Log in to check your private messages
Faith
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:05 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Taral-DLOS
Master
Master

Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Posts: 1660
Location: Ontario, Canada

Reepicheep wrote:
@Taral: Sure, that works too. The point is that the added ingredients (whatever those ingredients were and however the wine was technically made) was the divine "nudge" and after the nudge nature worked its course. As in the miraculous conception: after the "nudge" which was the conception itself, normal pregnancy followed.


I guess in the end it makes no difference whether Jesus transformed water into wine, or provoked water into turning into wine by its own accord. I say the fact that the water was transformed (directly) is a bit more meaningful that the water being nudged/provoked/caused to slowly develop alcohol by itself.

And I don't think the miraculous conception was a "nudge". A fertilized embryo spontaneously appeared in her uterus (or fallopian tube, I suppose) and then implanted to do its thing. Calling the spontaneous appearance of a fertilized cluster of cells (of anything, really) isn't a "nudge." It's completely supernatural and therefore entirely miraculous.
_________________
"I'm...from Earth."

-Sparks Nevada, Marshal on Mars

"Who cares what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
"Unless evil's carrying the Martini tray, darling."
-Frank and Sadie Doyle


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:07 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Alan Skywalker V
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 599

Reepicheep wrote:

@Alan: I don't worry about the Gospels contradicting each other (which, yes, they do - as do many other parts of the Bible), because I don't believe in inerrancy, at least not in the strict sense of the word.


Now I'm curious. Can you provide some examples you've noticed?

BTW, good point about the Conception. In the case of the wine, however, I'm not sure if it could really be considered a combination of nudge and nature. I need to read those verses again.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:49 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3892
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

Since there's been some discussion beyond this post, I'll not be answering everything, and perhaps be answering some other things in later posts.

Reepicheep wrote:


Categorization #2: 1) Miracles of Fertility (OC): turning water into wine would fall under this, as would the multiplication of loaves/fishes, and the miraculous conception.

I'll have to reread the text, but I don't think the multiplication of loaves and fishes included copious amounts of bakers and fish and fish sex, that took place in a matter of minutes. It was more of a spontaneous sprouting of fish and bread.

Quote:
God never changes (and presumably never will change) stone into bread naturally and so neither will the Son.


I know you've excluded the OT from the list of miracles, but how about turning people into salt?

Quote:
2) Miracles of Healing (OC): Healing of leprosy, blindness etc. Healing, of course, happens naturally: our bodies heal themselves. Medicine only helps or starts the natural process... which is why you can't heal a cut on a corpse.


That depends on the blindness, on the illness. The body does not naturally heal leprosy. The intervention of unnatural medicine is required. The same with paralysis. Depending on the type of paralysis, it cannot be fixed by the body. (By unnatural I mean the intervention of outside sources is required to make it viable as medicine.) EDIT: I wasn't happy with this bit, so let me elaborate. Some medicines are naturally sourced - i.e. Aspirin. But other medicines are products of artificial synthesis, meaning they're not from natural sources at all. I don't know about the cures for leprosy, I'm merely hedging my bets.

Quote:
4) Miracles of Dominion over the Inorganic (OC/NC): God has dominion over storms and the stilling of the storm is God incarnate exercising this authority (OC). Walking on water is the weird one. Like you said, this doesn't ever happen in nature. Period. (Not including water striders...) Lewis suggests this is a NC miracle... meaning in the redeemed universe, people will be able to walk on water... I suppose. A skeptic will now point out that this classification is a cop out, because any miracle that doesn't fit into the idea of a logical God that cannot produce nonsense, can conveniently be labeled as NC. Anything could happen and we can say, "well that will happen in the redeemed universe not the current one." I'll admit this is very true, but at the same time, that isn't proof that a redeemed universe wouldn't allow people to walk on water. At any rate, there is only one miracle of this sort as far as I'm aware of. The other NC miracles make more immediate sense.


