"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
1. I'm not going to go through all 20+ pages to this thread. But it would appear that there is a possibility that you believe that the [Christian God] is THE God, for which you believe? And by 'Christian God', you can almost fill in your own blank practically, as your interpretation and/or definition may differ. Yes or no? If yes, please proceed. If no, then please clarify that you are "a generic deist/theist, still trying to figure out which of the asserted Gods is THE God, or other?."

I've never really been a generic theist. I was at one point a panentheist, and I leaned towards pluralism. I thought that religious traditions were more or less various ways of describing the same thing--culturally contexted, but more or less interchangeable.

I still think that this is mostly true, and that the biggest difference between the various religious traditions lies in what they have to say about the relationship between God and the universe. At the end of the day, it's more like having a impressionist painting and trying to figure out which religion best describes it than having a bunch of "asserted Gods."

2. If the above answer is yes, I would assume you have not come to your current conclusion(s), merely upon a whim or a hunch. Hence, what piece(s) of evidence compels (you) that your asserted God is THE God? And once this is revealed, care to discuss what facets of those evidence(s) specifically does it for [you]?

This is why I don't think you can skip the first step of actually arriving at theism--the two questions are actually linked.

I have a fascination for ontological arguments and the question of what it means for something to actually be good. I think that many of the subversions in Christianity--God relinquishing power to serve humanity rather than rule it, for example--are a much more radical picture of divine goodness than can be found elsewhere.

I'm also interested in the various utopian philosophies out there--a lot of them amount to secular versions of Christianity (particularly Marxism). Where do they go wrong? Can they be truly corrected without a conscious return to theology? If you're a theist and your politics require correction from a religious tradition, you should be taking that tradition seriously.

There's more to it than just that, but a fair amount of my conclusions are based on a very complicated moral argument.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I've never really been a generic theist. I was at one point a panentheist, and I leaned towards pluralism. I thought that religious traditions were more or less various ways of describing the same thing--culturally contexted, but more or less interchangeable.

I still think that this is mostly true, and that the biggest difference between the various religious traditions lies in what they have to say about the relationship between God and the universe. At the end of the day, it's more like having a impressionist painting and trying to figure out which religion best describes it than having a bunch of "asserted Gods."



This is why I don't think you can skip the first step of actually arriving at theism--the two questions are actually linked.

I have a fascination for ontological arguments and the question of what it means for something to actually be good.

I'm also interested in the various utopian philosophies out there--a lot of them amount to secular versions of Christianity (particularly Marxism). Where do they go wrong? Can they be truly corrected without a conscious return to theology? If you're a theist and your politics require correction from a religious tradition, you should be taking that tradition seriously.

Thank you for your response. Though you would not use [my] terminology here, is it then still safe to say that you are a generic theist? Meaning, you adhere to one God, but, at this point, are still in the exploration phase? If yes, then please understand my interest here. My expectations is to receive answers from the ones whom claim/assert a specific God, and then lay forth their case(s), reasons(s), evidence(s). Looks as though you might not be a direct fit for this thread :) Hence, why I asked prior, why are you here?

There's more to it than just that, but a fair amount of my conclusions are based on a very complicated moral argument.

Aside from the 'moral argument', I have already conceded them all. Including all the ones for which you claim are interlinked. Hence, monotheism. I just need a case for the correct one?

I think that many of the subversions in Christianity--God relinquishing power to serve humanity rather than rule it, for example--are a much more radical picture of divine goodness than can be found elsewhere.

I trust we are in agreement that this has no relevancy to whether or not Jesus is God, right? Sure, maybe it's somewhat of a unique form of martyrdom; but something unique does not render truth, does it necessary? And sure, if Jesus did exist, and if Jesus truly did claim to subdue His power, when He did not need to, this might paint Jesus as a self-sacrificing individual. But maybe Jesus had no 'super-human power' to relinquish? To assume He did, is already painting Him as more than a man, whom was born, preached, and was killed.

