Metaphysical
I've said that there's no logical reason to believe in the metaphysical, I'll amend this slightly. I can find no logical reason to believe in the metaphysical, that doesn't mean there isn't one out there. However, I need a new working definition of metaphysical. Here's why
( Read more... )
You claim I cited Josephus as an outside source for Jesus when I purposely left him out because I didn't want to debate the interpolation in the source text. Funny, you never even mentioned the blatant interpolation, which is a primary objection to the text. Instead you only rule it out because it's not contemporary. This isn't a bad thing, but shows a clear lack of study with these sources. You also dropped Tacitus from the discussion. Why? Because he's too reliable of a historian for you to deal with.
Oh, and funny thing about contemporary evidence . . .
VERY little of ancient history has any eye witness testimony, or even contemporary evidence to support it.
The first biography of Alexander the Great was written by Plutarch, who lived over 400 years after Alexander the Great. And most of what we know about Augustus Caesar, Julius Caesar, and Tiberius Caesar comes from Tacitus and Suetonius, who were born LONG after the Caesar's had died! To hold these certain texts to a standard that NO OTHER ancient history texts are held to is foolish, and shows you are clearly grasping at straws. If you still complain that contemporary evidence is required in order for the evidence to be historical or accurate . . . cite your source.
Reply
First, the Odyssey and Iliad were NEVER presented as anything other than fictional poetry. To even begin to compare them to nature of the Bible is again . . . foolish. Second, the Bible is a collection of letters and writings that were written in a variety of literary genres such as apocalyptic, poetic, and historical narratives. I stress historical narratives. If you honestly think the Bible has no historical Basis, read Strobel. I am not going to beat this into the ground because honestly Ethan, if you refuse to accept the historical validity of Bible, you will be contradicting the vast majority of contemporary historians. The position you're now taking has long been abandoned. I am not telling that the miracles are widely accepted as fact by historians, but the historical veracity is not doubted. Again . . . Strobel.
That said, Galatians is dated to be written around 20-30 years after the life of Christ. In Chapter 1, Verse 1, Paul immediately and openly states that Christ had risen from the dead. One, this corroborates that He had once lived (you can't be dead if you haven't lived) and two, this corroborates the miraculous resurrection.
Question Ethan, if Jesus never even existed, how could such a far fetched lie from Paul be adopted so easily so soon after the period in question? Also, why would the apostles knowingly die for a lie?
"I maintain that what Jesus supposedly did is not sacrifice because he knew he'd get life back after three days. If your son and daughter are bickering over your son's toy, you might ask him to give it up for a while. If he is reluctant, you can tell him that it will surely be returned shortly. Now the son is more likely to make the sacrifice, because it is markedly easier to make. This is the problem with Jesus' supposed sacrifice. In the end, what did he lose. Nothing. In fact it can be said that it was done out of a selfish desire for gain."
Jesus was beaten and crucified with such horrific pain that we cannot even comprehend it. To even entertain the idea from your standpoint, we must assume for the sake of discussion that Christ existed and that He WAS who he claimed to be. In that case, at any moment during the crucifixion, Christ could have saved himself from this horrific death . . . but he refused to. To say this is not a sacrifice is disgusting.
"Nowhere in the bible does it say that the messiah would have to die of crucifixion or any sort of horrific death. Jesus could have died from a head-cold or old age. Because the wages of sin is death, not crucifixion."
Who's arguing, Ethan? It wasn't required that he be crucified, only that His life be the sacrifice and payment for our sins. He was sentenced to crucifixion under Roman law.
Reply
"VERY little of ancient history has any eye witness testimony, or even contemporary evidence to support it."
As in the case of Alexander the Great, I have no reason to disbelieve history's portrayal of him, but I would never take it as 100% accurate as you do with Jesus, nor indeed if the account were internally contradictory, as it is with Jesus. The miracle accounts of Jesus require a contemporary source. Also, there's archaeological evidence to corroborate Alexander, none for Jesus.
"...if you refuse to accept the historical validity of Bible, you will be contradicting the vast majority of contemporary historians."
I don't accept this premise either. Please prove this.
You quote Paul from Galatians, but even the Bible says that Paul never personally met Jesus. He inherited the legend and had the Jewish background to understand its implications.
As for the apostles knowingly dying, we have no reason to believe that they actually did.