Yeah, I'd say it's a cop out. However, to be fair, do you remember the scientific method? Do you remember its steps? One step is prediction. This could possibly be like that (though it's a fairly superficial comparison).

Quote:

Well, I'm sure many Christians would disagree with this, but I think the Old Testament has it's share of "mythical" stories. Good examples being the first eleven chapters of Genesis which just scream myth to me and the books of Job or Jonah (the latter of which was most likely written as a satire - and quite a humorous one once you're aware of the fact Razz). In general the Bible seems to get more historical as it goes along. The later books Kings and Chronicles are also pretty historical (and probably as historically accurate as other ancient court records). The New Testament are near contemporary records (many of the Old Testament books were written down generations after the events described) with contemporary events, figures (figures who could confirm or deny the stories told about them) etc. The exception being John, which most scholars don't think of as being that historical since it adds a lot of stories the three synoptic gospels (which were written earlier) didn't include. Tolkien's ideas of Myth and Truth (which heavily influenced Lewis's philosophy and writings) has a lot to do with my thinking in this area.


It's been a while since I've read Jonah, but I suppose I could do a rereading of the bible, so I can see for myself how well it works as satire. But I do agree that the Bible seems to get more historical as it goes along, but I disagree on, perhaps, the degree, and what is historical, and accuracy. Though I'm not willing, at this moment, to go into detail.

The next part we leave the topic of miracles and omnipotence, and go into historicity (my fault, sorry), so I'll just make one last remark, and in summary:

I could be perfectly happy with the idea of a god bound by the laws of logic. That would be more sensible. However, what I disagree with is the application of 'omnipotent' to this type of deity. It may just be that I prefer the literal meaning - can do anything. The second part I disagree with is that the miracles of the NT can be called, in any sense, logical, or natural. I believe that such instances, had they occurred, would be firmly supernatural.

When you say '[contemporary] figures who could confirm or deny' the stories, whom do you mean? The only one I could think of, who would desire to distance himself from such stories, is Pontius Pilate. Little is known of him, but it could be possible that he died long before the gospels were written. Remember, the average lifespan back then was much lower. Certainly as one of the upper class, he could have been around at the time - but why are there no records of him speaking for or against Jesus? Keep this in mind for later.

Philo of Alexandria (of Logos fame) is a contemporary. He lived in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, but certainly did visit the city in that time, and is even reputed to have met Peter. He wrote extensively bemoaning the rule of Pilate. He wrote about the early Christian community in Egypt. The problem? He makes no mention of Jesus at all. He talks of Carabbas, whom I'm sure you know, and even makes note of several aspects similar to Jesus - yet doesn't mention Jesus.

Then there was Josephus, who was a contemporary, and was in or around Jerusalem at the time, and wrote much more extensively on the Jews (about 30 books, if I remember correctly) - yet only mention Jesus twice. Both times are almost certainly forgeries.

Another, I can't remember his name - Pliny the Elder/Younger? - who had a great interest in natural phenomena, made no mention of the natural phenomena that took place at the death of Jesus, which I've mentioned earlier.

Theophilius of Antioch, an early Christian scholar, was challenged by Autolycus to name one who was risen from the dead. He makes no mention of Jesus' resurrection, nor of Lazarus, or Jairus' daughter.

These contemporaries, near contemporaries, and early Christian philosophers - and yes, there are more - make no mention of Jesus.

I am personally on the fence, with regards to this subject. I tend to prefer a euhemeristic answer. But there does remain these oddities, ones that could point to a mythical Jesus.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


Last edited by Life Is The Path on Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:07 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3892
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

Alan Skywalker V wrote:
Reepicheep wrote:

@Alan: I don't worry about the Gospels contradicting each other (which, yes, they do - as do many other parts of the Bible), because I don't believe in inerrancy, at least not in the strict sense of the word.


Now I'm curious. Can you provide some examples you've noticed?