However, as I've stated, ad nauseam :) The 'Good Book' seems to suggest that without a resurrection, all this is essentially worthless. And further, I doubt you could more-so prove an 'incarnation', versus a 'resurrection' anyhow. Hence, it is all speculative and faith based, at best?
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Thank you for your response. Though you would not use [my] terminology here, is it then still safe to say that you are a generic theist? Meaning, you adhere to one God, but, at this point, are still in the exploration phase? If yes, then please understand my interest here. My expectations is to receive answers from the ones whom claim/assert a specific God, and then lay forth their case(s), reasons(s), evidence(s). Looks as though you might not be a direct fit for this thread :) Hence, why I asked prior, why are you here?

I am Anglican. I think Christianity is the fullest revelation, but that any authentic seeking can result in glimmers of truth, so your rhetoric of multiple competing God claims is incoherent to me.

Aside from the 'moral argument', I have already conceded them all. Including all the ones for which you claim are interlinked. Hence, monotheism. I just need a case for the correct one?

Yikes. All arguments except the moral argument? Because if you're willing to concede every conceivable version of the ontological argument, I can just say that the Christian God is surpassingly good, and therefore exists by definition. ^_^

I trust we are in agreement that this has no relevancy to whether or not Jesus is God, right?

No, we're not in agreement. As a theist, I think that it's highly probable that at least one of the world's divine revelations is true, and that it would have to be one that has survived. That means you can look at the various religions, ask "which of these is not like the others?" and actually view that as evidence that it's true. You're not really taking into consideration what it means to address the question, having already conceded that theism is true. There is a lot involved in that.

You keep on assuming that the starting place is somehow trying to prove the Bible, but what I'm interested in is whether the Bible is consistent with orthodox Christian theology rather than whether it can be demonstrated to be true. I think that Christian Incarnational theology is possibly the most striking religious idea in history, so whether it is supported by the actual text of the New Testament and not a later development is an important issue to me. (Maybe I should specify that I do think that it's strongly supported by the text.)

However, as I've stated, ad nauseam :) The 'Good Book' seems to suggest that without a resurrection, all this is essentially worthless. And further, I doubt you could more-so prove an 'incarnation', versus a 'resurrection' anyhow. Hence, it is all speculative and faith based, at best?

Of course it's speculative and faith-based. That doesn't mean that there aren't reasons, though.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I am Anglican. I think Christianity is the fullest revelation, but that any authentic seeking can result in glimmers of truth, so your rhetoric of multiple competing God claims is incoherent to me.

In a nutshell, it sounds like the claims for 'Christianity' is the apparent front-runner for you. Moving forward...

Yikes. All arguments except the moral argument? Because if you're willing to concede every conceivable version of the ontological argument, I can just say that the Christian God is surpassingly good, and therefore exists by definition. ^_^

In this thread, I'm willing to grant an awful lot :) But we're are not quite there yet. Adversely, I think there still exists a 'rather large' gap between proof of a singular God, to that of the Christian God. Moving forward...

No, we're not in agreement.

We hardly ever are :)

As a theist, I think that it's highly probable that at least one of the world's divine revelations is true, and that it would have to be one that has survived.

Which 'revelation' in particular? And how so?


That means you can look at the various religions, ask "which of these is not like the others?" and actually view that as evidence that it's true. You're not really taking into consideration what it means to address the question, having already conceded that theism is true. There is a lot involved in that.

How is a unique story rendered more 'true' than an 'un-unique' story?

You keep on assuming that the starting place is somehow trying to prove the Bible,

Well. You tell me? If the Bible did not exist, where would Christianity be today? How would people even know what the assertion(s) claims are, objectively speaking (i.e.) to re-read and read to others? Meaning, we could not even argue over the 'context' and/or 'hermeneutics' and/or 'intent', as asserted/written by the authors, etc...

but what I'm interested in is whether the Bible is consistent with orthodox Christian theology rather than whether it can be demonstrated to be true.

If it's not true, quite frankly, who cares?

I think that Christian Incarnational theology is possibly the most striking religious idea in history,

Why? And would there be any way to provide evidence for this assertion? If so, what? If not, see below...

