So is that because you think what I said is stupid? I dont see how it is. Just because never questioned if God exists and all that doesnt mean I have just believed it because people told me to. Sure when I was a kid I believed what I was told, but as I have gotten older and have been told things and learned stuff I do use my mind and decide if I believe it or not. If I believe what the Bible says is true and all that, then why would I question it? Maybe I've taken what you said the wrong way. I dunno. I'm definitely no interpreter. KayinBlack should take over now.......... hes smarter than me
Because in Christianity God created the world and every living thing, so then why could he not make it possible for Jesus to walk on water?
Hmm, reason? Yea........ Umm, no. Quantum improbability = mixing 5000 red marbles with 5000 blue marbles and hoping that they'll somehow segregate themselves when you pour them into another container. Rules are rules in QM. If an electron transition is forbidden, it is strictly forbidden. There's no such thing as the e jumping from the top of one shell to the bottom of the next shell. It just does NOT happen.
Let's see ... walking on water. When I was very young I, and much of the rest of my family, helped my grandfather construct a log cabin deep in the norwegian mountains. It is a lovely cabin set in the middle of the best of what norwegian nature has to offer, and there are lots of small fishing lakes all around in the area. Now, walking deeper into the mountains from the cabin, oh about a 3 hour slog through very old forest and across steep cliffs we will find a small freshwater lake. This particular lake is quite special in that it is very shallow far out into the lake. In fact, you can walk on the bottom at least 3-400 meters straight out from the shore, and presuming you have shoes on your feet will not get wet. In fact, the water will never cross the sole of your shoes, and for all intents and purposes, it will look like you are walking on water. I have several pictures set into books of us showing just that. My point? I'd have thought that was obvious. As far as archaeological evidence for biblical events goes ... well, there really isn't any. But, as Nexxo so eloquently points out; religion is an unavoidable part of human reality in spite of the fact that it serves no real purpose for society, and on several occassions have actually helped hinder our society's development. But anyhow, I couldn't care less what superstitions people ascribe to as long as it is kept well and truly separate from the world of real, testable science. When religious fundies and the likes tries to "merge" religion and science is when my buttons are pushed in earnest. I do not understand how people of this modern day and age can let themselves succumb to religion, and I certainly do not respect it, but I do accept it as fact. As Nexxo pointed out we cannot, nor do most of us wish to, ban religion (even though in my mind society would probably be better off for it) as that would violate our rights to freedom. If god did exist, it would be part of our reality, and as such science would be able to test for it and prove it to exist. Anything, no matter how distant, small or big ... anything that is part of our reality is testable and quantifiable, or it will when given the proper technology. Science has never seen any kind of evidence for some omnipotent deity, nor has it ever seen any kind of evidence for the "otherwordly" events depicted in the bible. Personally I have lived for long enough to become well aware of my own ignorance, but even so I have never seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched anything that even remotely has had me wondering whether or not god might actually exist. Now, I should of course add that no member of my family is religious, which has inevitably shaped me, to a certain extent, as a person. Even so, in my mind it is all just ridiculous. What really ticks me off though, is christians claiming to have monopoly on morality, and in fact declaring that unless they were firmly certain that god exists they would have set out killing, plundering, raping and burning their way through the world. In other words; were it not for the threat of hell (and subsequent eternal damnation) they would not be able to keep in line with society's rules - fear is, at least according to the fundies, the only thing preventing the world from reverting to all-out anarchy. However, there are of course good and bad people in either camp.
Ah, no. Religion serves a very important function in a community. That's one of the reasons it exists. It maintains tribal cohesion. Other cultural systems (other belief systems, language, custom, dress) do that as well so religion is not unique in that, but it does have a function. It hinders the development of society no more or less than any other cultural aspects do. I could argue for instance that football hinders societal development --look at the time and resources it squanders on the cathedrals of football stadiums; how people who essentially kick a ball across a field get paid millions and are worshipped as gods; how often poor people spend large ammounts of money and their free Sundays (or even productive working days on a "sicky") to watch a match and kick each other's heads in during and after. Look at the overpriced gear sold in the shops and the damage caused to a local town centre after a match; the money spent on maintaining some public order and patching up the casualties in A&E. Football is an unproductive, massively time-consuming activity that wastes money, creates a public disturbance, puts a burden on the economy, national health and policing resources, and causes people to try and hurt each other. QED. I could argue the same for our cultural beliefs on gay relationships, ethnicity and race and gender. All cause intolerance, aggression and economic hardship (yes, think about it). That's like saying that you don't understand why people are so irrational. People are not rational beings. We are not Homo Sapiens: thinking man; we are Pan Narrans: storytelling ape. We are emotional animals who happen to have very good imagination and a way with conceptual reasoning. Trust me: we would not be better off. We'd be in exactly the same place. The problem with that reasoning is that if God is all-powerful, He can simply elude our best scientific efforts to pin Him down (and He would have very good reasons, too). God simply lies outside the scientific domain. Within that domain, it is best not to think about Him --He makes no difference anyway. That's just tribal reasoning, and has nothing to do with the philosophy of religion. But as you say: there are dummies in both religious and atheist camps.