You asked Reep, but while I'm here:

Matthew 27: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Luke 23: Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit.
John 19: It is finished.

Matthew 26:63-64: But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said.
Mark 14:62: But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am.

Matthew 5:16: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 6:1-4: Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven…. when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Mark 16:20: And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.
John 20:30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples….
Acts 2:22: Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.
Mark 8:12: And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
Luke 11:29: And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

John 13:1, 18:28, 19:14-15: Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

Then (the Jewish priests) led… Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and [Pilate] saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.
Mark 14:12-17: And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, [Jesus'] disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? … And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:23 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6839
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Taral-DLOS wrote:
And I don't think the miraculous conception was a "nudge". A fertilized embryo spontaneously appeared in her uterus (or fallopian tube, I suppose) and then implanted to do its thing. Calling the spontaneous appearance of a fertilized cluster of cells (of anything, really) isn't a "nudge." It's completely supernatural and therefore entirely miraculous.

How is it more miraculous than spontaneously creating the correct ingredients for wine inside a water jug though? I used the word "nudge" because it is a word we've been using for a while in this thread.

Taral-DLOS wrote:
I'll have to reread the text, but I don't think the multiplication of loaves and fishes included copious amounts of bakers and fish and fish sex, that took place in a matter of minutes. It was more of a spontaneous sprouting of fish and bread.

This is true. I think the point Lewis was making was that miracles fit into a logical framework i.e. they are based on thing that happen in this Nature or the next - they're not arbitrary. God could easily create fish and bread without the use of sex and bakers.

Life Is The Path wrote:
I know you've excluded the OT from the list of miracles, but how about turning people into salt?

Ha, good question. Based on what I've said so far, I might have to label this as a "myth". If the event is historical, I would imagine Lot's wife simply decomposed rather than being turned into salt, but that's just a guess.

Life Is The Path wrote:
That depends on the blindness, on the illness. The body does not naturally heal leprosy. The intervention of unnatural medicine is required. The same with paralysis. Depending on the type of paralysis, it cannot be fixed by the body. (By unnatural I mean the intervention of outside sources is required to make it viable as medicine.) EDIT: I wasn't happy with this bit, so let me elaborate. Some medicines are naturally sourced - i.e. Aspirin. But other medicines are products of artificial synthesis, meaning they're not from natural sources at all. I don't know about the cures for leprosy, I'm merely hedging my bets.

Not all injuries, sicknesses etc. are able to be healed naturally. That's a given. But as a rule, the body does its best to heal itself. Again, with a supernatural nudge, I could see the body healing things like blindness and leprosy. God would know our bodies better than we do.

I wish I could remember the title of the book I read about Jonah being a satire...

I'll address the historicity question in a little bit. I don't have the juice right now.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:52 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3892
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

Reepicheep wrote:


Life Is The Path wrote:
I know you've excluded the OT from the list of miracles, but how about turning people into salt?

Ha, good question. Based on what I've said so far, I might have to label this as a "myth". If the event is historical, I would imagine Lot's wife simply decomposed rather than being turned into salt, but that's just a guess.


This one time, I won a trophy for swimming. It was the end of the school year, at my junior school. For most of the year I either pretended to be sick, or forgot my swimming kit, to get out of going (swimming classes were compulsory). I did so because, in the first week, I had a bad experience at the swimming pool. At last, I had to go, and in three weeks I went up from the bottom class, which was just me, to the third class. For that, I got a nice trophy and medal. The really fantastic thing that topped off that day was when I also won a competition. I had to guess how many sweets were in a jar. I was closest, with 160 (it was 163). And I got to keep the sweets.

The swimming story is true. The sweet jar story is a complete fabrication (though in all fairness, I did know of a girl in my class who was terrific at guessing how many sweets were in a jar).

To apply this to the bible: the salt woman story is likely myth, simply because of its absurdity. And by implication, the more mundane stories (relatively speaking) are given more credibility as accurate, yet they, too, can be mythical.

