story consistent and backed up with archaeological evidence?
There is a difference between historical proof and scientific proof. You can't prove Caesar lived, if you are limited to pure logic without considering historical evidence. Yet people believe Caesar lived....Then why don't you believe the mental patient in ward #12 that claims to be another messiah from a god and is trying to take on the sin of the world and attempting to die for that sin?It's possible. What does the scientific (yes science has it's place in forensics, for example) and historical evidence suggest? Have people seen miracles which can be independently identified? Are those witnesses credible? Is there any counter-evidence? Is it credible?

[darkfrog]

I believe that mohammed was mislead. I believe that Jesus' tomb is empty and the last time I checked Koresh''s was not empty. I believe that Jesus fulfilled God's messianic promise, that he came, he took on the sin of the world and died for that sin. I also believe the testimony that he was resurrected and sits at God's right hand. Koresh did not fulfill any of those claims. You would also be hard pressed to find any of his followers saying he still is the messiah.
:welcome: to the Podium.
I invite you to join us over on this thread here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=11629&t=508725) since the discussion about fulfillment of messianic prophecies is too OT to delve into in this thread.

You say Mohamed was misled. In what way? Are you sure he wasn't a megalomaniac that wanted power or truly psychotic and heard voices? If you can say any of those things about Mohamed, you can certainly say them about Jesus as well. There is no direct evidence that the man even lived let alone died and resurrected. No writings by his hand, no archaeological evidence, no other writings by a non-convert (Josephus doesn't count since the authenticity is debated).

Do you also believe the Jewish people are misled since they didn't see the "truth" in Jesus' supposed fulfillments of messianic prophecies (I again refer you to the other thread. Jews believe that the Moshiach will be a mortal man and fulfill ALL of the prophecies and not just a select few, than return for another go in a few thousand years).

[kharvel]

I believe that this belief is based on positivism, as the great Wu has already pointed out. Indeed, I found his long post mostly on the mark, while I found your post difficult to stomach. While you were trying to disprove his case, you were actually making his case.

I am not basing the belief of Jesus as a schizophrenic on science but on my own logic. In other words, it was an equal possibility that made sense to me.

Dr. Wu has attempted without much success to pigeonhole my beliefs as based on positivism even though I have clearly stated that science is just another religion like any other.

Possibly. What does the historical record say about Zarathustra? Is Zarathustra's story consistent and backed up with archaeological evidence?

With sufficient funding and interest, I'm sure we'll be able to produce enough archaeological evidence to either prove or disprove the possibility.

There is a difference between historical proof and scientific proof. You can't prove Caesar lived, if you are limited to pure logic without considering historical evidence. Yet people believe Caesar lived....It's possible.

Hearsay from parties with vested interests does not count as historical evidence, at least in my opinion.

What does the scientific (yes science has it's place in forensics, for example) and historical evidence suggest? Have people seen miracles which can be independently identified? Are those witnesses credible? Is there any counter-evidence? Is it credible?

Thank you for stating the necessary questions about the claims made by Jesus and his followers.

[trancepire]

To a positivist, it is reasonable. B/c the lack of proof of divinity represents an indictment of divinity. But to a rational mind that is not blinded by the philosophy of positivism it is clearly absurd. B/c the rational mind can admit that revelation is possible, while at the same time being unprovable. And to suggest that a follower of Christ must square their thinking with a half understood list of logical fallacies is a maneuver that attempts to rob Christianity of its context as a faith. This is something that the science of logic cannot do.
What is reasonable about deciding something is possible if not provable? In this context that sounds more like faith than reason to me.

I've seen the attempt to smear positivism here a number of times and am left wondering how this is considered reasonable. It's like saying that maybe...just maybe...1 + 1 really is 3 and we're just close minded to believe that 2 is the only answer. We can't prove it really is 2 so we shouldn't laugh when someone says it's really 3...because maybe it is 3...maybe...we just can't prove it...

[mammothwoolly]

I am not basing the belief of Jesus as a schizophrenic on science but on my own logic. In other words, it was an equal possibility that made sense to me. Lemme clarify, this sentence says that you are not basing your belief on Jesus as a schiophrenic on science, but you are basing your belief of Jesus as a scizophrenic on your own logic, that is, it was an equal possibility that made sense to you. I'd say this is a perfect example of faith, and so I agree, this is what you've done. Absent absolute empirical evidence, everything is faith, although some faith is more consistent with the historical facts than others. I believe you have judged poorly on that basis, but that's for a Bible thread or something.
If you made this decision between two equals, in other words, if it's acceptable to believe or not believe Jesus, they you're not making this decision based upon positivism. But your posts often sound like Christianity has to be empirically proved before you believe it.
[quote=kharvel;11036033]
Dr. Wu has attempted without much success to pigeonhole my beliefs as based on positivism even though I have clearly stated that science is just another religion like any other.
Science is not religion. Science deals with empirical data, whereas religion generally deals with historical data. The only way your statement works is to enlarge the meaning of science to an absurb extent.
With sufficient funding and interest, I'm sure we'll be able to produce enough archaeological evidence to either prove or disprove the possibility.
So, you believe archaeological evidence can be trusted to prove Zarathustra's everlastingness, eh? Why do I not believe you? Something about archaeological evidence of Jesus' existence, I'm sure.
Hearsay from parties with vested interests does not count as historical evidence, at least in my opinion.
Ah yes, if we find proof of Zarathustra, you'll relegate it to hearsay from parties with vested interests. If it's god for the goose, it must be god for the gander.:lmao:
Thank you for stating the necessary questions about the claims made by Jesus and his followers. This level of evidence is unattainable, hence faith.

[mgoodlin]

It is not so much that I don't believe in miracles but it is the fact that there is no consistency in the beliefs about miracles.

Someone may believe in certain miracles but would easily dismiss other miracles. This inconsistency leads me to believe that miracles are the product of the human mind simply because the human mind is inconsistent. Furthermore, miracles are based on hearsay. How does one trust hearsay from inconsistent human minds?

The idea that miracles don't happen is a presupposition proved by the very inconsistency of the human mind.



Miracles are either true or they are not. consistency of belief does not prrof anything. many people can believe something that is not true and still be wrong.



One does not need to attempt a 2000 year old diagnosis of insanity. One only needs to witness the denial of other claims to prove or at least question that Jesus is not the son of a god.

Jesus and his followers denied the claims of the existence of the Roman gods. If they denied such claims, why should we believe their claims that Jesus is the son of a god? I'll use your argument against Jesus. Jesus and his followers could not have proved that the Roman gods did not exist and therefore he presupposed that miracles did not happen. So if Jesus and his followers denied the existence of miracles as they pertain to the Roman gods, it would be illogical for us to believe the claims of miracles made by Jesus and his followers! It is a proverbial house of cards.

Jesus was a historical figure who backed up his claims to being God. The jews attested to his miracles in their writings. His resurrection is proof of his claims. I know of no historical figures that represented Roman Gods.

Could you please specify which argument or statement of mine has the fallacies that you mentioned?



