|
Post by dmmichgood on May 10, 2017 17:33:31 GMT -5
Elizabeth, -although you are speaking to Joanna, -I'd like to reply.
All the examples that you have used are ones that I have heard many times before by others. Let's take them one at a time.
#1 "eyewitness accounts which are several thousands years old."
Elizabeth, -would you give the same credit about "eyewitness accounts" of everything that has been stated in other sacred books or just the bible? What book they are in, sacred or otherwise, is irrelevant from an objective perspective. I'm talking about multiple sources, authenticated for their own period which are genuine historical records. You can't be biased against them simply because they're in a sacred book. It is the authentication for the era and source that is important. The content can then be compared against other sources and evaluated.
# 2 "I can't pull the bones out of the tomb in the Middle East because they are not there (he is risen!)."
Would you believe that because you couldn't pull the bones out of every other tomb in the Middle East, that the reason would be that they aren't there because all those people "had risen?" Not if there wasn't compelling documentary evidence from multiple sources to suggest such.
#3 "Forensic investigation of the scriptures is compelling,"
What "Forensic investigation" do you mean?
I have already said that how we use "Forensic investigation" today was NOT the same as people used in the days when Jesus lived.I'm not saying it was. That is irrelevant. Such a comment simply shows complete ignorance about scientific method and observation.
#4. "I'm certain you believe many other historical accounts and persons with far less authentication."
If you mean a historical account of a certain person such as, -let's say Plato for instance, yes, but I would NOT believe that Plato or any other person "rose from the dead."I don't believe there's any compelling evidence to suggest he did, so why would you?
As I said, I have heard all these examples given before, -they seem to be standard ones in fact.
PS:
You really do your own character no good by speaking to Joanna in such a condescending manner as you did by saying, "dear Joanna."You don't seem at all concerned about Joanna's condescension to others
Nor does an ad hominem attack against Joanna help make any of your own messages more believable when you attack her by saying such things as;
"You would not even accept evidence from any supernatural being themselves should they come visit you in the middle of the night (or on the road to Damascus), being already predisposed to your own worldview and belief system with self-admitted denial to accept anything else." This is simply stating facts: a person who already admits complete predisposition to a certain end point regardless of the evidence has already ruled out certain outcomes, regardless of evidence. This is also very unscientific.
When someone has reliable evidence for something, -their belief should be able to stand alone without any need to attack the another person. Always interesting that you choose to accuse the person who doesn't agree with you of attacks, rather than the person who does.
Elizabeth, the kind of BOOK you read to get information absolutely does matter when you are trying to make a claim for something!
Would you believe something like the "resurrection" happened if it were chronicled in one of the Vedas: the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda or the Atharvaveda?
YouCAN NOT CLAIM that the sources for your belief are "multiple."
The "sources" are ALL within ONE book, -the bible!
No one can simply use the statements to claim something when that book is your only "source" on which to base the claim.
Neither can you claim that your sources from the bible are "genuine historical records." The gospels weren't written as "biographical" or "historical" accounts, -they weren't even meant to be!
There are actually very few mentions of anyone called Jesus in any records, "historical" or otherwise, outside the NT.
They are all brief and do NOT make any reference to a "resurrection"
PS:
Can you show me where where Joanna has "attacked " you or showed "condescension" toward you, Elizabeth?
You have accused Joanna of having "complete predisposition to a certain end point" and being "very unscientific."
Yet, as far as I can see, - that seems more to describe yourself.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 10, 2017 23:42:58 GMT -5
joanna ,
I frankly don't have the time to write the thesis required on the authentication of the scriptures that would meet your requirements, nor am I a scholar with that expertise.
If you want to disagree with the countless scholars who have transcribed and translated them over thousands of years, and are experts in the matter, that is your prerogative.
Frankly, I'll take their word over yours, unless you can prove your qualifications to be such.