Quote:

Not all injuries, sicknesses etc. are able to be healed naturally. That's a given. But as a rule, the body does its best to heal itself. Again, with a supernatural nudge, I could see the body healing things like blindness and leprosy. God would know our bodies better than we do.


I'm afraid I simply can't see it (the pun is always intended). Maybe leprosy. But blindness? Some things are just irrevocable. Beyond that, I believe I've already addressed why to my satisfaction, so I won't go on about it.

Quote:

I'll address the historicity question in a little bit. I don't have the juice right now.


Rough Christmas? Or simply a long one? Anyway, take your time, there's no hurry.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 5:29 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6839
Location: Sailing into the unknown

I was re-reading Miracles through much of the early discussion on miracles, so my opinion was changing slightly as I was writing. Maybe I should take a step back and give my overall thoughts of miracles as they now stand:

For many people the problem with miracles is that they seem to fly in the face of rationality. We know that Nature follows certain rules (e.g. gravity) and miracles seem to break these rules. My conception of God is dependent on Him being rational and so I take issue with any claim that God is irrational. Reading Plato and people since then that he's influenced has really helped me to view God as being on a higher plane of reality than us. He isn't the shadowy "spiritual" being; it is us who are the shadows. If anything He is more real than us. This might not seem immediately relevant to miracles, but I think it helps the imagination immensely (it helps me at least). A miracle is an event where supernatural power from God (in His higher plane) affects the events of Nature and alters the course they would naturally take. The best example of supernatural power would be spontaneous creation and the best example of spontaneous creation would be the miraculous conception. I don't see this offending my reason whatsoever. You can begin to see how many of the other miracles could be done with spontaneous creation as well, though many are less obvious (like turning water into wine). Once the act of supernatural power has done its thing, Nature resumes its course. It may have seemed like I was going out of my way to find natural explanations for miracles, but that wasn't my intention (and it probably resulted from my scientific ignorance more than anything else). Miracles by their nature are supernatual.

Honestly, I can take or leave what Lewis said about multiplying the loaves and fishes mirroring what already happens in Nature. It's nice, but I don't need it. The important thing is that God can spontaneously create loaves and fish. Again I don't see this offending my reason. For curing blindness, I would need to know what actually causes blindness, but I imagine it would be something that a miracle could cure (regardless of whether they body pitches in to naturally heal itself or not) without slipping into absurdity.

As far as the contemporaries alive when the early Christian documents were written, I was primarily thinking of the apostles. Admittedly, I don't know as much on this topic as I'd like to, but I find the apostles one of the best defences for Christianity on historical grounds. They were a group of people, claiming to have physically seen their teacher after His death and went about teaching that this supposed resurrection was the key to new life. I don't buy the idea that the apostles were running a scam, because they profited almost nothing by it and faced a lot of danger, discomfort etc. because of it. The idea of a person coming back from the dead is also so absurd that it's hard to imagine a person (or especially a group of people) sitting around one day and deciding to tell people this story. Understandably many people thought they were mad, but from what I can tell they were anything but.

Non-Christian contemporary records not mentioning Jesus doesn't really bother me. There were many would-be messiahs before and after Jesus and I don't think the Roman authorities etc. thought Jesus of Nazareth was anything note-worthy. The odd thing is that Jesus' following didn't die out after His death like most followings of "messiahs" , but it picked up dramatically.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:00 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3892
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

Okay, and if I say anything that references previously held beliefs, which are no longer valid, just let me know. 'll do my best to stick to the new view.

Quote:
Reading Plato and people since then that he's influenced has really helped me to view God as being on a higher plane of reality than us.


First, can you clarify this bit? I'm not quite understanding it. I'm not sure who the 'he' is that you speak of. God, Lewis?