Then how exactly do you suggest we address the denials of revelations by those who themselves claim their own revelations?



I have not called for any scientific evidence or logic to prove the existence of miracles, gods, revelations, etc. I have already stated that science is just another religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. and it has many theories that are unprovable, just like the other religions. I would not want to attempt to use one religion to prove the existence or non-existence of another religion.

Would I still qualify as a positivist, despite my statements above?



It is reasonable precisely because the followers of Christ use the concepts of science to certify someone as insane. Do you see the disconnect here? Rather than certify someone as an insano, it would be more consistent and reasonable for the followers of Christ to accord the same respect to that person as they do for other religious figures outside of Christendom (which unfortunately is quite infrequent).



No, it is reasonable not because of the lack of proof but because of the fact that the religious programs use the very lack of proof against other religious programs to discredit them. It's called the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is an interesting thought. During my travels to India, Nepal, and Southeast Asia, I came across many Hindus who thought of Jesus not as an insano but as a bona fide religious hero of the same caliber as their religious icons. Despite the lack of scientific proof pointing to the existence of the Hindu gods, the very consistency in their beliefs lends credence to the possible existence of said gods. The Hindus do not dispute or deny the miracles performed by Jesus and in many case, they will not dispute or deny the miracles performed by other persons. Because of their willingness to accept many claims, their presupposition that miracles do happen has stronger credence.

They accept Jesus' miracles but they do not accept him being the only way to God

As long as consistency is present, a rational mind can be comfortable with the possible existence of revelations.



But something that denies other faiths and other miracles cannot be called a faith but the product of an insane or irrational mind possibly influenced by Greed. Why would a faith that presupposes the existence of miracles deny the very miracles promulgated by a different religion? Why is it that they deny the actions/miracles of the Roman gods such as Apollo, Jupiter, Neptune, et al? These denials alone rob Christianity, Judaism, and Islam of their context as faiths.

Christianity does not deny that there is not truth outside of Christianity or mircalces that do happen outside the Christian faith; what they do deny is that there is any othetr way to God. Jesus said I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. Ther ecan be no other way to God. If Jesus is THE way there are no other ways. And to date I have not seen any histrocial evidence for the miracles of Roman gods. Have you? Please share

We are doing this because the inconsistency in religion is objectionable. Inconsistency is the domain of an irrational or insane mind, possibly influenced by Greed. Any rational person would find that objectionable.

I think it is only irrational to you because you won't accept Christ as being the one way.

Then one must discard the competing claims and rely on the consistent truths across all claims. The consistent truth is the universal truth and would lead to a consistent religion. A supernatural being is not required to understand the universal truth. Everything else can be dismissed.



You misunderstood my comment. When I said "scientifically analyze one claim", I was referring to the analysis of the claims of a certified insano. If certain religions accept the certification of insanity, they are in effect accepting the scientific analysis that led to the certification of insanity. I was posting the question as to why the same scientific analysis for the certification of insanity should not be applied to the founders of the religions. That would be consistent or unbiased in the sense that Kharvel's Second Law is not violated. It matters not whether science is capable of such an investigation or not - what matters is that the investigation is applied consistently.



This contradicts the idea of religion as a harbinger of universal truth. Religion cannot be particular if it attempts to promote "universal" truths. So I am not sure why you think that a particular religion could harbor universal truths that applies to everyone in general.

Why not. Either Jesus was the sone of God or he was not. If he was then his claims of truth were valid and exclusive


So the universality of a belief is not an evidence in and of itself? For example, if every human being believes that grass is yellow and not green, then grass must be yellow. The fact that science claims grass is green is irrelevant since science is just a religion like any other. Universal truths are truths that are accepted by all human beings.

Exactly. If I say Grass is blue I am wrong. If you have examined the evidence and you see it is Green I am wrong in my analysis. Consensus of belief does not make something true.

[Parafly9]

Exactly. If I say Grass is blue I am wrong. If you have examined the evidence and you see it is Green I am wrong in my analysis. Consensus of belief does not make something true.

Too bad matters of faith are not as simple as grass color

[Doctor_Wu]

What is reasonable about deciding something is possible if not provable? In this context that sounds more like faith than reason to me.

Where does faith enter into this? Shouldn't reasonable men admit that some unprovable things are possible? That's just admitting our ignorance. After all, we live in a whole we didn't create.

Let's look at the reverse idea... if we said that "unprovable things are impossible"... now that is an article of faith.


I've seen the attempt to smear positivism here a number of times and am left wondering how this is considered reasonable. It's like saying that maybe...just maybe...1 + 1 really is 3 and we're just close minded to believe that 2 is the only answer. We can't prove it really is 2 so we shouldn't laugh when someone says it's really 3...because maybe it is 3...maybe...we just can't prove it...

I don't think the attempt to use math to analogize this situation is appropriate.

Math is the creation of man, and man's science. It's a way to measure things... which is fine, it has its purposes. But we cannot measure theology. Though we try.

You've got to see that math is what it is b/c it is an artificial system that we created to measure things. It's our system. We agree on certain fundamentals about it, and as a tool it is highly logical, empirical, and trustworthy. But it is only trustworthy as a tool, it is not more than that. In other words...it is still subject to the old adage "garbage in garbage out".

1+1=2 b/c we can agree on the value of 1. We can agree on the value of 2. There is an artificial system that has been agreed upon. You're taking this scenario where there is total agreement on the value and meaning of numerical quantities and attempting to say that it is analogous to the idea of a god who revealed truth to man. But there is no measurement of such things... nor is there agreement on them. How is it reasonable to claim that such things can be measured?

The value of 1 can be observed, it can be brought together with another 1 and we can see that there are now 2. We can agree on that b/c it lies within the realm of observation.

Math is an abstract expression of our perception of reality. We observe that there are two blocks. But that itself is subject to the conventions established by mathematics. We say the word "two" (as opposed to another value) b/c of the conventions of mathematics.

[trancepire]

Where does faith enter into this? Shouldn't reasonable men admit that some unprovable things are possible? That's just admitting our ignorance. After all, we live in a whole we didn't create.

Let's look at the reverse idea... if we said that "unprovable things are impossible"... now that is an article of faith.
It is reasonable to admit that some unprovable things are possible, but others really require a leap of faith. It's even more reasonable to admit that some things may never be proven. I understand that nothingness is scary and some may need to convince themselves that one or another mythology is true and there's a paradise waiting on the other side of this troublesome life; even that's reasonable if it helps them get through the day. That is, the reasoning behind the belief (coping) is sound as a means to an end. The belief itself is rather unreasonable. In other words, faith is unreasonable but having faith is not. :)

Faith (in this context) is unreasonable by definition. Believing in something that has no physical proof outside the stories in a book flies in the face of reason. I'm not suggesting it is ignorant to be faithful; I'm merely suggesting it is absurd to claim that faith is reasonable.

We started to discuss this in the CvE thread I believe but I haven't gone back to that one in quite awhile.



I don't think the attempt to use math to analogize this situation is appropriate.