Having undergone such an exhaustive process to come to your current position, you must have investigated the origins of the historical documents underpinning the current day Bible, and have a good idea of their provenance and language origins.
If you have good reason to dismiss them as being non-authentic (different from having faith in the content, I agree), perhaps you could share that exhaustive research with us.
I don't discount the process that you've been through.
But given that the question of the origins of life are far from settled, neither should your belief system be settled beyond all doubt.
I continue to investigate the evidence for purposes of my own integrity, but feel no compelling reason to continue to justify myself to you.
I'm done here. Elizabeth, -isn't that often what people begin to say when they start having trouble validating their claims?
They say things like that they just "don't have the time to write a "thesis" or something of that sort in order to back up their claims? And, of course they say this as well. They no longer "feel no compelling reason to continue to justify myself to you."
Actually, I don't disagree with bible "scholars."
But then again, -I don't just pick only the ones that have "predisposition to a certain end point."
PS:
As to how much we know about the "origins of life," -we certainly know lot about the origins of life.
We also know that when "life" leaves that body, that body does NOT get up from the dead, walk around and then rise "bodily" into the sky!
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 10, 2017 23:48:03 GMT -5
Yes, Dmmich', we do know the origins of life. Genesis says that "God commanded the seas to bring forth life." And Genesis tells us we are made of "clay", ie from the natural substances of the earth.
Until the synthesis of urea, no-one really believed that life was something made from natural substances of the earth. And for many today (even amongst ourselves) many don't believe that life came out of the sea.
But as for God, the Resurrection etc.. That is the substance of Faith. Just as you believe in faith that one day science will have all the answers to how the universe created itself, and for what reason.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 11, 2017 9:13:58 GMT -5
elizabethcolemanAs I am pretty sure you already know, at no stage have I requested, nor do I expect a thesis. Even just a few links to those scholars you have referred to would be appreciated. You have stated that the resurrection is supported by scientific evidence. It is rewarding to be able to validate claims and I cannot understand why you are hesitant to do so. Regarding your comment "neither should your belief system be settled beyond reasonable doubt" as it addresses a key distinction in the religious and secular humanist approaches. Religious ideologies claim to have the answers to the complexities of life including the origins of the universe(s). Secular humanism respects the scientific approach; therefore the attaining of knowledge relies on the best and most current available evidence. This worldview involves respecting and accepting new evidence as discovered by the experts in various disciplines, and as new discoveries arise the information is constantly revised and renewed. Your statements "Jerry went to be with his Lord a few months ago"; "Jesus was indeed death defying" and " none of Jesus decomposed" are extraordinary claims. Some months ago I was speaking with a professing person and they made similar ones. Whereas once I would have accepted such comments, I now find it thought-provoking when exposed to the insights of religious persons and can now see these are obviously just a natural consequence of conforming to a faith-based belief system. Religion is a social construct, and the constant interaction with others who share the same belief promotes and empowers believers to adopt 'religious speak'. I have lost track of how many times I have heard professing and other Christians also state that a newly deceased person has gone to be with their maker or similar. Or to make references to Jesus continued presence and their ongoing interaction with him. It is considered politically incorrect and impolite to challenge such claims. But why should they go unchallenged? When speaking with the professing person who made similar claims to yours, I answered that i can no longer accept that to be so. I agree that Integrity is an important trait. Statements such as 'Jerry went to be with his Lord' or 'none of Jesus decomposed' should be verifiable. To claim a reality which cannot be evidenced is at the least misleading whatever the population of individuals that share that view.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 11, 2017 13:08:24 GMT -5
Yes, Dmmich', we do know the origins of life. Genesis says that "God commanded the seas to bring forth life." And Genesis tells us we are made of "clay", ie from the natural substances of the earth. Until the synthesis of urea, no-one really believed that life was something made from natural substances of the earth. And for many today (even amongst ourselves) many don't believe that life came out of the sea. But as for God, the Resurrection etc.. That is the substance of Faith. Just as you believe in faith that one day science will have all the answers to how the universe created itself, and for what reason. As in 'we are stardust'?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 12, 2017 3:55:23 GMT -5
I continue to investigate the evidence for purposes of my own integrity, but feel no compelling reason to continue to justify myself to you. I'm done here.