Of course it's speculative and faith-based. That doesn't mean that there aren't reasons, though.

Are we then back to the first page of this thread; back to square-one then? Ultimately, 'faith', and not much more? If so, then with all due respect, we will just place many more exchanges, in the interim, which ultimately go nowhere, and maybe require some sort of an a priori.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'd assume you wouldn't count religionists who were massacred in atheistic societies ???
Well, I don't know. I asked you how many people have been killed in the name of atheism. Would I be right in thinking that the answer is "zero"?
Because then all of the horrors that you are referencing - the Cultural Revolution of China, the executions of Stalin, the guillotining of the French Revolution, and so on - were all committed by Communists for the sake of Communism, and revolutionaries for the sake of the revolution.

So, again: can you point to anyone throughout history who has been killed in the name of atheism? We can certainly find many horrors committed throughout history in the name of Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Which 'revelation' in particular? And how so?

If we're looking at enduring monotheistic* religions, the choice is ultimately between an Abrahamic religion and a Vedic one. Really, I think the best contenders are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

(*Philosophical monotheism. Hinduism is... odd, but in the mainstream versions, all the gods are basically aspects of an eternal creative force.)

How is a unique story rendered more 'true' than an 'un-unique' story?

What reason would there be to expect the standard ones to be inspired? If there isn't anything that stands out as particularly striking, why suspect anything but a mundane origin?

Well. You tell me? If the Bible did not exist, where would Christianity be today? How would people even know what the assertion(s) claims are, objectively speaking (i.e.) to re-read and read to others? Meaning, we could not even argue over the 'context' and/or 'hermeneutics' and/or 'intent', as asserted/written by the authors, etc...

The Bible does exist, so whatever point you're making here seems moot.

Why? And would there be any way to provide evidence for this assertion? If so, what? If not, see below...

Why is the Incarnation striking? Well, religions tend towards a certain otherworldly, idealistic character--we usually wish to transcend our material nature, so the Incarnation is a radical move in the opposite direction: the very Creator willingly taking on flesh.

You can find something a bit thematically similar in Hinduism with the idea of the avatars, though that religion has such an intense rejection of matter that I don't think you could consider it an "embodiment" in anywhere near the same sense.

If you want evidence that the Incarnation is theologically striking, you would need to do research on other religious traditions and what they have to say about it. The answer is usually flat-out rejection of such a possibility.

Are we then back to the first page of this thread; back to square-one then? Ultimately, 'faith', and not much more? If so, then with all due respect, we will just place many more exchanges, in the interim, which ultimately go nowhere, and maybe require some sort of an a priori.

No, we are at speculation and faith. Or at least I am.

To be honest, I'm a very convinced theist, so there are a lot of questions I don't have to deal with at all. I'm most comfortable in the realm of abstract theology, so much of what I find compelling is in that category. I sometimes get interested in the more popular topics of debate, but they tend to be too concrete for me. They're powerful if they succeed, but I'm a methodological naturalist about history, so I have no option except to take historical claims on faith. You also appear to be a methodological naturalist, so you are basically asking me to provide you with the type of evidence that neither of us can ever accept. Which is pointless, so I think it's better to move on than fixate on questions you don't think can be answered.

That said, three avenues that I'm familiar with:

1) The historicity of the Resurrection. I'm sure you know as much about it as I do, since you are about 100 times more obsessed with it than I am.

2) The Shroud of Turin (and the Sudarium of Oviedo). The debate just goes on and on and on...

3) The Book of Daniel. The argument that it's been dated incorrectly and actually is authentic is interesting, and if true, means for a lot of chillingly correct prophecy. Even if the late date is correct, you can easily read it as prophesying that the Kingdom of God would be established during the Roman Empire. I don't like arguments from prophecy, but this is a somewhat stranger one.

What else? I've been convinced that the dating of the Gospels is wrong and that they actually predate the Siege of Jerusalem, so Jesus may have actually prophesied the destruction of the Temple. (Though as far as I'm aware, it was fairly common to prophesy about that, so I'm not sure it means much.)
 