You tell me. Can you say why you believe what you do? Can you offer evidence that your belief system works for you, which is the only real test of such a system? I believe that there is no god, that when we die there is nothing after, and, fundamentally that what you see in this world is what you get. I understand that life is unfair, that bad things happen to good people for no reason and that life isn't fair. Accepting these things rather than ascribing some supernatural order to the universe works just fine for me. I see people all the time whose lives are destroyed by bad luck or bad genes or circumstances beyond their control. It's unfortunate, but I don't go believing that it's "God's will" or that it won't happen to me because I'm a better person. Religion fills the same need as science in society, it gives us a feeling of understanding and control over the world. Religion, like science, offers a framework for our preception of the universe that "makes sense" and gives us a means to believe we can influence it. The problem of course is that the universe doesn't always make sense and we really have very little influence over it. We, as humans, are weak and mostly powerless and either we accept that or we create these myths that make us feel better about ourselves without accepting our own small, insignificant place in the world. That brings me to the topic of certainty. It has been my expierience, both for myself and in other people, that anyone who is certain that they are right is probably wrong until proven otherwise. The best example of this today is good old Sarah Palin, who is certain that she is good and rightous and seems unable to accept any idea that contridicts that. Did you see her being interviewed about the "Troopergate" ethics scandal? Interviewer: The Alaska state legislature found that you broke ethics laws and abused your power as governor in this matter. Do you have any regrets about how you handled the situation? Sarah Palin: I'm so glad that the legislature completely exonorated me of any wrongdoing in their report How about good old "W"? He was certain he was doing the right thing after 9-11 by invading Afganistan. He was certain that Iraq was behind 9-11 despite all the evidence to the contrary, he was certain that Iraq had WMDs despite the fact that the people on the ground were telling him "No they don't", he was certain that we were being greeted as liberators as the insurgency and civil war grew to it's violent peak. Turns out he was wrong on all counts, but because he was certain he couldn't be dissuaded form doing what he thought was right. Certainty is believing in something no matter what the facts may say. Religion calls this faith and actively encourages it, demands it in fact. The alternative to certainty is to accept that we can never know for sure if we are right or not. I think it's important to constantly question the things we believe and ask "Why do I believe this? Is this belief consistant with my expieriences?" and if not be willing to change that belief. Truth is built on a foundation of things that were once true and are now discarded rubble. Likewise, todays hard and fadst truths are tomorrow's antiquated theories. History teaches us that almost everything we believe will turn out to be wrong eventually. Wisdom is accepting that we don't know, making the best decisions we can based on as much information as we can gather, and doing the best we can with what we have. Anything else is just dangerously deluding ourselves.
That is only a problem when faith impinges on the realm of facts (which it does too often). Some concepts (e.g. the worth of a human being) however are about meaning rather than fact; in that realm it's all a matter of what you believe in. Like love and hope, faith has her place. She's an admirably determined girl and it is easy to get seduced by her passion and her pretty face. But she thinks with her heart, not with her head, so she's best never given the keys to the car. Great post by the way, Cthippo.
I disagree...but unfortunately I won't be able to defend this point until Tues the 11th when get another internet connection. Previously you lumped football hooliganism in the same boat as religious violence. I think they're different animals. In football hooliganism anyone can 'ave a go, so we see a loosely structured collaborative effort towards violence. Religion gone bad on the other hand is a highly structured institutionalised agenda of violence. Yes, both may be based upon a tribal instinct, but the structures above that foundation are profoundly different. In the sands of tribalism one is a make-shift hut, the other is a reinforced, consciously intimidating skyscraper. A single hooligan would not sacrifice himself for the self-regulating mob...because he is the mob...but an devotee of an institutional tribal manifestation, be it religious, patriotic, or any other flavour considers himself as a small part of something much, much greater - The idea, the cause. The cause - Did I mention I grew up in Belfast? Are you slapping your forehead right now going "ah! ofcourse!"?