Math is the creation of man, and man's science. It's a way to measure things... which is fine, it has its purposes. But we cannot measure theology. Though we try.

You've got to see that math is what it is b/c it is an artificial system that we created to measure things. It's our system. We agree on certain fundamentals about it, and as a tool it is highly logical, empirical, and trustworthy. But it is only trustworthy as a tool, it is not more than that. In other words...it is still subject to the old adage "garbage in garbage out".

1+1=2 b/c we can agree on the value of 1. We can agree on the value of 2. There is an artificial system that has been agreed upon. You're taking this scenario where there is total agreement on the value and meaning of numerical quantities and attempting to say that it is analogous to the idea of a god who revealed truth to man. But there is no measurement of such things... nor is there agreement on them. How is it reasonable to claim that such things can be measured?

The value of 1 can be observed, it can be brought together with another 1 and we can see that there are now 2. We can agree on that b/c it lies within the realm of observation.

Math is an abstract expression of our perception of reality. We observe that there are two blocks. But that itself is subject to the conventions established by mathematics. We say the word "two" (as opposed to another value) b/c of the conventions of mathematics.
Surely some of the higher forms of math are designed by man (to accurately express naturally occurring things), but I'm talking about simple math here. If there are two apples on the table in front of us we can visually and tactually verify that there are two. It does not matter what word we use to express the number. It's not a matter of perception; there aren't 3 apples there and we can compare the twoness of apples to other pairs of objects without having any knowledge of math.

I would argue that theology is far more man made than most math.

[mgoodlin]

I believe that Jesus was a schizophrenic. What do you have to say about this belief?

Have you read the Bible? Jesus' teaching have too much coherency and are too lucid to support your theory, His responses to the Pharisees show too much understanding of the jewish law to suggest mental illness. Schizophrenics contradict themselves. I can say I am God but what evidence do I show to support this. I think that is am important difference. The real question is do you believe the testimony? Are you an athesit? Just curious where you stand and what you believe. Is greed your God?


Zarathustra's tomb does not exist. Does that mean that Zarathustra has never died and is still alive amongst us?

Hmm..and which of Zarathustra's disciples testified of this fact and were willing to be brutally tortured and murdered when they could simply recant their testimony and live?
Secondly the bible testifies that after his resurrection many witnessed Jesus' resurrected body. I see no evidence of that for Zarathustra.

Then why don't you believe the mental patient in ward #12 that claims to be another messiah from a god and is trying to take on the sin of the world and attempting to die for that sin?

Because
A They have not fulfilled the messianic prophecies that Jesus literally fulfilled
B Because others did not testify to their miracles, to their death and resurrection

Jesus made claims to be God and fulfilled those claims. The proof is there. I will pray for you. Just the fact that you are here means you are searching. I hop you find the answer before your time has passed.

[mgoodlin]

Your objection to faith presupposes it is unreasonable. You also presuppose it is based upon a need out of nothingness rather than an examination of the evidence and the choice to trust God. I might say your choice that there is nothing is based upon your need not to face your sin and be accountable to the Lord.


It is reasonable to admit that some unprovable things are possible, but others really require a leap of faith. It's even more reasonable to admit that some things may never be proven. I understand that nothingness is scary and some may need to convince themselves that one or another mythology is true and there's a paradise waiting on the other side of this troublesome life; even that's reasonable if it helps them get through the day. That is, the reasoning behind the belief (coping) is sound as a means to an end. The belief itself is rather unreasonable. In other words, faith is unreasonable but having faith is not. :)

Faith (in this context) is unreasonable by definition. Believing in something that has no physical proof outside the stories in a book flies in the face of reason. I'm not suggesting it is ignorant to be faithful; I'm merely suggesting it is absurd to claim that faith is reasonable.

We started to discuss this in the CvE thread I believe but I haven't gone back to that one in quite awhile.



Surely some of the higher forms of math are designed by man (to accurately express naturally occurring things), but I'm talking about simple math here. If there are two apples on the table in front of us we can visually and tactually verify that there are two. It does not matter what word we use to express the number. It's not a matter of perception; there aren't 3 apples there and we can compare the twoness of apples to other pairs of objects without having any knowledge of math.

I would argue that theology is far more man made than most math.

[kharvel]

Because
A They have not fulfilled the messianic prophecies that Jesus literally fulfilled

How do you know this without relying on scientific evidence?

B Because others did not testify to their miracles, to their death and resurrection

OK, I can hire 10 people to testify that the mental patient in ward #12 did all of the stuff Jesus did and more. After presenting their testimonies to you, would you then start worshiping mental patient in ward #12?

Jesus made claims to be God and fulfilled those claims.

According to hearsay from certain folks with vested interest in the outcome.

The proof is there.

I have stated before that hearsay from parties with vested interests does not count as historical evidence.

[mgoodlin]

:welcome: to the Podium.
I invite you to join us over on this thread here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=11629&t=508725) since the discussion about fulfillment of messianic prophecies is too OT to delve into in this thread.

You say Mohamed was misled. In what way? Are you sure he wasn't a megalomaniac that wanted power or truly psychotic and heard voices? If you can say any of those things about Mohamed, you can certainly say them about Jesus as well. There is no direct evidence that the man even lived let alone died and resurrected. No writings by his hand, no archaeological evidence, no other writings by a non-convert (Josephus doesn't count since the authenticity is debated).

Hmm and what of Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara BAr-Serapion. All mention Chist. Trajan, Macrobius, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marcus Aureliusm, Juvenal, Seneca, Hierocles,. Few scholars doubt Jeuss existecne today. Why do you? This does ot even take into account the Jewish Sanhedrin which claimed that he practiced sorcery and was hung on a tree. I would say that is historical. If you deny he existed does that release you from your sin?
Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life. There is no other way to God. Mohammed claimed Jesus was not God but only a prophet and was not crucified. One is correct one is not. If Jesus was right Mohammed was wrong. I do not know why Mohammed was wrong only that he was incorrect in the context of my Lord.
As for writing of his own hand....who cares. Does he need to have written down his words for them to be believed and have meaning. Others testified of his lordship.
You say there is no direct evidence. There is the testimony of his friends of Paul. There is the historical fact they died for something they knew was the truth; not because they were fanatics but because they saw the Risen Lord. Do you also deny the testimony concerning their deaths?

Do you also believe the Jewish people are misled since they didn't see the "truth" in Jesus' supposed fulfillments of messianic prophecies (I again refer you to the other thread. Jews believe that the Moshiach will be a mortal man and fulfill ALL of the prophecies and not just a select few, than return for another go in a few thousand years).

Yes, I do. Jesus, was mortal and died on the cross. I believe he fulled the prophecies of his birth, life and death. He will fulfill the rest upon his return when he restores Israel in the millennium.

Finally, if you are saying Jesus was schizophrenic. I can point to his teachings to support his sanity. They were coherent, logial and not disconnected from reality. Your claim of insanity is based upon your presupposition that a man cannot be God. That he must have been insane to claim that.