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, I don't know. I asked you how many people have been killed in the name of atheism. Would I be right in thinking that the answer is "zero"?
Why would such a distinction matter ?

If a society purges itself of its religionists ... to implement a shift to atheism in its population, then that is, effectively, ... killing to enact atheism.

Would the persons persecuted and killed for being religious see any meaning in the distinction you raise ?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why would such a distinction matter ?

If a society purges itself of its religionists ... to implement a shift to atheism in its population, then that is, effectively, ... killing to enact atheism.

Would the persons persecuted and killed for being religious see any meaning in the distinction you raise ?
Oooh. I have a feeling someone doesn't like direct questions! ;)

But really, yes, this is an important one. Maybe not to the people who were persecuted or tortured - or killed - but then, they've got bigger things to worry about, haven't they? They can be excused for having only one thing on their minds.

But to us, yes, it is an issue worth discussing. Let me give you a similar example to illustrate. Supposing a king, at some point in history, committed a bloody massacre. Would you blame Christianity for it, just because the king in question happened to be a Christian? No, you'd point out that some people are not very good Christians, that's all.

In the same way, the Atheistic Horrors - can they really be blamed on atheism? In a nutshell, they were:
The French Revolution: the French people were angry for being mistreated for centuries.
The Russian and Chinese revolutions: ditto.
The Cultural Revolution of China: Mao Zedong basically thought that upheaval was good, and egged on the massacres and destruction.
Stalin: He didn't kill millions and attack the Church because he was an atheist who hated religion. He did it because he was a murderous tyrant who eliminated anyone who posed a threat to his power.

So I'll ask you again: can you name any murders that have been done in the name of atheism? If you think about it, it's a rather strange thing to do. "I don't believe in God, therefore I'm going to kill you!"

On the other hand, killing in the name of Christianity has been seen as a very praiseworthy activity throughout history. "Those people are the servants of the devil. Evil people deserve to be killed."
Would you think it's strange to say "I believe in Jesus, and so I'm going to kill you?"
Historically, it's not strange at all. Historically, it's an extremely common thing to kill because of your religion.
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oooh. I have a feeling someone doesn't like direct questions! ;)

But really, yes, this is an important one. Maybe not to the people who were persecuted or tortured - or killed - but then, they've got bigger things to worry about, haven't they? They can be excused for having only one thing on their minds.

But to us, yes, it is an issue worth discussing. Let me give you a similar example to illustrate. Supposing a king, at some point in history, committed a bloody massacre. Would you blame Christianity for it, just because the king in question happened to be a Christian? No, you'd point out that some people are not very good Christians, that's all.

In the same way, the Atheistic Horrors - can they really be blamed on atheism? In a nutshell, they were:
The French Revolution: the French people were angry for being mistreated for centuries.
The Russian and Chinese revolutions: ditto.
The Cultural Revolution of China: Mao Zedong basically thought that upheaval was good, and egged on the massacres and destruction.
Stalin: He didn't kill millions and attack the Church because he was an atheist who hated religion. He did it because he was a murderous tyrant who eliminated anyone who posed a threat to his power.

So I'll ask you again: can you name any murders that have been done in the name of atheism? If you think about it, it's a rather strange thing to do. "I don't believe in God, therefore I'm going to kill you!"

On the other hand, killing in the name of Christianity has been seen as a very praiseworthy activity throughout history. "Those people are the servants of the devil. Evil people deserve to be killed."
Would you think it's strange to say "I believe in Jesus, and so I'm going to kill you?"
Historically, it's not strange at all. Historically, it's an extremely common thing to kill because of your religion.
Just because a question is direct ... doesn't mean that it is applicable.

In the context of our discussion, ... the "in the name of" question is not particularly helpful ... because 1.) whether or not it might have been a causative factor ... really appears to have had no real impact upon the comparative results (i.e. massacred people).

Men and women commit evil acts ... for various reasons. It is, hopefully, the goal of humanity ... to develop beyond ALL of these reasonings at some point. There was once a time when slavery was tolerated ... and even justified ... for a variety of reasons, ... but, hopefully, most of humanity has advanced beyond ALL such reasonings today.