"Jesus was beaten and crucified with such horrific pain that we cannot even comprehend it. To even entertain the idea from your standpoint, we must assume for the sake of discussion that Christ existed and that He WAS who he claimed to be. In that case, at any moment during the crucifixion, Christ could have saved himself from this horrific death . . . but he refused to. To say this is not a sacrifice is disgusting."
To call my argument disgusting is effective to say you don't have a counter. It was not a sacrifice because he had full intent to retrieve what was given. What's six hours of pain in comparison to an eternity of being worshipped like a king? There are humans who have suffered worse pain, emotional and physical as a result of a negligent "loving" god, than Jesus ever suffered. Case in point, a pediatric cancer ward.
Beyond this, the Bible tells us that Jesus had no intention of being captured and crucified, hence why Judas' action was considered betrayal, and the fact that Judas had to betray him in the first place. Jesus was in hiding, if he wasn't, there would've been no need on the part of the people who wanted him dead for Judas to inform them where he was.
Another thing, that you take the word "day" in the bible to mean something other than what it actually means, means that you don't think that the Bible is the inerrant word of god. It would have been as easy for god to illuminate that the world was created in four billion years as it was to say seven days. To say that "day" can mean five hundred and seventy or so million years is to say that "die" can mean "live" and "sin" can mean "righteousness"
Jesus was supposed to die for our sins, that we might not die. We still die. Either the sacrifice didn't work, or didn't happen.
Reply
Ethan, I'm finding this trend with you. From the jump, I told you that the point is to establish historical veracity. You're still jabbing at the fact that I believe it's the inerrant Word of God. No one is telling you to believe every word of it. In fact, I said the opposite! I said test it all! So why spout these comments?
"The miracle accounts of Jesus require a contemporary source."
CITE IT. I'm putting this objection on par with your "What does the metaphysical look like" comments. You are again using a standard that NO ancient history is held to. NONE!!! Again, in order for something to be true or accurate, it does NOT have to be contemporary. This is a band-aid for your argument and it's not going to fly.
read up:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
"You quote Paul from Galatians, but even the Bible says that Paul never personally met Jesus. He inherited the legend and had the Jewish background to understand its implications."
Yeah, Paul inherited the legend . . . 30 years after the legend apparently happened. Do you think these people were stupid, Ethan?
Later in Chapter 1, Paul also talks about going up to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, and original companion of Jesus, and James, which is assumed to be the half brother of Christ. Two groups of people: original companions of Christ, and a persecutor of the Christ's followers. Both have the same message. How could Paul's outlandish lie perpetuate? How could it be adopted so quickly and readily if it were an outlandish legend?
"As for the apostles knowingly dying, we have no reason to believe that they actually did."
Ethan, it's going to take me all day to unpack this for you. Please save me the time and just read Strobel.
"To call my argument disgusting is effective to say you don't have a counter. It was not a sacrifice because he had full intent to retrieve what was given. What's six hours of pain in comparison to an eternity of being worshipped like a king? There are humans who have suffered worse pain, emotional and physical as a result of a negligent "loving" god, than Jesus ever suffered. Case in point, a pediatric cancer ward."
Reply
You're misinterpreting my use of "disgusting" here only for the purpose of claiming I don't have a counter. But let's just be honest with ourselves, Ethan, I have a counter.
I call your statement disgusting to ME because you demean the selfless and courageous act of Christ and reduce it selfishness.
I would argue that little to none in the world is comparable to the pain Christ endured on the cross. For the sake of the argument, we must assume He WAS God, He suffered torture on a cross, and bore the sins of the world.
Say . . . the President was dying and needed a heart transplant and you were the only one able to give him that transplant. Would it be a sacrifice for you? First, you would be recognized as a hero throughout the world, and second, your life in a world full of pain would be ended and you would never experience suffering ever again. Was your act out of selfishness for the heroic status you would gain and the end to a life of suffering? I mean, this analogy is out there, but it follows. Looking at Christ's status post crucifixion doesn't negate the act.
"Beyond this, the Bible tells us that Jesus had no intention of being captured and crucified, hence why Judas' action was considered betrayal, and the fact that Judas had to betray him in the first place. Jesus was in hiding, if he wasn't, there would've been no need on the part of the people who wanted him dead for Judas to inform them where he was."
He had no intention of being captured . . . yet He went willingly and died willingly . . . when He had the power to stop it all.
"Another thing, that you take the word "day" in the bible to mean something other than what it actually means, means that you don't think that the Bible is the inerrant word of god. It would have been as easy for god to illuminate that the world was created in four billion years as it was to say seven days. To say that "day" can mean five hundred and seventy or so million years is to say that "die" can mean "live" and "sin" can mean "righteousness"."
I honestly don't know what to say Ethan. You are at square one in every aspect of our conversations. It's frustrating because all of these objections are out of ignorance, and all of these foundations need to be established before we can have this discussion.
This is a completely separate topic, which I will gladly get on if need be, but the source text actually infers that Genesis is to be taken figuratively rather than literally. I don't just accept it figuratively because I require it for my world view. The text warrants the interpretation. Again, read Ken Miller.
"Jesus was supposed to die for our sins, that we might not die. We still die. Either the sacrifice didn't work, or didn't happen."
Let's go this route: Quote your verses that you object to so we can take them one at a time. Hint though: This is an argument from ignorance of the text. I'd research your claim before going further.
Reply
It would be a sacrifice under these terms, but take the same situation and say, "give your heart/life for someone else, but you'll get it back with interest in a few dozen hours." Now it's not an actual sacrifice.
Reply
Reply
I don't have to cite anything. If someone told you that at Kim Jong Il's coronation, doves flew out from the town square singing the national anthem in korean (a currently mandated belief in N. Korea), you would believe that he'd been made ruler, but not that the doves had done that. It's rational to believe that the miracle accounts are legendary, including the resurrection.
It's irrational to suggest that a just god would require you to believe hearsay to prevent eternal damnation. (Especially considering that justice could never account for eternity in hell)
Are you now saying that the gospels are not 100% accurate?
As for belief in a historical Jesus, after some more research, I'm leaning toward it. But the historical Jesus is entirely separate from the legend.
I do plan on reading Strobel as it appears you lean quite heavily upon him.
Reply
You're brushing off these questions like they're no big deal, but you've yet to give any reason as to how such an outlandish lie could perpetuate so quickly if it could have been so easily debunked.
"I don't have to cite anything. If someone told you that at Kim Jong Il's coronation, doves flew out from the town square singing the national anthem in korean (a currently mandated belief in N. Korea), you would believe that he'd been made ruler, but not that the doves had done that. It's rational to believe that the miracle accounts are legendary, including the resurrection."
This all comes back to the fact that the disciples must have at the very LEAST believed whole heartedly that they had seen the risen Christ. This can be inferred by their willingness to die for His name's sake. In order to deny this, you must either provide an alternative to what they had seen, or evidence that they never existed/never died. Again, research takes care of all these objections. Back to contemporary evidence though . . . we need to get passed this. No ancient history is held to a standard that requires contemporary corroborating evidence to prove the text is factual. We need to understand this. We also need to look at the evidence as a whole; not just the death's of Christ's followers, not just the evidence of the resurrection, not just Tacitus and Josephus . . . all of it together is what makes the case. This is what separates the story of Christ and a mandated belief in N. Korea.
"It's irrational to suggest that a just god would require you to believe hearsay to prevent eternal damnation. (Especially considering that justice could never account for eternity in hell)"
Jesus was God in human form, He died on a cross, and was resurrected 3 days later. He was witnessed by his followers and 500 others after he was resurrected, and seen by a countless number of people before his crucifixion. His miracles and resurrection were documented. Just because he was not contemporary during YOUR life, doesn't negate the evidence that He lived and was who He claimed he was. This is on par with objections like "Why doesn't God just show himself to us? I can't be expected to believe in Him if I can't see Him.". Huge mistakes here.
Ethan, we can talk history and metaphysics until we're blue in the face but it's all going to be bunk until you activate it and actually experience God. Only when you experience God will you *know* he exists. Sounds super mystical, and that's far from me and my way of thinking, but this has been true in my life. Until I tried to actually trust God, test Him, and cultivate a relationship with Him, then and only then was I convinced He was real.
"Are you now saying that the gospels are not 100% accurate?"
When?
"As for belief in a historical Jesus, after some more research, I'm leaning toward it. But the historical Jesus is entirely separate from the legend."
Begin to unpack "the legend" so we can deal with it.
"I do plan on reading Strobel as it appears you lean quite heavily upon him."
There are many more apologists besides Strobel, some much better, but Strobel is an easy read and I like his breakdown of the evidence.
Reply
I will deal with these, but I'd like to double-check my facts before I do.