Does that mean faith is tempting but not something to live our lives according to? Or were you just having a drink or two because c'mon, it does sound a little like that
Yes, I do see your point, but even so; history has shown that religion can (and have been) used as a tool to hinder our development. The inquisition, the dark ages - a time when you could be tortured to death for practicing the sciences - and most definitely if you'd ever dared challenge accepted dogma. I agree fully on your point about football though; it has to be one of the most pointless ways of passing time that we have yet invented (and I'm from a nation that prides itself on having good football teams, which personally I know nothing about). Well, no I don't understand why people are so irrational. I don't understand why people still turn towards religion when seeking answers to questions about the universe when science is able to prove it's claims, and explain in great detail how different processes take place. Sure, the science may be slightly more tricky to understand, but it sure as hell rings a lot better than "goddidit". You are right; we are storytelling apes, and we always have been. Our brains may have grown larger, and our intellects may have surpassed every other species on the planet, but we are still superstitious animals (of course we will always be animals, but that was not a point here really). We have developed technologies that would have been declared impossible no more than 100 years ago, and we have touched the surface of an other world. Yet still we succumb to ancient superstitions and age-old lore in order to have our reality explained. Where's the logic in that? The problem with that is that it is in no way all-powerful; well, it certainly is not decribed as such in the bible at least. I mean, it is strange how often a supposedly omnipotent entity miss the mark - so to speak.
Religion is a scapgoate for terrorists, otherwise you'd have more suicide bombers and the like. In my view it's people not understanding or being sympathetic to differences in society that is the cause of many problems. The vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, etc are not to blame, yet they are so easily stereotyped and balmed as the cause of problems. The too easy and quite an unifformed, unintelligent thing to do is to blame people who beleive in the person they beleive to be God.
ORLY? To some people, football is a religion. To others, it is terrorism requiring a co-ordinated special police force. ...the tribe? I was speaking in metaphor. As I said, faith has many admirable attributes. But you don't want to believe anything a pretty face tells you --critical thinking has its place too. Dogma hinders scientific development all the time. Women are more likely to have their research published if the referees who peer review their work are unaware of their gender, for instance. Apartheid South Africa had a propensity not to appoint even highly accomplished coloured academics to University posts. Although science as a discipline is sound, the human world of scientists is full of politics. And shouldn't science be held back by philosophical or ethical concerns on occasion? Look at Mengele's oeuvre for instance, to see what happens if you don't. Science has the answers, but some questions are best not asked in the first place. Because some scientific answers are not useful or comforting. As I said before, when you are imminently dying of cancer, scientific explanations of how it will cause a traumatic termination to your life functions and existence are not what you want to hear. Science often explains a lot, but sometimes it comforts little. Knowing that we are fragile lifeforms on a tiny speck of dust in space may be very useful in focussing our efforts on developing meteorite interceptors and generally not screwing up the one ecosystem we have, but reassuring a thought it ain't. And it doesn't give us any meaning to our lives. Why do you eat cheesecake? Or pizza? They have no particular special nutritional value that other foods haven't. In fact, too much can be decidedly unhealthy. The scientific approach would be to stick to fruit and nuts and steamed vegetables, and some protein like fish. Yet we eat chocolate, cheesecake, pizza, and drink sugary drinks and alcohol. We even smoke. Where's the logic? There isn't any. It makes us feel good. It gives us quality of life. That's what makes living worth while. Science and technology invented plumbing, but it did so because we wanted hot water and flush toilets. It harnassed electricity because we want light and warmth, and TV and Playstations. We want more than facts. We want meaning, comfort and happiness. Exactemundo.
The thing is, it is hard to tell people the proof about God being real and such if they believe that the Bible is a bunch of lies and a story book. The Bible is the proof. Everything that was predicted in the Bible came true. The different books of the Bible were written at way different times. Far apart from each other. Yet something that was predicted came true a 1000 years later. Thats pretty good proof that God is real to me. And if you were to read the end of the Bible where it talks all about the end of the world and the events that will take place before it happens. They are already happening. More things predicted that have happened. TO ME it doesnt make sense to believe otherwise. Hopefully what i've posted is understandable. It is to me atleast, but hopefully you understand as well.