Another reason why ... "in the name of" is not a particularly helpful motivational distinctive ... is because men/women are also deceitful, whereby one can posit a "in the name of" motive to a particular personal or societal objective, ... when that truly isn't the motive at all. Such claims are almost always quite suspect ... as we witnessed in NAZI Germany and other such societal movements ...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
It is never the case that ALL persons receive any message in the SAME way.

Truth is only received by those brave enough to receive it ...
Of course everyone processes a message differently, but truth is not some independent existence or substance in itself, it's our best attempts to explain the world in a way that is consistent and accurate. Engaging in this notion that there's some truth outside of our perception breaks down the whole discussion, because you can never validate that at all, it's speculative, it's idealistic, it's nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
The integrity and genuineness of a teacher will vouch for their message ...
No, people can be genuine in their belief about something and still be wrong, their sincerity is irrelevant to the truth of their claims, something you still don't appear to process
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
God has won 1/3 of living humanity ... plus a similar proportion of those who have gone before ...
I thought it'd be more appropriate to respond to a statement like this in that you're showing the underlying point you asserted before: God "wins" us, which is basically saying your God relies on rhetorical spin rather than substantive or logical arguments, meaning it's seemingly ineffective and not as omniscient as people claim it is

And before this is potentially reported, this is not insulting God, this is pointing out this characterization of God by someone suggests this implication about it
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Given the reality of the situation, ... why would that make any difference ?

Is evil done in a society as it strives to enforce atheism any less evil ... because it wasn't done, obstensibly, in the "name of atheism" ?

Are the dead any less dead ?
No one's denying that loss of life in such situations is tragic, but trying to insinuate an intention behind certain things based on mere correlation is disingenuous
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Depravity is the default HUMAN condition ... and is not confined to any particular grouping.
Depravity, as opposed to fallibility, the former being a state based on our incapacity to choose good for ourselves, if I understand correctly. Problem there is, yes, we can do that and we don't require religion or a spiritual belief to justify or even motivate those actions. I can help someone because I understand they are suffering and that I want to alleviate that as much as possible and aid them in becoming a better person. None of that has to invoke a deity and the Christian claim would suggest the only reason I would ever do that is because their god in particular has inspired me in some way, which is not only presumptuous, but unfalsifiable in being able to be investigated at all.
 
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I thought it'd be more appropriate to respond to a statement like this in that you're showing the underlying point you asserted before: God "wins" us, which is basically saying your God relies on rhetorical spin rather than substantive or logical arguments, meaning it's seemingly ineffective and not as omniscient as people claim it is
No ... God relies on the heart ... to be drawn to One who loves it.

My wife didn't marry me because I was smart .. or capable. It was because she loved me.

Do you acknowledge the draw of the heart ... or is LOVE simply a rhetorical exercise to you ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No one's denying that loss of life in such situations is tragic, but trying to insinuate an intention behind certain things based on mere correlation is disingenuous
The intention in the situations discussed was explicit ... not insinuated.

It was the clear explicit objective of the societies I mentioned ... to eliminate the religious from among them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can help someone because I understand they are suffering and that I want to alleviate that as much as possible and aid them in becoming a better person. None of that has to invoke a deity and the Christian claim would suggest the only reason I would ever do that is because their god in particular has inspired me in some way, which is not only presumptuous, but unfalsifiable in being able to be investigated at all.
I don't believe that I have alleged what you allude to here ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
If we're looking at enduring monotheistic* religions, the choice is ultimately between an Abrahamic religion and a Vedic one. Really, I think the best contenders are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

(*Philosophical monotheism. Hinduism is... odd, but in the mainstream versions, all the gods are basically aspects of an eternal creative force.)

Well, with all due respect, this thread is more-so for the ones whom are here to assert the Christian God, or a specific singular God. Sounds like you still have quite a lot to sort out. You might notice a repetitive theme here...

Why are you in [this] thread? And, I'm a declared generic theist, just like you, but this gets us no closer to THE God; even with-standing the concession of all 'arguments for God's necessary existence' :)


What reason would there be to expect the standard ones to be inspired? If there isn't anything that stands out as particularly striking, why suspect anything but a mundane origin?