[mgoodlin]

How do you know this without relying on scientific evidence?

by faith.

OK, I can hire 10 people to testify that the mental patient in ward #12 did all of the stuff Jesus did and more. After presenting their testimonies to you, would you then start worshiping mental patient in ward #12?

Would they give their lives for this testimony, doubtful. You forget Christians in Rome were set on fire on crosses to light the gardens. Would you die for a lie?

According to hearsay from certain folks with vested interest in the outcome.



I have stated before that hearsay from parties with vested interests does not count as historical evidence.

I listed secular sources with no vested interest. Some Roman some Jewish. No interest there.

[kharvel]

Finally, if you are saying Jesus was schizophrenic. I can point to his teachings to support his sanity. They were coherent, logial and not disconnected from reality.

The teachings were not written by Jesus himself. A group of individuals, most likely sane people, wrote the teachings.

In any case, some individuals suffering from schizophrenia or hallucinations can still promulgate teachings that are coherent and logical (eg. John Nash, the mathematician). As for the disconnect from reality, it is accepted today that schizophrenic fantasies/hallucinations are totally disconnected from reality.

Your claim of insanity is based upon your presupposition that a man cannot be God. That he must have been insane to claim that.

But we are using YOUR presupposition that the mental patient in ward #12 cannot be a god and that he is insane to claim that. Why is it we cannot apply the same presupposition to Jesus, Mohammed, or Moses?

OK, let's accept for a moment the historical "evidence" showing Jesus is all what you claim him to be. I will show you other historical "evidence" showing that 1,000 other men are also like Jesus (eg. Zarathustra, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Imhotep, etc.). If you believe that there can only be one Jesus-type dude and you choose Jesus himself, then you are doing so only because Christianity is the dominant religion in your part of the world and you were born in it. If the Religion of Imhotep was the dominant one, you would be an Imhotep follower and dismiss Jesus as a nobody.

So it all boils down to the dominance of certain religions over others. You believe that Mohammed was misled and a Muslim will say that Jesus was misled. Show him historical evidence of Jesus and the Muslim will show you historical evidence of Mohammed and the Imhotep follower will show you historical evidence of Imhotep and the Zoroastrian will show you historical evidence of Zarathustra and the Mormon will show you historical evidence of Joseph Smith. And I will show you the testimonies of the 10 people certifying the "evidence" of Jesus-like miracles by the mental patient in ward #12.

It becomes a circus of historical "evidence" and you're part of the act!

[kharvel]

Since the Christians believe these will be fulfilled on his second coming.

So there is a strong possibility that the mental patient in ward #12 may actually be the second coming of Jesus? That's interesting.

[kharvel]

Darkfrog, I know we've gone over a few of these in posts past, but have we ever discussed Is. 53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%2053&version=31)?

Would it help if I pointed out some passages in the Book of Mormon to support the Mormons' contention that Joseph Smith is another Jesus?

[kharvel]

I would prefer that this thread not devolve into a discussion of what is said, was is not said, was interpreted, was not interpreted in books written by followers of certain religions.

Remember, using the Bible, Koran, or Torah to prove the legitimacy of Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses, respectively is like using the scriptures of Scientology or the Book of Mormon to prove the legitimacy of L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, respectively.

To bring us back to the topic, here is a question:

In 100 years from now, will L. Ron Hubbard be worshiped by tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, in the same fashion as hundreds of millions today worship Jesus?

Another question. If Mohammed was assassinated before he had his "visions" about a god, do you think that instead of Islam, Zoroaster (Zarathustra) and his religion of Ahura Mazda would have dominated the Middle East by now? Instead of the Koran, everyone in the Middle East would be reading the Avesta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta)

In that scenario, we would still have the same discussion today but instead of questioning the mental state of Mohammed, we would be questioning the mental state of Zoroaster.

[mohater]

This topic is pointless, all points are deemed irrelevant by kharvel, all counters are deemed without merit by kharvel. You're both the one asking the questions, and the one providing the answers.

Certis Paribus doesn't exist here, no matter how hard you try to make it appear to exist.

[mgoodlin]

The teachings were not written by Jesus himself. A group of individuals, most likely sane people, wrote the teachings.

I can see your vested interest in maintaining that Jesus was crazy because you initiatiated this thread. If sane people wrote the teachings why would they have started in the first place? Let's say you are correct, Jesus is insane. He goes around proclaiming he is God, never does one miracle and is crucified. End of story. Why would anyone have continued what he said after his death if everything he said was a lie? Sorry, that doesn't make sense. He would have been forgotten. As of for others writing his teachings, why are we still going around in a circle on that? They reported what they hear or saw. Or are you basing this assumpition on the fact that the oldest manuscipts are later first century? It is enough time to provide an accurate account. Seriously, my friend what would convince you? What evidence do you need to belief? If Jesus came down and appeeared to you today? Would you? The people at his time witnessed his miracles and still chose not to belief. I see it is the same today. sigh [B]

In any case, some individuals suffering from schizophrenia or hallucinations can still promulgate teachings that are coherent and logical (eg. John Nash, the mathematician). As for the disconnect from reality, it is accepted today that schizophrenic fantasies/hallucinations are totally disconnected from reality.

[B]Exactly, but the fact that they are insane would have some point overshadowed their lives as it did Nash. What motive do you suggest for Jesus' disciples making disciples of all men when they knew their teacher was crazy. And do this to the poijnt of their own deaths? These men were closest to him, would they not know he was mentally deranged. You are doing what the people of his time did you except they said he had a demon.



But we are using YOUR presupposition that the mental patient in ward #12 cannot be a god and that he is insane to claim that. Why is it we cannot apply the same presupposition to Jesus, Mohammed, or Moses?

We aren't presupposing it we are looking at the evidence. Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy. He was born at the time he that was predicted in the Bible. He fulfilled what was predicted in Isaiah. He claimed to be God and his miracles were evidence of his claims. His resurrection was the greatest miracle. Earlier I mentioned sources that were secular that gave support to the historical figure Jesus. Do the research, the San Hedrin acknowledged his miracles and called him a sorcerer. You asked for secular confirmation and I provided it.

OK, let's accept for a moment the historical "evidence" showing Jesus is all what you claim him to be. I will show you other historical "evidence" showing that 1,000 other men are also like Jesus (eg. Zarathustra, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Imhotep, etc.). If you believe that there can only be one Jesus-type dude and you choose Jesus himself, then you are doing so only because Christianity is the dominant religion in your part of the world and you were born in it. If the Religion of Imhotep was the dominant one, you would be an Imhotep follower and dismiss Jesus as a nobody.
We could say all men have qualities that Jessu had but could we say of those men they had all of his qualities? Did they fulfill the messianic prophecies? Please tell me which prophecies Hubbard, Smith, Zarathustra fulfilled? Tell me how their lives were perfect and they exemplified what Isaiah predicted would happen to the Son of God? Which of their followers were burned, boiled in oil, crucifed upside down, stoned, beaten, scourged and finally killed rather than recant the testimony they gave regarding someone they knew personally.