Next, you say that you take issue at the suggestion that God is irrational. I have no problem with you taking issue with it, that's absolutely fine and understandable. I just need to make sure that you're okay with at least thinking, in a thought exercise, that God is irrational. It doesn't matter that you ultimately don't believe that, just that you are capable of looking at it from another perspective. I do believe you to be fairly open minded (that is to say, the actual definition, not the misused open mind popular with pseudoscientists; you are able and willing to listen and entertain ideas that run opposite to your own), but I just need to make sure. It's not all too clear here.

Quote:
Reading Plato and people since then that he's influenced has really helped me to view God as being on a higher plane of reality than us. He isn't the shadowy "spiritual" being; it is us who are the shadows. If anything He is more real than us. This might not seem immediately relevant to miracles, but I think it helps the imagination immensely (it helps me at least). A miracle is an event where supernatural power from God (in His higher plane) affects the events of Nature and alters the course they would naturally take. The best example of supernatural power would be spontaneous creation and the best example of spontaneous creation would be the miraculous conception. I don't see this offending my reason whatsoever. You can begin to see how many of the other miracles could be done with spontaneous creation as well, though many are less obvious (like turning water into wine). Once the act of supernatural power has done its thing, Nature resumes its course. It may have seemed like I was going out of my way to find natural explanations for miracles, but that wasn't my intention (and it probably resulted from my scientific ignorance more than anything else). Miracles by their nature are supernatual.


Though I disagree with the notion of something being 'more real', there's one scientific hypothesis that is somewhat similiar to this idea - that we are, in essence, holograms, or shadows from other planes. I never thought much of it myself, and consequently I cannot for the life of me recall what it is called, but this sounds somewhat similar.

Quote:
Honestly, I can take or leave what Lewis said about multiplying the loaves and fishes mirroring what already happens in Nature. It's nice, but I don't need it. The important thing is that God can spontaneously create loaves and fish. Again I don't see this offending my reason. For curing blindness, I would need to know what actually causes blindness, but I imagine it would be something that a miracle could cure (regardless of whether they body pitches in to naturally heal itself or not) without slipping into absurdity.


When writing that, I had in mind of Jesus curing an eyeball-less man. Someone who had had their eyes physically removed. The About page for NT miracles just lists the miracles and vague terms. A lot of curing blindness, but it doesn't say what type of blindness. Sure, it has notes on where the miracles can be found in the bible, but honestly I'm tired, and can't be bothered. There is a case of Jesus healing a chopped off ear, though, so perhaps we could use that instead?


Quote:
As far as the contemporaries alive when the early Christian documents were written, I was primarily thinking of the apostles. Admittedly, I don't know as much on this topic as I'd like to, but I find the apostles one of the best defences for Christianity on historical grounds. They were a group of people, claiming to have physically seen their teacher after His death and went about teaching that this supposed resurrection was the key to new life. I don't buy the idea that the apostles were running a scam, because they profited almost nothing by it and faced a lot of danger, discomfort etc. because of it. The idea of a person coming back from the dead is also so absurd that it's hard to imagine a person (or especially a group of people) sitting around one day and deciding to tell people this story. Understandably many people thought they were mad, but from what I can tell they were anything but.


You should, it's quite fascinating. Unfortunately I don't have any books to point you towards (my knowledge comes from several historian friends), but rationalwiki has a brief summary of the authorship of the NT here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament
which demonstrates that the gospels (I'm assuming you mean gospels, rather than an extra-biblical apostle document. I can't remember off-hand if there were one or two, that you could be referring) are of questionable authorship, and that it's unclear who exactly wrote them.

Quote:
Non-Christian contemporary records not mentioning Jesus doesn't really bother me. There were many would-be messiahs before and after Jesus and I don't think the Roman authorities etc. thought Jesus of Nazareth was anything note-worthy. The odd thing is that Jesus' following didn't die out after His death like most followings of "messiahs" , but it picked up dramatically.