Though I'm not opposed to answering questions with questions, your rebuttal question does not address my direct question? I'll try again, and re-phrase it a bit.

(yes or no) - If a scenario is more unique, does uniqueness alone then render a story more 'true'?


The Bible does exist, so whatever point you're making here seems moot.

I actually would not mind an answer to this question :)

Where would Christianity be today without the existence of the Bible?

You appear vexed that I would want to 'start with the Bible?' Well, if the Bible was never written, Christianity would likely be nowhere near where it is today, if even much at all.

Instead, you have a 66 Chapter, 40 'person authored' Book to critique until the 'cows come home.'


Why is the Incarnation striking? Well, religions tend towards a certain otherworldly, idealistic character--we usually wish to transcend our material nature, so the Incarnation is a radical move in the opposite direction: the very Creator willingly taking on flesh.

You can find something a bit thematically similar in Hinduism with the idea of the avatars, though that religion has such an intense rejection of matter that I don't think you could consider it an "embodiment" in anywhere near the same sense.

If you want evidence that the Incarnation is theologically striking, you would need to do research on other religious traditions and what they have to say about it. The answer is usually flat-out rejection of such a possibility.

The above seems to beg a question asked above, with slight alterations made. :)

(yes or no) - If a story-line/claim is more unique, does uniqueness alone then render a story more 'true'?


No, we are at speculation and faith. Or at least I am.

To be honest, I'm a very convinced theist, so there are a lot of questions I don't have to deal with at all. I'm most comfortable in the realm of abstract theology, so much of what I find compelling is in that category. I sometimes get interested in the more popular topics of debate, but they tend to be too concrete for me. They're powerful if they succeed, but I'm a methodological naturalist about history, so I have no option except to take historical claims on faith. You also appear to be a methodological naturalist, so you are basically asking me to provide you with the type of evidence that neither of us can ever accept. Which is pointless, so I think it's better to move on than fixate on questions you don't think can be answered.

Noted

That said, three avenues that I'm familiar with:

1) The historicity of the Resurrection. I'm sure you know as much about it as I do, since you are about 100 times more obsessed with it than I am.

I'm not 'obsessed'. Paul is ;) It's an axiomatic proclamation. 'If He did not rise from death, then nothing'... According to the 'author' of virtually half the NT, 'Paul' makes this assertion.

2) The Shroud of Turin (and the Sudarium of Oviedo). The debate just goes on and on and on...

Then I'm sure you are fully aware of the following below?:

Below are direct quotes taken from the following publication from March 2005 (Voice of Reason: The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin | Live Science).

-'While science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus but instead a fourteenth-century forgery, shroud devotees continue to claim otherwise.'

- 'The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.'

- 'The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.'

- 'In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood" to a battery of tests--for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules. Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.'

- 'In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of a.d. 1260-1390, about the time of the reported forger's confession (ca. a.d. 1355).'


- Radiocarbon dating, which places the cloth around (1260 - 1390 AD) by three independent agencies??? This has also been further verified using the following source sighting (Shroud Of Turin | Encyclopedia.com).

3) The Book of Daniel. The argument that it's been dated incorrectly and actually is authentic is interesting, and if true, means for a lot of chillingly correct prophecy. Even if the late date is correct, you can easily read it as prophesying that the Kingdom of God would be established during the Roman Empire. I don't like arguments from prophecy, but this is a somewhat stranger one.

I'd just assume to agree to skip this one. As most/all prophecy appears self fulfilling and/or ambiguous to me regardless.


What else? I've been convinced that the dating of the Gospels is wrong and that they actually predate the Siege of Jerusalem, so Jesus may have actually prophesied the destruction of the Temple. (Though as far as I'm aware, it was fairly common to prophesy about that, so I'm not sure it means much.)