"This all comes back to the fact that the disciples must have... ...Christ and a mandated belief in N. Korea."
You're not understanding me. Supernatural miracles don't happen. A historical source becomes less credible when it says one did.
"Ethan, we can talk history and metaphysics until we're blue in the face but it's all going to be bunk until you activate it and actually experience God. Only when you experience God will you *know* he exists. Sounds super mystical, and that's far from me and my way of thinking, but this has been true in my life. Until I tried to actually trust God, test Him, and cultivate a relationship with Him, then and only then was I convinced He was real."
I've done this. I've been there. If I wasn't a christian, no one is. We have common friends, ask them.
I was fooling myself. I can't say that you're the same way, maybe god does appear to you. If he were to speak to me, I would assume that it was a malfunction of my brain until having convincing evidence otherwise. If he were to appear to me, I would first assume that I was hallucinating, not that the world had suspended the laws of physics for my personal benefit. If I were to see god appear on stage at church in the presence of many other people with a camera rolling, I'd believe. If it could be proven that god answers prayer, I'd have to pay attention. If you were to ask god for a prophesy and he told you the precise measurement, angle of descent, latitude, longitude and composition of the next meteorite, and you were to find it and verify accurately, I'd have to pay attention. (by the way, you still haven't said what would have to be true to falsify your god hypothesis)
Reply
And you're not understanding me; the evidence surrounding this conversation is pointing directly to a miracle. A supernatural miracle satisfies the evidence. Think there's an alternative? Provide the argument. Still want to presuppose supernatural miracles cannot occur? Then why are we having this conversation?
"I've done this. I've been there. If I wasn't a christian, no one is."
From my perspective, it's very hard to see how anyone can truly have a relationship with God and then deny his existence. I've experienced God, Ethan. He couldn't be any more real to me. I don't see how one could truly have these experiences, and then write them off in the end.
"by the way, you still haven't said what would have to be true to falsify your god hypothesis"
I was where you were once. I held the exact same worldview and I was asking the exact same questions. Because I was forced to approach God from a certain way (historically and philosophically) it left me with this mentality that wants a rational response to everything. I thought it was too easy to chock everything up to faith, and though in the end, some things are required to be taken on faith, I feel there are appropriate responses to certain things that a lot Christians never touch. But with that being said, since that period in my life, God has become so much more real to me than historical claims or philosophical arguments. And to be honest, I can't think of anything you're going to present me that's going to negate my experiences with God.
Reply
Just another thing you have to assume in order to hold your belief, that your experience is different or more real than mine was.
I was "on fire" for god as a christian. I was so completely sure that my experiences were real, and they were so emotionally powerful that I wanted the whole world to experience it too. So much so, I became a worship leader and made it my life goal to witness to as many people on the planet as possible. My prayers were answered sometimes with a voice in my head, sometimes just by reading the bible. God told me to marry my wife, move to boston and helped me make moral decisions in high school.
"And to be honest, I can't think of anything you're going to present me that's going to negate my experiences with God."
You're deluding yourself. That is a logical explanation for your experiences. You have to prove that it's more likely that you're actually experiencing something on a different plane of existence than it is that your mind is making you believe.
Reply
Ethan, my belief is not contingent on YOUR experiences. I don't have to ASSUME anything. I don't have to assume yours were less real than mine were. I mean... I CAN assume, YOU can assume... but what does it discount? In the end, my experiences are the only experiences I can be certain of, and the only experiences that are actually VALUABLE to me.
"You're deluding yourself. That is a logical explanation for your experiences. You have to prove that it's more likely that you're actually experiencing something on a different plane of existence than it is that your mind is making you believe."
You would know ALL about the subject of delusion, wouldn't you Ethan? (see morality and purpose discussion)
Remember when we talked about the assumptions we must make about our senses, the ability to experience the physical world, and how those assumptions are REQUIRED before we can even begin to use the scientific method?
If we can't trust our senses and experiences and then make a judgment call for ourselves on whether there is validity in what we just experienced, what can we trust?
Let me head you off . . . maybe my experiences are hallucinations?
You're claiming I need to prove the positive (that my experience was real) rather than the negation (that my experience wasn't real). We've been over this in regards to philosophical arguments, but it rings true here too. The premise must be assumed until the negation is proven. Why would you say that I must PROVE my experience was real (which is hilarious in itself)? Well . . . it suits your case, doesn't it? Convenient.