I believe I cited two different historians who, specifically for the Romans, did document messianic cults, at that time and in that area, and so they would have been very interested in hearing about Jesus of Nazareth. Too, there were several messianic cults headed by someone named Jesus (different people with the name Jesus - though not a highly common name, it was fairly common. Or Joshua or Yeshua, to be exact), none match JofN.

The fact that Jesus' following picked up afterwards has a lot to do with Paul (or at least a singular individual, post-death). Christianity would not be around today if not for him. He was absolutely vital in its spread.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 11:23 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6839
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Life Is The Path wrote:
Quote:
Reading Plato and people since then that he's influenced has really helped me to view God as being on a higher plane of reality than us.
First, can you clarify this bit? I'm not quite understanding it. I'm not sure who the 'he' is that you speak of. God, Lewis?

"He" is Plato. Plato influenced people like Kant, Lewis etc. and they in turn have influenced me.

Life Is The Path wrote:
Next, you say that you take issue at the suggestion that God is irrational. I have no problem with you taking issue with it, that's absolutely fine and understandable. I just need to make sure that you're okay with at least thinking, in a thought exercise, that God is irrational. It doesn't matter that you ultimately don't believe that, just that you are capable of looking at it from another perspective. I do believe you to be fairly open minded (that is to say, the actual definition, not the misused open mind popular with pseudoscientists; you are able and willing to listen and entertain ideas that run opposite to your own), but I just need to make sure. It's not all too clear here.

Sure, I can entertain the idea of an irrational God and I have. The problem I run into is the idea of an irrational God creating rational beings like us. I have a problem with rationality springing from irrationality. It's one of the major issues I have with atheism actually. The idea of God being rational goes a long way back into my thinking and a lot of subsequent ideas are built upon it.

Life Is The Path wrote:
Though I disagree with the notion of something being 'more real', there's one scientific hypothesis that is somewhat similiar to this idea - that we are, in essence, holograms, or shadows from other planes. I never thought much of it myself, and consequently I cannot for the life of me recall what it is called, but this sounds somewhat similar.

That's interesting. Let me know if you ever remember. Wink

Quote:
When writing that, I had in mind of Jesus curing an eyeball-less man. Someone who had had their eyes physically removed. The About page for NT miracles just lists the miracles and vague terms. A lot of curing blindness, but it doesn't say what type of blindness. Sure, it has notes on where the miracles can be found in the bible, but honestly I'm tired, and can't be bothered. There is a case of Jesus healing a chopped off ear, though, so perhaps we could use that instead?

I think this would also fall under spontaneous creation. As much as I love Miracles, this time around I didn't really dig his miracle categories (the ones I posted earlier). The more I think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. It seems uncharacteristically sloppy.

Life Is The Path wrote:
You should, it's quite fascinating. Unfortunately I don't have any books to point you towards (my knowledge comes from several historian friends), but rationalwiki has a brief summary of the authorship of the NT here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament
which demonstrates that the gospels (I'm assuming you mean gospels, rather than an extra-biblical apostle document. I can't remember off-hand if there were one or two, that you could be referring) are of questionable authorship, and that it's unclear who exactly wrote them.

Ah, RationalWiki: definitely a site with an agenda. Not that agendas are bad necessarily, but it's definitely there. I actually would like to read some skeptic's thoughts on early Christianity (all I've read is Gibbon's chapter on early Christianity, nothing more recent), but I would like something to balance it out. Some day I would like to read "Christian Origins and the Question of God". It's an in-depth multi-book series about early Christianity by former New Testament scholar N. T. Wright. I've heard good things about it and I've liked what I've read/watched of Wright.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:29 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3892
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

I have nothing of interest to add (and I'm eating toast, so I'll be brief).
First: thanks for the clarification. My brain really turned off on that point!
Second: Though I've heard the phrase, I've never really thought of us in terms of rationality springing from irrationality. Could you elaborate?
Third: RW certainly does have an agenda, though if it helps I picked it with the approval of one of the said historian friends. And also because it had a simpler format than the wiki page(s).
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 27 of 27
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield