Re: How do u believe Jesus is real and etc?

[Pastafarian]

I had this reply all typed out for the topic: http://www.christianforums.com/t5113548&page=2 . When I pressed post, I found that it had been moved to a Christian only forum for unexplained reasons, and that for more unexplained reasons, the bottom of the page tells me I can post there even though I cannot. Rather annoyed, I have posted here instead.




In response to everyone who said that all other gods are "man made"-
Is Jesus not just as man made? The people who worshiped Zeus and Thor did not think of their gods as "man made." They were perfectly real to them. These religions were probably made up by storytellers, with no intention of them being taking seriously. However, they quickly were. Later other people would use the religion for manipulation or as excuses for mistakes (got lost on a ship for a couple of years? Don't be embarrassed, say you were fighting a cyclops!).

Why did people believe these things that seem so ridiculous? I do not know. That is the question that is being asked here, but no one is offering a reasonable answer. I do know that for a large portion of my life, I was one of these people, blindly following a religion. Yet already, I have no idea what led me to believe that foolishness. The only answer I can come up with is that humans are gullible-- including myself.


In response to those who said the bible is backed up by evidence-
There seem to be three types of evidence by which it is reasonable to judge an old religion. These are historic, scientific, and mathematic. Historic most religions seem to more or less have. After all, as long as they really were formed when they say they were, why wouldn't they be, even if they are tall tales? As for scientific and mathematic, I have never found this to be the case. Just to throw out one example that stuck in my mind, look over the numbers here:

I Kings 7:23-26
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths

Pi equals three?

 

[calidog]

Pi equals three?

Are you serious? You are going to tell God one day He was impossible to believe in because of Pi?

If you are mathematically inclined, you'd be familiar with "significant figures"


7:23 thirty cubits. Critics who try to find scientific “mistakes” in Scripture nearly always settle on this verse as one of their prime examples. Solomon’s sea, ten cubits in diameter, had a circumference of thirty cubits, supposedly showing that the writer thought the value of p, or “pi,” (the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter) was exactly 3.0, instead of 3.1416. The critics do not understand the principle—always applied in careful scientific calculations—of “significant figures.” The dimensions as given were not intended as precisely 10 or 30, but were obviously round numbers. To say the diameter was 10 means only that it was somewhere between 9.5 and 10.5. Similarly the circumference was somewhere between 29.5 and 30.5. Thus the implied value of p was somewhere between 29.5/10.5 and 30.5/9.5—that is, between 2.81 and 3.21. The precise value of p is clearly within this range, and it would have been incorrect to try to specify a more precise value.
(Defender's Bible Notes)

 

[ebia]

I had this reply all typed out for the topic: http://www.christianforums.com/t5113548&page=2 . When I pressed post, I found that it had been moved to a Christian only forum for unexplained reasons, and that for more unexplained reasons, the bottom of the page tells me I can post there even though I cannot. Rather annoyed, I have posted here instead.




In response to everyone who said that all other gods are "man made"-
Is Jesus not just as man made? The people who worshiped Zeus and Thor did not think of their gods as "man made." They were perfectly real to them. These religions were probably made up by storytellers, with no intention of them being taking seriously. However, they quickly were.

Do you have any evidence for this? Most ancient myths are intended to be ways of discussiong very serious stuff. The idea that they were made up for light entertainment and only later taken seriously doesn't seem to fit the evidence (whether we are talking Judeo-Christian literature or other myths).

Later other people would use the religion for manipulation or as excuses for mistakes (got lost on a ship for a couple of years? Don't be embarrassed, say you were fighting a cyclops!).

While Homer has a very strange attitude to his Gods, the themes of his books are serious stuff; hardly coverups for a mistake and so forth.

Why did people believe these things that seem so ridiculous?

What is ridiculous to you is very different to what would be ridiculous to Homer's original audience. And, no doubt, some of the things you take seriously seem quite ridiculous to people of other times and/or cultures. The idea that stories aren't desparately important things, for instance. Or the idea that whether or not a story is factually accurate is more important than the truths it is trying to preserve.

I do not know. That is the question that is being asked here, but no one is offering a reasonable answer. I do know that for a large portion of my life, I was one of these people, blindly following a religion. Yet already, I have no idea what led me to believe that foolishness. The only answer I can come up with is that humans are gullible-- including myself.

I can't really comment on your history.

In response to those who said the bible is backed up by evidence-
There seem to be three types of evidence by which it is reasonable to judge an old religion. These are historic, scientific, and mathematic. Historic most religions seem to more or less have. After all, as long as they really were formed when they say they were, why wouldn't they be, even if they are tall tales? As for scientific and mathematic, I have never found this to be the case.

Why would you expect a story written by a pre-scientific culture to be scientifically accurate? Why would you expect a story to preserve more accurate or sophisticated mathematics than was normal in the culture in which it was written. Either of those would be severe historical anomolies.

Just to throw out one example that stuck in my mind, look over the numbers here:

1 Kings 7:23-26
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths

Pi equals three?

The story was written with rough measurements by someone living in a culture with no formal knowledge of the 'exact' ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Such knowledge, where it existed in the ancient world, was pretty specialised. Let's assume that what the author actually knew was the circumference - 30 cubits (and that this was accurate). Then the real diameter would be approx 9.55 cubits. Given that fractions are also a sophisticated mathematical concept available to only a few in the ancient world, the closest the author could express would be 10 cubits. For him to write anything equivalent to 9.55 cubits would raise serious questions about when the book was written and by whom.

