New solar system near by with 7 planets, three habitable.

[oxmixmudd]

Isn't the above equally applicable to a belief in ghosts?

I would not be at all surprised to see a ghost advocate write e.g.

"I can tell you categorically there is a significant difference between what drives us to believe in ghosts and the remainder of the list you've given. What drives my belief in ghosts is not random or arbitrary. And the tendency to believe in ghosts or some sort of surviving soul or spirit is intrinsic to mankind. Our sense that they are out there, and of a nature beyond what we can't quite understand results in all sorts of characterisations across humanity. But this sense they (or something) that is a remnant of us 'is there' is fairly ubiquitous."

Most of the above is perfectly true - there is widespread belief in ghosts, across all human societies. But the above commits that same fallacy that you have: just because something is commonly believed doesn't mean it's correct.

While I don't profess 'belief' in ghosts, it would not surprise me if there is some sort of manifestation of the eternal soul that people encounter from time to time. Not of the woo woo variety - but something more akin to what people describe when they sense the presense of a loved one soon after their death for a brief time. And that is basically what I'm talking about. That the more serious, deeply felt elements of human experience as it relates to death and life after death may be common because it exists, as opposed to common because humanity itself has some sort of basic flaw that makes it imagine such things exist. I also think these more fundamental experiences give rise to more fantastical elaborations of what might be 'out there' so to speak that undermine the legitimacy of the more fundamental element.

The 'winnie the pooh' or 'flying spaghetti monster' attempts to explain away what people legitimately experience in this arena may 'seem' to be corresponding analogues, but sane, mentally stable people don't experience the arrival of an actual animated 'winnie the pooh', nor have they ever had an encounter with the 'flying spaghetti monster' that would cause them to ponder the possibility of its actual existence. OTOH, sane mentally stable people do sense the presence of what the perceive as God, or even the presence of their loved one's soon after death, or a premonition of some significant event or tradgedy. These sorts of things happen - not infrequently to people that don't believe in such things (before they happen), can't be readily explained, are not an artifiact of mental instability, and often violate what we would expect scientifically to be possible.

You should know this.I wasn't - I was referring to the 'logical' arguments given for the existence of your god, which are usually terrible. There is a difference between the kind of evidence provided for your god vs the kind of evidence provided for London/elephants/DJTrump, and that difference even extends to supposed entities such as UFOs and bigfoot, whose advocates at least try to provide examinable evidence. But when I ask some-one for evidence for 'God' and the only answer that comes back is 'you have to believe first' then I feel fully justified in rejecting their views completely - as I suspect you would for anything you do not already believe in.

And this is why I believe I understand why atheists see things the way they do. I have asked many of my atheist friends if they have corresponding analogues to the experiences that drive my believe in God, but many simply say no, they haven't. I used to believe that everyone had analogues to my experiences but because of an a priori rejection of belief in God simply attributed them to chance as opposed to the action of the God they had been told about. But I have no reason to believe so many would lie to me about such things, and so now I am left pondering why some exerience God and some do not. One answer would be yours (i.e. atheism), but I don't believe that is the correct answer. Either way though - my commitment not to 'make up stories' to explain what I don't understand forces me to accept the legitimacy of some people's lack of sense there is a God out there.

As for the 'you must believe first' line, I think that is a distortion of the reality that faith is required to find God. I think the correct line of thought here is what Jesus said along the lines of 'those that seek me will find me'. That it has more to do with does a person want to find God. And are they actively seeking God. In such a person's life, I believe God is responding to their attempts to find Him, but eventually one must at some point cross the line from 'likely' or 'wow, X sure seems like it is pointing to there being a God out there' to 'I believe there is a God out there'. This is more what I think accurately describes the situation commonly described as 'a step of faith'. Not that someone with no sense of a possible reality of God just has to somehow 'obey' someones demand to 'believe'. So - for instance - in your case if you have not one sense of the reality of God out there - how could you be expected to believe in God? What reason would you have to believe? From my point of view, some of this rests on God Himself. He has to come to a person and start the process. Now some would say, and it is true, that Christ Himself is that act of God coming to every person. And while that is true on a certain level until God Himself in the present prompts an individual about the potential of that event being real, it's just another in a large group of claims about God or gods that a person has to either randomly grab hold of, or just reject outright is a jumble of non-sensical gibberish - as perhaps the typical atheist does.

Jim, I think I do understand why some people believe the way they do, and when some-one says they have personal experience of some god (as you do) I have no way to refute that other than to say that I haven't had that experience. I think they are mistaken, but I can't really argue.

Understood. But this is also where we diverge a bit. You have made a judgement of my experience as being unreal, whereas I have not judged your lack of experience as being unreal. While I don't understand your lack of experience in this arena, I don't say - 'well Roy must just be ignorning God's attempts to speak to him'. Likewise, I think it would be more realistic if you could simply acknowledge my experience is not your experience and leave open the possibility there might be something real behind my experience after all.