Perhaps, as you say, it is important to try and do something positive with bad events. Perhaps also people have to take responsibility for their actions. But I can't help but wondering why someone who was so smart and such a strong Christian would so something so stupid, risky and potentially self-destructive. The thing with predictions is that you can read in them whatever you want. In hindsight everything makes sense. Moreover, predict anything over a thousand-year span, and it is likely to happen sometime. For example: I predict for next year: A big earthquake; An epidemic; A UK government crisis; Another civil war; A plane crash. I'll bet you I get at least 4 out of six (probably five). Why? Because things like earthquakes, civil wars and plane crashes always happen, and epidemics (whether Bird flu, Asian flu or Foot-And-Mouth) are reasonably frequent as well. Note that I'm hazy on the details and leave room for interpretation. The British government, meanwhile, practically lurches from crisis to crisis. And if I do not specify a country, I'm quids in. Over a 50-year span I can confidently predict a war between at least two countries, an economical crisis and two major ecological disasters. I can also confidently predict that in the end, humanity plods on as usual. We have done so for the last million years (or 6000 to 10,000 years, depending on your faith). So predictions in the Bible don't impress me. I like to think that even then people had a decent understanding of life, the world and human nature. It wouldn't have been hard to make predictions. And remember, Jesus did not fit the prediction of the Messiah at all. Daniel's prophecies refer to him as a descendant of King David who will rebuild the nation of Israel, destroy the wicked, and ultimately judge the whole world. Christians understand Jesus to be the Messiah that Jews were expecting (John 1:41-42). The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah". However, Jesus did none of the things Daniel prophecied (he did much more important things, in my opinion, but probably not the ones you think of). In fact, he was so far off the mark that the Jews don't acknowledge him as the Messiah at all. Yet here you and your fellow Christians are, believing that Jesus was the Messiah as prophecied by Daniel. That's how the human brain works: we perceive, we attach meaning based on our pre-existing beliefs, we edit the bits that don't fit (including our own memories) to make them fit. Predictions mean nothing unless you can be specific, precise and correct at least 95% of the time. Repeatedly. Which is how science works. That doesn't mean that the Bible has nothing meaningful to tell us, or that your beliefs make no sense whatsoever. It is important to be pragmatic: if your beliefs work for you, they work for you. If they help you live a meaningful, happy and constructive life I'll be the last to criticise them (and it's none of my business anyway). The truth of beliefs is determined by their practical usefulness.
I've been enjoying the back-and-forth quite a bit, but this post disappoints me... Daniel's prophecies about the Messiah are very closely tied to his prophecies about the apocalypse, in much the same way as the messanic references in the book of Revelations are. (In which, along with a bunch of other things, the Messiah does rebuild the nation of Israel, destroy the wicked, judge the world, etc.) Other books of old testament prophecy (Isaiah comes to mind) discuss a very different Messiah - a sacrifice to redeem the world. Considering that we are now two thousand years (minus a bit) past the death of Christ, it's pretty obvious that the apocalyptic sections of Messianic prophecy didn't happen in AD 30. Jesus himself addressed this, though - he explained that he would be back to fulfill the apocalyptic sections of prophecy at some future date. The only dependence between the two sets of prophecies (Messiah as sacrifice and Messiah as conqueror) is that it has to be the same guy. As an aside, this issue is what caused the split between the Jews and the Christians - the Jews, very familiar with the prophecies in the book of Daniel, insisted that as Jesus didn't fulfill Daniel's prophecies, he was definitely not the Messiah. The Christians, including a number of Jews who were also quite familiar with prophecy, insisted that Jesus had put the apocalyptic prophecies on his to-do list, and would be back to finish the job. This made one faction's Messiah the other's heretic, so they never really got along after that. Yes, people will take what they want out of the Bible and leave the rest. However, please understand that at least from a Christian perspective, the prophecies concerning the first coming of Jesus were entirely correct, and the ones concerning the second coming, tribulation, apocalypse, etcetera, simply have yet to happen. Christianity isn't in ostrich-like denial of the prophecies of Daniel, as Jesus said that he'll be back to take care of it later.
That is bit of a rationalisation after the fact though, isn't it? "Oh, he'll come back and do that bit later (trust me)". It's like me saying that I will pick all the winning lottery numbers... eventually. And not on the same ticket. You admit that for some people, that was not enough to make the Messiah grade. From a Christian perspective, he did; from a Jewish perspective, he didn't. Your mileage may vary. I'm not saying that Christians have no valid reason to consider Jesus as their Messiah --he did and said things that strongly resonate with people even now. But to say that he was a prediction fulfilled is stretching things to breaking point. It all comes down to how you interpret predictions after the fact, and that is influenced by your a priory beliefs.
The Jews were also some of the ones who killed Jesus. I think that may be part of not them not believing Jesus to be the Messiah and that they dont believe he rose from the dead 3 days later.
Some Jews killed him because they didn't believe him to be the Messiah. In particular, some Jewish religious leaders took an exception to this blaspheming infidel upstart who they perceived as threatening their hegemony, and conspired with the Romans to execute him. This is how blasphemers were generally dealt with, nothing unusual here. The Romans really saw it as an internal affair of the Jews, but didn't like troublemakers either so they were happy to oblige: maintained the status quo. It is likely that they were persuaded to see Jesus as a potential terrorist (or freedom fighter, depending on your point of view), of which there were many during the Roman occupation, or as encouraging such sentiments. Again, nothing unusual. It is postulated that Judas sold Jesus out really because he was disappointed in him: instead of using his influence to ralley a revolt against the Romans, he preached peace. Some Jews did believe in Jesus and the story of his ressurection and founded Christianity. Some dismissed him as a screwball and stuck with their more orthodox Jewish faith. Every subsequent generation was raised in accordance with the faith of their parents and their local community. You are Christian mainly because your parents are Christian, like Jews are Jewish mainly because their parents are. Religion is cultural.