Let's take a slightly different tack. Let's suppose you were writting the text. Let's suppose (for whatever reason) your brief is to write both the diameter and the circumference, and you have to write it as a straightforward number (fractions or decimals allowed, but forumale of pi or anything to that effect). Any answer you give is "wrong". The best anyone can do is give an approximation. The approximation in the text isn't crash hot, but this isn't a mathematics or engineering text, it's an ancient narative.

 

[ebia]

Are you serious? You are going to tell God one day He was impossible to believe in because of Pi?

If you are mathematically inclined, you'd be familiar with "significant figures"


7:23 thirty cubits. Critics who try to find scientific “mistakes” in Scripture nearly always settle on this verse as one of their prime examples. Solomon’s sea, ten cubits in diameter, had a circumference of thirty cubits, supposedly showing that the writer thought the value of p, or “pi,” (the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter) was exactly 3.0, instead of 3.1416. The critics do not understand the principle—always applied in careful scientific calculations—of “significant figures.” The dimensions as given were not intended as precisely 10 or 30, but were obviously round numbers. To say the diameter was 10 means only that it was somewhere between 9.5 and 10.5. Similarly the circumference was somewhere between 29.5 and 30.5. Thus the implied value of p was somewhere between 29.5/10.5 and 30.5/9.5—that is, between 2.81 and 3.21. The precise value of p is clearly within this range, and it would have been incorrect to try to specify a more precise value.
(Defender's Bible Notes)

It would seem historical gibberish to apply modern scientific/mathematical/engineering convention to an ancient text, not to mention that:
1. you can't tell how many significant figures '10' or '30' is supposed to be.
2. the whole idea of significiant figures is only possible with a fully worked out place-value number system - you can't go applying it to anything in hebrew, roman, or any other non-place-value or limited place-value number system.

The broad point is that all measurements are approximations. The extra detail of significant figures is out of place.

 

[calidog]

10 or 30 has 2 significant figures, therefore Pi in this case would be 3.1

Since 10 and 30 are most likely approximate and not exact Pi would be "approximately 3".

The measurements in 1 Kings was likely made and not calculated.

Common sense should tell us that if a laver is 10 across then it is 30 around, not 31 or 31.416... since the launguage expresses the measurements in tens. Ancient launguage simply expressed the significant part of the whole:

Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

 

[Aprill]

Do some research on Blaise Pascal's wager

He mathmatically proved why it's better to believe

(this is not ment to actually prove anything but just to show that it can be proved both ways mathmatically/scientifically)

 

[ebia]

10 or 30 has 2 significant figures, therefore Pi in this case would be 3.1

Since 10 and 30 are most likely approximate and not exact Pi would be "approximately 3".

The measurements in 1 Kings was likely made and not calculated.

Common sense should tell us that if a laver is 10 across then it is 30 around, not 31 or 31.416... since the launguage expresses the measurements in tens. Ancient launguage simply expressed the significant part of the whole:

Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

The principle of approximation is appropriate, but talking about it in term of significant figures is historically inappropriate.

 

[mpok1519]

Jesus did exist by all historical accounts.

His godliness is up to faith really.

 

[calidog]

The principle of approximation is appropriate, but talking about it in term of significant figures is historically inappropriate.

Your point is well taken. I pasted the inclusion of "Defenders Bible Study Notes" on that verse commonly brought up by the bible critic.

 

[mpok1519]

3.1459? isnt that Pi?

but Pi itself is not a perfect number, or a rational number, I think.

Theta is a good representation of the mathematical principalities behind God's mysteries.

 

[ebia]

3.1459? isnt that Pi?

but Pi itself is not a perfect number,

"Perfect numbers" in maths is a bit of side-show. Maths doesn't divide numbers into perfect and impefect in any meaningful sense.

or a rational number, I think.

Pi is irrational. That means it can't be accurately represented by a fraction (or consequently a decimal). Any figure we give for pi is only an approximation. That doesn't make it any less of a 'proper' number mind - it's one of the half-dozen most important numbers in mathematics.

Theta is a good representation of the mathematical principalities behind God's mysteries.

? Theta is usually used for angles. Either way it has to represent a number - how do you give a number to 'the mathematical principalities (sic) behind God's mysteries"?

 

[mpok1519]

some branches of Judeo-christianity believe there is a strong correlation between mathematics, geometry, and God, coorelations that are both observable, and repeatable.

 

[ebia]

some branches of Judeo-christianity believe there is a strong correlation between mathematics, geometry, and God, coorelations that are both observable, and repeatable.

The only such that I've ever come across has been complete gibberish.

I hope for their sake they don't go down the same road as the pythagorians, and build their theology upon an assumption that turns out to be provably untrue. (Which neatly brings us back to irrational numbers - as it's the irrationality of the square root of 2 that was the Pythagorians undoing.)

 

[mpok1519]

but yet, see? Doesn't the chaotic, unpatterned and ever-changing yet balanced and perfectly conformed nature of mathematics somehow reflect the physical properties of forces and nature, in essence, kind of reflect God's almighty majesty? I think math kinda does that, but so kinda do alot of things.

but I'm also sure theres no theorom that tells you the magical secret to the universe either. so yes, I tend to agree.

I also thought that the hebrew letter "A" also was a representation of "1", which also meant "Father". ...think that was on that movi "Pi".....hehe