When some-one says that evidence is available, and then can't produce any or drivels trivial fallacies or goes into a 'clap if you believe in fairies' routine, then it's not a case of mockery not leading to understanding, but of understanding leading to mockery. Particularly when those advocates for god hypocritically reject identical arguments when applied to entities in which they don't believe, and especially when they try to insist that I do believe in their preferred deity but I am pretending not to for hedonistic reasons.

And here we agree. I long ago left behind that sort of thinking about this. I cringe when I hear Christians or others say they can prove God is real. It simply isn't possible - not with the evidence we have. Not in a truly objective sense. But I likewise cringe when people on the opposite side try to push the evidence the other way by saying such silly things as 'we have no reason to believe Jesus was a real person'. These two positions are in fact equally ridiculous. One can make a reasonable case for Christ historically. One can even make reasoned case for the resurrection IF one accepts the possibility there is a God and that He can work miracles. But scientfically, objectively, I've never seen a convincing path to that as an objective conclusion. Nevertheless, I do believe in God, in Christ and in the Resurrection.

If there were some god with the characteristics often claimed, that god should be as obviously existent as London or dinosaur fossils - probably more so.

No - I don't think that follows. There could be reasons God does not insert Himself into our reality in a way that His existence is proven. One reason that I find convincing is to posit that the indismissable proof of the reality of God eliminates the possibilty of freely chosing to follow Him. That the undeniable reality of such a being (omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent) would prevent any sort of true free agency on our part.

Consider when the police car is sitting right next to a person on the highway - what speed does that person drive? Is that any reflection at all of how that person might drive when the policeman isn't sitting there right next to them? So if God is not interested in false allegience, then His overwhelming and overpowering nature requires a very, very quiet presence.

But it isn't. While I respect people's rights to believe whatever they wish, that doesn't necessarily extend to respecting the content of their beliefs.

Even if those beliefs produce a truly noble person? A person of high moral character, a person that represents what we all would find a standard to strive for? It would seem to me that if a person through his beliefs becomes a person of truly great character, such beliefs would be worthy of at least the same respect as the person that holds them.


Jim

[Sparko]

Nevertheless scientific methodology can lead to conclusions that have been multiply tested and validated to such a degree that we can comfortably act as if they are true. E.g. I don’t think anyone should waste any time or resources preparing for the possibility that the speed of light will change tomorrow.


Historical facts are validated according to historical- critical methodology. The greatest degree of assurance is had when there are:

a) multiple pieces of evidence
b) multiple types of evidence
c) multiple sources of evidence
d) independence of sources
e) contemporary evidence
f) internal consistency of the available evidence

The fewer of these elements that are present, the weaker the claim becomes concerning the historical event.

well then you should have no problems at all in believing in Jesus.

[Jedidiah]

What is true does not change, only what is believed to be true.

Yes!

[Sparko]

Conversely, if you WANT to believe something, even when there is no substantive evidence, you will believe it.

i didn't WANT to believe but I was open minded about it

You in the other hand Don't want to believe and are not open to it

[Sparko]

No - the continents did not start moving. They were moving just as much in 1912 as they were in 1960, it just wasn't believed that they were moving.

What is true does not change, only what is believed to be true.

that was kinda my point

[Tassman]

well then you should have no problems at all in believing in Jesus.

The most that contemporary scholars can agree about Jesus is that from a purely historical perspective he was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified. In short, none of the magic stuff.

[Tassman]

i didn't WANT to believe but I was open minded about it

Are you equally open minded about Islam or Hinduism, or just the dominant religious paradigm of your community?

You in the other hand Don't want to believe and are not open to it

I’m indifferent to the truth or otherwise of legends and mythology.

[Adrift]

The most that contemporary scholars can agree about Jesus is that from a purely historical perspective he was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified. In short, none of the magic stuff.

That isn't all that contemporary scholars agree about Jesus. I gave you a huge list a number of times showing you far more than these few things that scholars generally agree on.

[shunyadragon]

That isn't all that contemporary scholars agree about Jesus. I gave you a huge list a number of times showing you far more than these few things that scholars generally agree on.

Huge List!?!?!?

Christian apologetic scholars, of course, agree with a large list, but beyond this the list is rather small. Please post this list again.

[Tassman]

That isn't all that contemporary scholars agree about Jesus. I gave you a huge list a number of times showing you far more than these few things that scholars generally agree on.

Not such a "huge list" actually and...apart from the apologist scholars...they do not accept the miraculous elements of the Jesus story, which is the point I'm making

[Sparko]

Are you equally open minded about Islam or Hinduism, or just the dominant religious paradigm of your community?

yep. I studied various religions.

I’m indifferent to the truth or otherwise of legends and mythology.

you might claim that, but remember, we have all read your posts for years.

[Sparko]

Not such a "huge list" actually and...apart from the apologist scholars...they do not accept the miraculous elements of the Jesus story, which is the point I'm making

wait. so you are arguing that except for the people who believe the miraculous elements no one else believes them?

tautology.


if they accepted the miraculous elements you automagically put them in the "apologist scholar" column and disregard them. nice.