So it all boils down to the dominance of certain religions over others. You believe that Mohammed was misled and a Muslim will say that Jesus was misled. Show him historical evidence of Jesus and the Muslim will show you historical evidence of Mohammed and the Imhotep follower will show you historical evidence of Imhotep and the Zoroastrian will show you historical evidence of Zarathustra and the Mormon will show you historical evidence of Joseph Smith. And I will show you the testimonies of the 10 people certifying the "evidence" of Jesus-like miracles by the mental patient in ward #12.

Read Mohammed, he was asked to perform a miracle to prove he was from God. He did not. Because he could not. It does not boil down to dominance, rather I think it boils down to truth. None of these men were crucified. None claimed to be resurrected and none had testimony from their friends to verify this fact. The fact is if there followers said they were I would not accept it based upon all of the evidence. But I would look logically at their claim to be God and examine the evidence for and against. Have you my friend? There is one way whether you will admit it or not. I am curious my friend why you will not share your beliefs or lack of?

It becomes a circus of historical "evidence" and you're part of the act!
Thank you. I am happy to serve my Lord. But attacking me at being part of the act is only attacking the speaker and does not lead credence to your theory. Actually, I think the house of cards is falling

[mgoodlin]

So there is a strong possibility that the mental patient in ward #12 may actually be the second coming of Jesus? That's interesting.

Hmm, what propecies did he fulfill? Is he in the mental ward because he claimed to be God and offered no evidence of his assertion. I think that would disqualify him would it not?

This topic is pointless, all points are deemed irrelevant by kharvel, all counters are deemed without merit by kharvel. You're both the one asking the questions, and the one providing the answers.

Certis Paribus doesn't exist here, no matter how hard you try to make it appear to exist.

Thank you for your assessment.

[mgoodlin]

I would prefer that this thread not devolve into a discussion of what is said, was is not said, was interpreted, was not interpreted in books written by followers of certain religions.

Remember, using the Bible, Koran, or Torah to prove the legitimacy of Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses, respectively is like using the scriptures of Scientology or the Book of Mormon to prove the legitimacy of L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, respectively.

To bring us back to the topic, here is a question:

In 100 years from now, will L. Ron Hubbard be worshiped by tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, in the same fashion as hundreds of millions today worship Jesus?

Another question. If Mohammed was assassinated before he had his "visions" about a god, do you think that instead of Islam, Zoroaster (Zarathustra) and his religion of Ahura Mazda would have dominated the Middle East by now? Instead of the Koran, everyone in the Middle East would be reading the Avesta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta)

In that scenario, we would still have the same discussion today but instead of questioning the mental state of Mohammed, we would be questioning the mental state of Zoroaster.

Actually, only you are questioning Jesus' mental state. While we are at it please provide documentation for your claim that Jesus was insane. What do you base this upon? What qualities of schizophrenia do you attribute to him? How are you qualified to make that assesment? You won't even acknowledge he existed but you can analyze his mental state? What you are doing my friend is starting with the assumption that he was crazy to make the claims he did. That he must have been insane because it could not have possible been true. I asked you what your beliefs were? Please share. The fact is as CS Lewis said he is either Lord, Liar or Lunatic. You have chosen the third choice. Because you will not believe. You can mention every supposed prpphet you want that does not take away from Jesus' lordship. The fact is I could say I am God. The first thing everyone will say to me is "please prove that"; when I cannot my words will be deemed crazy. I will be institutionalized eventually. People judge me to be insane because my words do not correspond to reality. Precisely because my words held no weight. No one would follow me and my words would be forgotten. Just as your obscure prophets. What you doubt is that Jesus was God. Please drop the charade of insanity. I will continue to pray for all of you.

[mammothwoolly]

This topic is pointless, all points are deemed irrelevant by kharvel, all counters are deemed without merit by kharvel. You're both the one asking the questions, and the one providing the answers.

Certis Paribus doesn't exist here, no matter how hard you try to make it appear to exist.

Y'know, I don't agree with you most of the time mohater, but this is one time I think you're right. Kharvel tends to be very rigid in his perspectives, thinking he has both the right questions as well as the right answers. Forever hearing and not perceiving.

The story of King Nebuchdnezzar on top of his palace comes to mind as well.

It also makes me wonder how often I am like that. Hmm, thanks kharvel/mohater, this is a good "devotional" thought for me.

[mgoodlin]

I'm done. These questions are pointless. What I have come to realize is that each person comes with his own presupposition/mindsets. What I believe in faith may never influence what you believe. I ray it does though. I pray for you all that God will spark a fire in each of you to find the truth for yourselves. Please be objective and look at both sides. I once did not believe and it was through looking at both sides of the issue I made a decision to believe based upon the evidence. Whether you accept it or not there is cause to believe. God Bless!

[iamiam]

Too bad matters of faith are not as simple as grass color
On the contrary, it is only as complicated as one chooses to make it.

[Doctor_Wu]

All conversation about theology or doctrine needs to be conducted here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=18709&t=508725)

[Jhaan]

Remember, using the Bible, Koran, or Torah to prove the legitimacy of Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses, respectively is like using the scriptures of Scientology or the Book of Mormon to prove the legitimacy of L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, respectively.


I never thought I'd say this, but kharvel, you are absolutely right. You must read the works of religious figures to come to any sort of conclusion about their legitimacy. Using the knowledge gained from the religious texts, you can compare the texts to each other, history, outside sources, archeology, and other observations of the world.

You can then take those results and, through reason and logic, reach a conclusion about their veracity (or lack of it).

[trancepire]

Your objection to faith presupposes it is unreasonable. You also presuppose it is based upon a need out of nothingness rather than an examination of the evidence and the choice to trust God.
There's no presupposition; that would be unreasonable. What I'm saying is that one cannot arrive at faith via reason.

Were there actually evidence I'd be compelled to examine it and reassess the situation.
I might say your choice that there is nothing is based upon your need not to face your sin and be accountable to the Lord.
What sin would that be?

[kharvel]

I never thought I'd say this, but kharvel, you are absolutely right. You must read the works of religious figures to come to any sort of conclusion about their legitimacy. Using the knowledge gained from the religious texts, you can compare the texts to each other, history, outside sources, archeology, and other observations of the world.

You can then take those results and, through reason and logic, reach a conclusion about their veracity (or lack of it).

I think you missed the point I was attempting to make. The books/scriptures written by the followers of cult leaders/prophets/religious figures will always put these gentlemen in the best possible light.

If Jesus or Mohammed was truly schizophrenic along the same lines as John Nash, his closest followers will, of course, notice that but will either misread that as "divinity" or conveniently ignore such schizophrenia for "the greater purpose". When the religious books are written by loyal and fanatical acolytes and are nothing more than works of aggrandizement, how can you really use such text to reach any conclusions about the legitimacy of the prophets/cult leaders/religious figures?

The Scientology scriptures will always put L. Ron Hubbard as the greatest guy who ever lived. Ditto for the Koran (Mohammed), Bible (Jesus), Avesta (Zoroaster), Book of Mormon (Joseph Smith), and so on and so forth.