And because I have found the evidence surrounding the resurrection to be extremely convincing, giving me a conclusion to its veracity . . . it only adds to the plausibility of my own experiences actually being true.
Reply
Exactly. Look, I've got nothing against you believing whatever-the-hell you want to, but in order to understand my position you have to understand that I'm trying to destroy faith in my life. I only want to have faith when it is absolutely necessary.
I have to have faith that this is all real, that I'm typing on a real computer in a real house on a real planet, because I can't prove that it's all real. Unless my personality changes drastically, I will never have faith in a god. To have unnecessary faith, is to cheat my intrinsic curiosity out of the exploration it requires. I will believe in a god when the belief no longer requires my faith.
Take dark energy for instance. Cosmologists postulated that dark energy exists in order to solve the problem of an increasingly expanding universe. They have evidence to believe in something they call dark energy, but they can't prove its existence because they haven't found it yet. It would be the same with god.
I am not compelled to believe that dark energy exists in the way cosmologists predict, I am only compelled to see it as a possible explanation for the phenomena it supposedly creates. They could have it totally wrong. And so could you.
Reply
The point is . . .
Science is incapable of proving the existence of a lot of things, period. No, not that science hasn't proven them to exist yet. We're not going to subscribe to some sort of naturalism of the gaps here. It's the fact that by its restrictions it simply can't.
You admit this and then say you will only make NECESSARY assumptions.
O RLY?
Is it more probable that Jesus lived than not lived? Is it more probable that Jesus died than not died? Is it more probable that the disciples had at least THOUGHT they had seen the risen Christ? Is there any other explanation for what they thought they saw? Is there any other explanation as to why they would willingly die? If false, is there any reason such an outlandish lie could spread so quickly?
If we're going to ignore the evidence, you're going to need to make a hell of a lot of assumptions, Ethan. Your problem is you're presupposing the supernatural doesn't exist. First, we already established that the metaphysical does, in which you replied "okay, it might, but we shouldn't care about it because we can't test it (using science)". That brought us back to "science is NOT the only way to gaining meaningful knowledge". We just came full circle on this and you didn't have a leg to stand on. You have a blatant philosophical bias that won't allow you to view the evidence objectively, period.
I remember a while ago you said that you require everyone to know why they believe what they believe. Ethan, I'm requiring YOU to know why you DON'T believe. Too many times I've responded to your points only to get silence out of you. For instance, the vast majority of the topic stemming from the comments in this journal entry.
And seriously, what's with atheists and throwing this Sagan quote around? In the end, if the "extraordinary evidence" doesn't follow your presupposition, you're going to throw it out anyway. That's the beauty of that quote. The evidence is ALWAYS subjective. Not extraordinary enough? Meh, throw it out! I mean, right Ethan? This is just a silly mantra. There's a difference between asking for reasonable evidence (which we have. example: eye witness testimony) and unreasonable evidence . . . like a video tape of the resurrection.
Reply
"There's a difference between asking for reasonable evidence (which we have. example: eye witness testimony) and unreasonable evidence . . . like a video tape of the resurrection."
I would never convict a person of a crime if we only had eye witness testimony and hearsay. Would you? So I won't convict god of the crime of existence.
Obviously you don't think you're being illogical; obviously I don't think I'm being illogical. I wonder... and please don't take this as ad hominem because I've made a very conscious effort throughout our discourse to remain above that, this says nothing to the validity or invalidity of your arguments... why it is that you felt the need to comment on my livejournal.
Why does it matter to you, what I think? I'm a twenty-two year old agnostic-atheist. My understanding of the world shrinks daily and I'm doing what I can to combat the falling knowledge/age ratio. I figure you don't need me to believe for you to believe, so why? Is it because you believe if you don't save me I'll go to hell? (or get Jesus to save me w/e) If you're trying to prevent me from hell that must mean on some level you care for my person, that you'd rather I not suffer endless pain. If so, thank you, you're very compassionate. Although it could be interpreted as an attempt to achieve personal glory...,"I converted the atheist, Huzzah!" as god enters a fat shiny ruby into your heavenly hat to be worn as co-ruler of all creation after the tribulations. I wonder if that's the reason.
What will you gain by converting me? Will you prove that you don't need faith to believe in god? Because that's what it would take. And wouldn't that tick off some of your theists friends who cherish their faith, and would perhaps spurn your for your lack thereof?
Reply
Leave a comment