[Adrift]

Not such a "huge list" actually

Man you have short term memory. This is like the 4th time I've posted this for you now.

Source: The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders

I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.)

Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
he was baptised by John the Baptist;
he called disciples;
he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
he preached ‘the kingdom of God’;
about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
he had a final meal with the disciples;
he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

We may add here a short list of equally secure facts about the aftermath of Jesus' life:

his disciples at first fled;
they saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death;
as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom;
they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God's Messiah.

© Copyright Original Source

and...apart from the apologist scholars...they do not accept the miraculous elements of the Jesus story, which is the point I'm making

We've been over this a bunch of times too.

Believe it or not, Crossan regularly labels Jesus a healer, exorcist, and a worker of nature miracles. Crossan recognizes (as do most NT scholars) that Jesus was considered to have these abilities by his followers, and even by his opponents (the Talmud considers Jesus a sorcerer, and magic worker who led Jews away in apostasy, but also that people had healed in his name). If pushed, Crossan will likely offer the explanation that Jesus' healing ability was historically symbolic or ideological, but he curiously offers the following in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant,

Source: The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant by John Dominic Crossan

Jesus was both an exorcist and a healer: I take 121 Beelzebul Controversy [1/2], 110 A Leper Cured [1/2], 127 Sickness and Sin [1/2], and 129 Blind Man Healed [1/2] as not only typically but actually historical. His vision of the Kingdom was but an ecstatic dream without immediate social repercussions, were it not for those exorcisms and healings. Those latter were what the Kingdom looked like at the level of political reality.

© Copyright Original Source

Crossan never goes on to explain the mechanics of these events, but does believe that something did happen.

Ehrman also points out in his The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, "Whatever you think about the philosophical possibility of miracles of healing, it's clear that Jesus was widely reputed to have done them."

For people who actually take time to read them, rather than pretending to know what they think, it's common knowledge that scholars will point out in their academic work that Jesus was a miracle worker without offering explanations for those miracles. Actual talk about the reality of the miraculous is theological. Historians typically don't make theological judgement calls in their academic work (though they might express their opinions in their popular works).

So, for example, liberal Christian Marcus Borg of the Jesus Seminar states in his short article, The Mighty Deeds of Jesus, "More than 80% of the members of the Jesus Seminar, often viewed as a liberal and skeptical group, believe Jesus performed healings and exorcisms. Among other biblical scholars, the percentage would be as high or higher." Borg, who doubts the historical veracity of nature miracles (non-healing miracles), does believe that Jesus historically cured people and did exorcisms,

As a historian, however, I do think Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. To illustrate my reasoning, I use two factors. The evidence that Jesus performed healings and cast out what he and his disciples called evil spirits is widespread throughout in earliest Christian writing. There are stories and sayings, and both his followers and opponents accepted that he performed these acts.

The second factor is evidence that paranormal healings happen. The evidence is ancient and modern, anecdotal and statistical. Since I am persuaded that paranormal healings do happen, then there is no reason to deny them to Jesus.

Many modern people understand Jesus' healings as merely faith healings. It is true that some physical conditions are caused by mental states, and sometimes a physical cure can be brought about by addressing the mental state. Moreover, faith or confidence in the power of the healer can bring about a cure.

But not all paranormal healings can be accounted for in this way. In some cases, in the gospels and the modern world, the faith of the healed person doesn't seems to be involved. We don't know how to account for them. In my judgment, seeing the explanation as either "supernatural intervention" or as "psychosomatic cure" is too much of a claim for us to make because we don’t understand the process involved in paranormal healing.

We also don't know the limits of paranormal healing, though I think there are some. I am confident, for example, that missing limbs are never replaced. But there is an impressive range of serious conditions that have been healed by paranormal means.

Hence, my conclusion: Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. Indeed, more healing stories are told about him than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition. In all likelihood, he was the most remarkable healer in human history.

[Jedidiah]

wait. so you are arguing that except for the people who believe the miraculous elements no one else believes them?

tautology.


if they accepted the miraculous elements you automagically put them in the "apologist scholar" column and disregard them. nice.

I do not recall anyone claiming that Tass was consistent or logical.

[oxmixmudd]

I do not recall anyone claiming that Tass was consistent or logical.

The big problem with this line of reasoning is that a non-believer will never, ever concede that a report of a miracle could have actually been a miracle based solely on written testimonials. The best that can be expected from secular sources are comments that such and such was claimed.

The fact is we know significantly more about Jesus than we should know about a random carpenterm of coom on descent from that era. Something he did affected a large enough group of people to allow records of his existence and activities to be preserved. This was a man with significant impact on his contemporaris at the very least. That should be the starting point of any discussion of who and what he was. Any less is by definition alead biased negativelu from the start.

Jim

Sorry, grabbed the wrong quote .. aiming at lines of reasoning that dismiss any and all records eminating from Christian sources.