I will hire 10 acolytes to write the Book of Kharvel and the book will talk about all the "miracles" I have performed (one miracle I am quite proud of was making it snow in Seattle the past week in the middle of spring) and my ingenuity for coming up with the First and Second Laws. How is this any different than the claims made by the acolytes of Jesus/Mohammed/Moses about the "miracles" performed by each gentleman?

[Jhaan]

I think you missed the point I was attempting to make. The books/scriptures written by the followers of cult leaders/prophets/religious figures will always put these gentlemen in the best possible light.

If Jesus or Mohammed was truly schizophrenic along the same lines as John Nash, his closest followers will, of course, notice that but will either misread that as "divinity" or conveniently ignore such schizophrenia for "the greater purpose". When the religious books are written by loyal and fanatical acolytes and are nothing more than works of aggrandizement, how can you really use such text to reach any conclusions about the legitimacy of the prophets/cult leaders/religious figures?


That's one theory. However, it's a theory that would prove valid through external research of the scriptures. Through all the external research that has been done on the Bible and Koran, that theory has not held up.


I will hire 10 acolytes to write the Book of Kharvel and the book will talk about all the "miracles" I have performed (one miracle I am quite proud of was making it snow in Seattle the past week in the middle of spring) and my ingenuity for coming up with the First and Second Laws. How is this any different than the claims made by the acolytes of Jesus/Mohammed/Moses about the "miracles" performed by each gentleman?

Simple. You're going to need more than 10 followers to offset the witnesses on this forum.

[skypods]

Were Jesus and Mohammed schizophernics? Did Moses have megalomaniac tendencies in the same vein as Joseph Smith?

http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_436.shtml



A researcher has claimed that Moses was high on drugs when he "heard" the words of a god and "saw" a burning bush.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080304120710.ad7gm7i6&show_article=1



What similarities do you see between Moses's apparent hallucinations and his documented megalomania (see Exodus 7:1 and his efforts to lead a disparate group of people)? Was Moses just another Joseph Smith of his time? Was Judaism just an ancient and different version of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

These questions were triggered by the heavy discussion of the Bible and Koran on this forum. To wit, if Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses were just ancient versions of L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, respectively, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the works by the modern prophets? The writings from any of the New Age cults founded by modern schizophrenics could be just as relevant, if not more so, as the Bible (http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_newage/grp_newage_index.htm). The writings of the Branch Davidians may be a more modern replacement for the Koran. Of course, the Book of Mormon is a natural replacement for the Old Testament.

The words and proclamations of the modern schizophrenics and hallucinogen users are just as good as the words and proclamations of ancient schizophrenics and hallucinogen users.



Well, I guess when your down burning in hell you will hope you are schizophrenic or having a bad hallucination huh?
The so called researcher of all this junk just need to get saved. They have nothing better to do. Maybe they should invest their time on researching all the miracles God has performed. I guess i am a mental case. I saw a man cured of cancer in 2 weeks without getting any treatment from a doctor or medicines. Only God can heal people like that. But, yet people still refuse to believe in Him tho he gives you several chances to.:heart:

[Doctor_Wu]

It is reasonable to admit that some unprovable things are possible, but others really require a leap of faith. It's even more reasonable to admit that some things may never be proven. I understand that nothingness is scary and some may need to convince themselves that one or another mythology is true and there's a paradise waiting on the other side of this troublesome life; even that's reasonable if it helps them get through the day. That is, the reasoning behind the belief (coping) is sound as a means to an end. The belief itself is rather unreasonable. In other words, faith is unreasonable but having faith is not. :)

Faith (in this context) is unreasonable by definition. Believing in something that has no physical proof outside the stories in a book flies in the face of reason. I'm not suggesting it is ignorant to be faithful; I'm merely suggesting it is absurd to claim that faith is reasonable.

We started to discuss this in the CvE thread I believe but I haven't gone back to that one in quite awhile.


It was here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=9796108#post9796108)... and I'll leave you to it. It addresses some of what you're saying in this thread.


Surely some of the higher forms of math are designed by man (to accurately express naturally occurring things), but I'm talking about simple math here. If there are two apples on the table in front of us we can visually and tactually verify that there are two. It does not matter what word we use to express the number. It's not a matter of perception; there aren't 3 apples there and we can compare the twoness of apples to other pairs of objects without having any knowledge of math.

I would argue that theology is far more man made than most math.

I would add that we have faith in our ability to observe the universe accurately. But aside from that I don't quite see the point of this analogy. The two apples are there for everyone to see. God is not so immediate.

[darkfrog]

Well, I guess when your down burning in hell you will hope you are schizophrenic or having a bad hallucination huh?
The so called researcher of all this junk just need to get saved. They have nothing better to do. Maybe they should invest their time on researching all the miracles God has performed. I guess i am a mental case. I saw a man cured of cancer in 2 weeks without getting any treatment from a doctor or medicines. Only God can heal people like that. But, yet people still refuse to believe in Him tho he gives you several chances to.:heart:
Only god hmm? So what you are saying is that no unrighteous, non-believing, non-deserving person has never had cancer go into remission?
Why don't we try an experiment in your god's ability to heal. Why won't he heal an amputee (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm)?

[trancepire]

It was here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=9796108#post9796108)... and I'll leave you to it. It addresses some of what you're saying in this thread.
Thanks, I'll get back to that as soon as I can.

I would add that we have faith in our ability to observe the universe accurately. But aside from that I don't quite see the point of this analogy. The two apples are there for everyone to see. God is not so immediate.
The poorly made analogy was meant to be in answer to the rejection of positivism. To disbelieve in something that cannot be seen, touched, experienced, etc with no more proof than a book is not a sign of a flaw in positivism.

As you say, God is not so immediate. Neither are dragons or unicorns but, despite the plenitude of books describing them and their behavior in great detail, I'm sure we can agree they don't exist. I wonder why God isn't held up to the same standards as other things for which there is no physical evidence. Faith requires an intentional suspension of reasoning.

[mammothwoolly]

Faith requires an intentional suspension of reasoning.

I would put it the other way. When reasoning is insufficient, one must intentionally determine what they will have faith in.

[trancepire]

I would put it the other way. When reasoning is insufficient, one must intentionally determine what they will have faith in.
I believe we're saying the same thing. I'd argue however that one needn't have faith in anything (in this context); deciding there is not enough evidence to make a decision either way is valid IMO.

[kharvel]

Lemme clarify, this sentence says that you are not basing your belief on Jesus as a schiophrenic on science, but you are basing your belief of Jesus as a scizophrenic on your own logic, that is, it was an equal possibility that made sense to you. I'd say this is a perfect example of faith, and so I agree, this is what you've done.

It is incorrect to equate logic with faith. Faith means the suspension of logic to believe in something that may be illogical. My logic is based on my experience with society's treatment of members and leaders of religious cults as liars, charlatans, and insane folks. What experience did you have that would make it logical for you to believe in the Bible and Jesus but not in Ahura Mazda/Zoroaster or perhaps in the Hare Krishna movement?