I am glad to hear you say that you continue to investigate the evidence, Elizabeth.
It is important for one's own sake to do that.
We need to investigate evidence about any and everything if one is to be true to one's own self because if a person can't be true to themselves, -then it is impossible to be true to anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 12, 2017 4:20:40 GMT -5
Those years when you were in those little meetings Dmmich - did YOU not speak of God's presence in your life? God doesn't want a people who believe for the sake of believing - but believe in that they will go on to Prove God for themselves. That's the only way God can have relationship with us.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 12, 2017 21:33:18 GMT -5
Those years when you were in those little meetings Dmmich - did YOU not speak of God's presence in your life? God doesn't want a people who believe for the sake of believing - but believe in that they will go on to Prove God for themselves. That's the only way God can have relationship with us. Bert, -please be sure to write this down so that you won't forget to can put it your quotes for this month.
I don't want to be left out of your prestigious list!
You will need to put it under your heading of "unanswered questions."
You apparently think that if someone doesn't answer your questions, that the reason is that they can't answer them.
However, -does it ever occur to you that we really aren't required to give you an answer for every question that you ask? Have a great day!
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 12, 2017 22:10:35 GMT -5
Those years when you were in those little meetings Dmmich - did YOU not speak of God's presence in your life? God doesn't want a people who believe for the sake of believing - but believe in that they will go on to Prove God for themselves. That's the only way God can have relationship with us. Bert, -please be sure to write this down so that you won't forget to can put it your quotes for this month.
I don't want to be left out of your prestigious list!
You will need to put it under your heading of "unanswered questions."
You apparently think that if someone doesn't answer your questions, that the reason is that they can't answer them.
However, -does it ever occur to you that we really aren't required to give you an answer for every question that you ask? Have a great day! Dear Dmmich' Yes a great day. Sun is shining, birds are singing (or some are pecking at my feet when I walk outside) Autumn in Australia. The point of the unanswered questions was that TMB people often claimed the Workers "can't answer questions." That's not correct - they answer more questions than your regular clergy-in-clown-outfits (ie who told you to wear that?) Often when Workers "don't" answer a point with some trouble-maker it's because they "won't" answer. Same diff..
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 13, 2017 0:25:15 GMT -5
dmmichgood. ^^ This is a wise comment. If our views and claims are only preserved by applying confirmation bias and by pre selecting information which will not destabilise the status quo, then that should be a sure warning sign they are shallow and unreliable. Circular reasoning, as exemplified by sourcing the salient information from one book then using that same book to validate the previously sourced info, is transparently irrational.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 13, 2017 4:36:39 GMT -5
Dear Dmmich' Yes a great day. Sun is shining, birds are singing (or some are pecking at my feet when I walk outside) Autumn in Australia. The point of the unanswered questions was that TMB people often claimed the Workers "can't answer questions." That's not correct - they answer more questions than your regular clergy-in-clown-outfits (ie who told you to wear that?) Often when Workers "don't" answer a point with some trouble-maker it's because they "won't" answer. Same diff..
Oh, Forget the weather comments and the other baloney, Bert!
Stay on tract!
Don't forget!
I want to be in your prestigious list next month!
Now don't you forget!
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 13, 2017 5:54:27 GMT -5
Dmmich, you are often in my quote threads because you can't answer questions!!! But you aren't psycho, vicious, or attempting to defend some strange religious ideas. So you don't find your way into general quotes!!
ps. I can't complain about Convention notes on the Internet when I am collecting my own notes from the TMB Convention! Same difference, as we say in Australia.
|
|