Not to me. Legend can spread quite quickly. A couple/few decades is more than ample time for stories to be quite embellished; if they were ever anything more than fabricated from the get-go...?.?.?.?.?.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, with all due respect, this thread is more-so for the ones whom are here to assert the Christian God, or a specific singular God. Sounds like you still have quite a lot to sort out. You might notice a repetitive theme here...

Why are you in [this] thread? And, I'm a declared generic theist, just like you, but this gets us no closer to THE God; even with-standing the concession of all 'arguments for God's necessary existence' :)

I'm not a generic theist. I said above that I was Anglican, so you're actually breaking the rules of the forum now by inexplicably calling me non-Christian.

You asked me what revelation I was talking about when I mentioned enduring world religions, so I mentioned the major ones. Skeptics tend to take the approach that there are a billion possible religions to choose between, which is really very silly. If you're a theist, there are only a small handful.

Though I'm not opposed to answering questions with questions, your rebuttal question does not address my direct question? I'll try again, and re-phrase it a bit.

(yes or no) - If a scenario is more unique, does uniqueness alone then render a story more 'true'?

In this particular context, yes.

I actually would not mind an answer to this question :)

Where would Christianity be today without the existence of the Bible?

You appear vexed that I would want to 'start with the Bible?' Well, if the Bible was never written, Christianity would likely be nowhere near where it is today, if even much at all.

Instead, you have a 66 Chapter, 40 'person authored' Book to critique until the 'cows come home.'

The Bible was written and does exist. This is a strange non-sequitur, since I'm not sure why you think that someone who considers the historicity of the New Testament important would somehow not care if the Bible didn't exist at all.

The above seems to beg a question asked above, with slight alterations made. :)

(yes or no) - If a story-line/claim is more unique, does uniqueness alone then render a story more 'true'?

In this particular context, yes.

I'm not 'obsessed'. Paul is ;) It's an axiomatic proclamation. 'If He did not rise from death, then nothing'... According to the 'author' of virtually half the NT, 'Paul' makes this assertion.

An assertion is not an obsession. Mentioning an assertion in practically every other post, on the other hand, is an obsession.

Then I'm sure you are fully aware of the following below?:

Below are direct quotes taken from the following publication from March 2005 (Voice of Reason: The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin | Live Science).

-'While science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus but instead a fourteenth-century forgery, shroud devotees continue to claim otherwise.'

- 'The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.'

- 'The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.'

- 'In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood" to a battery of tests--for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules. Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.'

- 'In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of a.d. 1260-1390, about the time of the reported forger's confession (ca. a.d. 1355).'


- Radiocarbon dating, which places the cloth around (1260 - 1390 AD) by three independent agencies??? This has also been further verified using the following source sighting (Shroud Of Turin | Encyclopedia.com).

I am. But as I said, the debate goes on and on and on. There are counterpoints to the points below, and counterpoints to the counterpoints, and counterpoints to the counterpoints of the counterpoints. There are aspects of the debate that are only really accessible in Spanish and Italian, because the relics are in Spain and Italy.

I find the whole thing a bit dizzying, but if you want to really get into the debate, you need to read from more than just the skeptical perspective. (Not sure if it's a good idea to get into the debate, but it can be kind of fun.)

I'd just assume to agree to skip this one. As most/all prophecy appears self fulfilling and/or ambiguous to me regardless.

Are you even familiar with these particular prophecies?

Not to me. Legend can spread quite quickly. A couple/few decades is more than ample time for stories to be quite embellished; if they were ever anything more than fabricated from the get-go...?.?.?.?.?.

How does that have anything to do with the dating of the Gospels?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course everyone processes a message differently, but truth is not some independent existence or substance in itself, it's our best attempts to explain the world in a way that is consistent and accurate. Engaging in this notion that there's some truth outside of our perception breaks down the whole discussion, because you can never validate that at all, it's speculative, it's idealistic, it's nonsense.

Introducing the claim that truth is only our best attempts to explain the world as opposed to something we perceive because it does also exist beyond our perception is equally destructive to discussion. If we know things exist because we perceive them, whatever is perceived may exist, including an external source of truth. If we do not know things exist because we perceive them, truth, the world and explanations do not necessarily exist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0