Absent absolute empirical evidence, everything is faith, although some faith is more consistent with the historical facts than others.

It is always easy to make any historical "fact" consistent with any faith. All it takes is for a religion to be victorious over others. A good example is the creationism vs. evolution debate.

I believe you have judged poorly on that basis, but that's for a Bible thread or something.

The followers of Zoroaster or Krishna would say the same thing about your belief in the Bible and Jesus.

But your posts often sound like Christianity has to be empirically proved before you believe it.

What I was attempting to say is that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc. needs to be analyzed from a logical perspective based on one's experience within the modern society to reach a reasonable conclusion. If modern society is treating members and leaders of religious cults as liars, charlatans, and insane, then why should not the same criteria be applied to older religions as well?

But more frankly, even if Christianity is empirically proven, it does not preclude empirical proof of other religions. Does it mean that all religions are equal? If your answer is NO, then you are going against the empirical proof of other religions, thus undercutting the same empirical proof of your own religion. This is known as the glass house phenomenon and is why even if empirical proof exists, it is the actions of the religion and its followers that really establishes its credibility in my eyes and in the eyes of many others.

Science is not religion. Science deals with empirical data, whereas religion generally deals with historical data. The only way your statement works is to enlarge the meaning of science to an absurb extent.

Science is a religion precisely because it attempts to explain the nature of the universe, in the same fashion that religion attempts to explain the nature of the universe. It is a religion precisely because it utilizes theories, conjectures, and speculations to explain natural phenomena. Science thought Newton's Law was the be all, end all of everything until it discovered quantum mechanics and relativity. Science, like religion, is the product of a human mind and we can all agree that the human mind is extremely limited in its understanding of the true aspects of nature.

So, you believe archaeological evidence can be trusted to prove Zarathustra's everlastingness, eh? Why do I not believe you? Something about archaeological evidence of Jesus' existence, I'm sure.

Good. I'm glad you understand that archaeological evidence, like historical evidence, can be manipulated or showcased to promote anyone's religious agenda. Please apply the same thinking to archaeological and historical evidence about Jesus/Moses/Mohammed and we'll be on the same page.

Ah yes, if we find proof of Zarathustra, you'll relegate it to hearsay from parties with vested interests. If it's god for the goose, it must be god for the gander.:lmao: This level of evidence is unattainable, hence faith.

When evidence is absent or unattainable, one must default to logic based on personal experiences. Unless you have had a personal experience with a god (and you have not been certified insane), it would be logical to conclude that religion is the product of the fallible human mind.

[redmaxx]

Faith requires an intentional suspension of reasoning.

How can you reason about something which you can't prove or independently gain knowledge about? It's not really suspending reason, it's just that you simply can't reason about it. Now for other people, like me, we accept information that others won't and reason based on that.

[darkfrog]

Science is a religion precisely because it attempts to explain the nature of the universe, in the same fashion that religion attempts to explain the nature of the universe. It is a religion precisely because it utilizes theories, conjectures, and speculations to explain natural phenomena. Science thought Newton's Law was the be all, end all of everything until it discovered quantum mechanics and relativity. Science, like religion, is the product of a human mind and we can all agree that the human mind is extremely limited in its understanding of the true aspects of nature.

Only in your very loose definition of science can it be considered a religion. Religion's explanation of the universe is based on belief in the supernatural and attempts to create a moral code. Religion ignores empirical data while science builds upon it. Lumping in scientific theory with speculation and conjecture is the same mistake that creationists do. Newton's Laws are as valid today as they were when they first were published. Anything since then has built upon them, not replaced them. We use Newtonian equations everyday in science, engineering and other disciplines. Just because it doesn't hold up in special circumstances doesn't make it invalid. Newton described how gravity affects things, General Relativity described why. In the math of relativity you can still see Newtonian equations, even though they have been modified to account for relativistic situations. Just about every scientific breakthrough builds upon older ones, they don't replace them. In science, when something can be shown to be incorrect, it is discarded, unlike religion which has to continue to support the idea, rationalizing reasons why it is still true. Science uses methodology, observation, correction and falsification. Science can find things out that appear to go against any common sense or reason (you mentioned QM for example). Religions very rarely will be antithetical to what man thinks is reasonable, excepting the existence of an all-powerful, unknowable being (however at the time people came up with those ideas they weren't unreasonable, it was the best explanation at the time). Religion does none of that. If science was a religion, we could not be having this conversation right now.
Calling science a religion is IMO quite disingenuous and frankly insulting to many. It reminds me of the discussions with Mchouse on the Creation/Evolution thread.

[trancepire]

How can you reason about something which you can't prove or independently gain knowledge about?
That's exactly my point.

It's not really suspending reason, it's just that you simply can't reason about it. Now for other people, like me, we accept information that others won't and reason based on that.
How do you decide what possibly imaginary thing to believe in? Once you come to something completely unprovable how does one decide which story or set of beliefs is more true than another? Is that decision based on what one has been exposed to or honest consideration of many possibilities?

[redmaxx]

How do you decide what possibly imaginary thing to believe in?

:dontknow: I just know that I've been able to do it. Can't really explain it...

Once you come to something completely unprovable

I feel it's been sufficiently proved to me.

[Doctor_Wu]

. If science was a religion, we could not be having this conversation right now.
Calling science a religion is IMO quite disingenuous and frankly insulting to many. It reminds me of the discussions with Mchouse on the Creation/Evolution thread.

My view is that Kharvel has a hint of what's going on but is too direct in his assessment that science is a religion. Science is a tool... a method of discovery... also a tool for naming phenomena that we observe.

I believe for many it is more than just a tool. I would correct Kharvel's statement by saying that science is not a religion, but that science is worshiped. In that sense it is treated like a religion by many. Many people live their lives by the media's pronouncements regarding the latest findings of "science". But the way the findings are generally reported is typical of the media's habit of giving us digested versions of things. In other words, the accounts of science are not themselves scientific. Science is now highly specialized and we have a clergy of sorts in the scientists... and the people who follow the distilled versions available in the media are the laity. When science says oat bran is good for you, people eat more of it... these days it's yogurt that will help you.

Beyond that, positivism has brought forth the idea that that which cannot be tested is inconsequential. This is a faith of sorts. We are guilty of wanting to force all of reality and experience through the tool of science... we must measure every aspect of human experience in an attempt to gain mastery over it. The wisdom of this is presumed to be sound. All avenues of investigation are thought to be appropriate... their impact on our ability to be happy is not considered. Aside from that rather ethereal account, the very real mistakes we make along the way are said to simply be the necessary cost of our progress towards the promised land. But what that looks like exactly we are not told. I gather it will resemble Donald Fagen's account in IGY. We hope we don't end up in Brave New World, or some other dystopian situation.


Gratitude is the root of all profound obligation. There is no doubt that man is grateful for the wonders of science and its nephew, technology. So we have become more and more devoted to science... when science creates ethical quandaries there are those who see all hesitation as the result of religion. In private they simply refer to it as crude superstition. There are a few situations that come to mind where genuine ethical concern isn't really believed to exist. From time to time we hear of ethically questionable things that are done "in the name of science". In the name of? So we have personified science now? Perhaps even deified it to some degree? That is the fear anyway.

This gratitude and resulting obligation should give us pause. Science rules via its promise to assist man in overcoming the burdens of his existence... and yes delivering him to a poorly described promised land. Science gives man hope. These are not the tools of science... these are the tools of a religion. There is a hoped for destination... many probably hold out hope for a land of eternal youth, eternal comfort, and eternal happiness.

Where in all this lies the danger? I say it is that our devotion will become too great. Let us hope that we can still tolerate speculation about non-material matters, meta-physics, ethics, etc. Let us hope that science and its acolytes can tolerate ethical questioning and don't come to view all such hesitations as an attack on science by the veiled forces of religion.

Scientists and many of their progeny seem to have a habit of not being scientific about science itself. This is why we must rehabilitate philosophy... b/c while philosophy is willing to question the order of things, it is more importantly willing to question its own place in the order of things. Science is not equipped for this.


--

Could you say why it is insulting to conceive of science as a religion? Do you also think it insulting to see it as I do, as having a religious following?

[kellymich]

My view is that Kharvel has a hint of what's going on but is too direct in his assessment that science is a religion. Science is a tool... a method of discovery... also a tool for naming phenomena that we observe.

I believe for many it is more than just a tool. I would correct Kharvel's statement by saying that science is not a religion, but that science is worshiped. In that sense it is treated like a religion by many. Many people live their lives by the media's pronouncements regarding the latest findings of "science". But the way the findings are generally reported is typical of the media's habit of giving us digested versions of things. In other words, the accounts of science are not themselves scientific. Science is now highly specialized and we have a clergy of sorts in the scientists... and the people who follow the distilled versions available in the media are the laity. When science says oat bran is good for you, people eat more of it... these days it's yogurt that will help you.

Beyond that, positivism has brought forth the idea that that which cannot be tested is inconsequential. This is a faith of sorts. We are guilty of wanting to force all of reality and experience through the tool of science... we must measure every aspect of human experience in an attempt to gain mastery over it. The wisdom of this is presumed to be sound. All avenues of investigation are thought to be appropriate... their impact on our ability to be happy is not considered. Aside from that rather ethereal account, the very real mistakes we make along the way are said to simply be the necessary cost of our progress towards the promised land. But what that looks like exactly we are not told. I gather it will resemble Donald Fagen's account in IGY. We hope we don't end up in Brave New World, or some other dystopian situation.


Gratitude is the root of all profound obligation. There is no doubt that man is grateful for the wonders of science and its nephew, technology. So we have become more and more devoted to science... when science creates ethical quandaries there are those who see all hesitation as the result of religion. In private they simply refer to it as crude superstition. There are a few situations that come to mind where genuine ethical concern isn't really believed to exist. From time to time we hear of ethically questionable things that are done "in the name of science". In the name of? So we have personified science now? Perhaps even deified it to some degree? That is the fear anyway.

This gratitude and resulting obligation should give us pause. Science rules via its promise to assist man in overcoming the burdens of his existence... and yes delivering him to a poorly described promised land. Science gives man hope. These are not the tools of science... these are the tools of a religion. There is a hoped for destination... many probably hold out hope for a land of eternal youth, eternal comfort, and eternal happiness.

Where in all this lies the danger? I say it is that our devotion will become too great. Let us hope that we can still tolerate speculation about non-material matters, meta-physics, ethics, etc. Let us hope that science and its acolytes can tolerate ethical questioning and don't come to view all such hesitations as an attack on science by the veiled forces of religion.

Scientists and many of their progeny seem to have a habit of not being scientific about science itself. This is why we must rehabilitate philosophy... b/c while philosophy is willing to question the order of things, it is more importantly willing to question its own place in the order of things. Science is not equipped for this.


--

Could you say why it is insulting to conceive of science as a religion? Do you also think it insulting to see it as I do, as having a religious following?

Yes, scientific method puts science outside the realm of religion … religion cannot be verified by scientific method. Even modern psychology is not a hard science. The best that can be said in this regard is that it is a soft science.

Of course what becomes of man when we view things from only a practical point of view… if we have stripped life of all poetry, all dreams, all beautiful mysteries, all lies ? The rationalist and the scientific man, though his value is high, if you will forgive me for saying is probably merely only one interpretation of life and indeed probably not even the highest. The man who vibrates with the ecstasy of being alive… he is probably 100 times more in the right and justified as a man than someone who is merely a scientist as useful as the scientist is.

[kharvel]

I want to propose that the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) were founded by schizophrenics with violent tendencies and/or delusions of grandeur.

I further propose that devout followers of these Abrahamic religions adopt the same schizophrenic tendencies as the founder of their cults. . . err, I mean religions. Here is a thread that discusses the psychological profiles of the Abrahamic religious leaders and their followers:

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=136991&t=788433

Discuss whether Moses, Mohammed, and Jesus would have been classified as schizophrenics under our modern psychological profile standards.

[kharvel]

Does anyone think that the followers of the religious prophets share or at least adopt the same schizophrenic tendencies as the prophets themselves?

[redmaxx]

Does anyone think that the followers of the religious prophets share or at least adopt the same schizophrenic tendencies as the prophets themselves?

Congratulations on another excellent use of your third law in making that hasty assumption. :rolleyes:

You also appear to be attempting to utilize the following logical fallacies:


Appeal to Ridicule
Appeal to Consequences of Belief
Guilt by Association
Hasty Generalization
Poisoning the Well


I don't think I've seen anyone use so many at once with so few words. :lol:

[vivahate]

I don't think I've seen anyone use so many at once with so few words. :lol:

Hypersensitivity to criticism is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia.

If you list the symptoms of schizophrenia it would describe many religious people to a tee so it's not that absurd an idea.

[redmaxx]

Hypersensitivity to criticism is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Are you implying that I am hypersensitive to criticism? :confused:

If you list the symptoms of schizophrenia it would describe many religious people to a tee so it's not that absurd an idea.

I doubt that. :shake:

[Jhaan]

Does anyone think that the followers of the religious prophets share or at least adopt the same schizophrenic tendencies as the prophets themselves?

Such as...?

[kharvel]

Such as...?

1) Homosexual Catholic priests

2) Muslims beating themselves up with chains.

3) Orthodox Jews' efforts to cover pictures of women with that of men.

4) 50%+ divorce rate in the Christian Bible Belt of the United States

And other schizophrenic behavior by followers of Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses.

[redmaxx]

1) Homosexual Catholic priests

2) Muslims beating themselves up with chains.

3) Orthodox Jews' efforts to cover pictures of women with that of men.

4) 50%+ divorce rate in the Christian Bible Belt of the United States

And other schizophrenic behavior by followers of Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses.

Care to point out which schizophrenic symptoms those are specifically?