My annual Memorial Day thread (1 Viewer)

What are we doing here System? Can anything I say change your mind? You have a thought process that is your belief is based largely on eye-proof. You must see it to believe it, or else any source that tells you otherwise could be biased in some way. I can’t live my life like that.
Like I said, if you can provide verifiable proof, I'll believe you. But you are only giving me recursive "proof". And recursive "proof" doesn't cut it.

There are thousands of things you believe without verifiable proof.
No.
If you tell me of something that doesn't defy logic or the laws of physics, I'll believe you. But, if you tell me of anything that defies logic or the laws of physics, I will not believe you.

If you told me there once lived a man named Jesus who started the Christian movement, I'd believe you.

But when you tell me that a man named Jesus, born to a virgin woman - who remained a virgin after the birth - magically impregnated by an angel on behalf of a god, who BTW happens to be that god incarnated, who walked around the ME raising the dead, curing deceases, walking on water, who went through the legal system of the time, died and resurrected, and no one wrote about him while he was alive, well, you are going to need some very substantial proof of that.

On a side note, so do Hindus, as the story of Jesus sounds a lot like the story of Krishna... and Krishna predates Jesus.

The oral tradition that I gave you is 100% factual.
Sure, since the dawn of time, people have told stories from generation to generation, but they also drew stuff on cave walls to keep their stories straight. And even then, stories got so distorted, legends and myths were created. You telling me that, by word of mouth, the Christian stories passed 100% accurately from generation to generation through decades, you have to see why anyone, at the very least, would be skeptical of such premise, and cannot readily accept it as truth.

But you can’t make sense of it so you don’t believe it. I’ve lended some of that proof for what I believe, but it isn’t good enough for you. And there isn’t evidence I could provide that would do that for you. You are simply unwilling, and that is perfectly alright. It’s not my place to judge you or anyone else for it. You’ll work it out in the way you see fit- and that’s ok.
I am always willing to learn, but I am not willing to accept something on faith, especially those things that defy logic and the laws of physics. And again, recursive proof doesn't cut it. Recursive proof is basically saying "trust me".

At the end of the day, a God that judges you for your actions when no one is looking isn’t a God you’re willing to believe in- and that’s most people. There is simply too much to lose.
It's not a question about willing to believe. Like I said, I am willing to learn, that is why I engage in this type of discussion.

And it is not just the one god, it is any of the other 3000-some gods .

And as for people wanting to believe, like I said to Marsha some pages ago... if you want to believe, if believing in this entity makes you happy and a better person, do not try to reason through it, do not try to make sense of it, don't even try to excuse it. Just believe on faith. That, and don't ever read anything I post about religion.
 
That being said if the Bible was meant as a guide to how to live your life in accordance with God then why would it be so cryptic and so open to interpretation? Not a knock on the Bible.....an honest question. I really need to go spend some time talking to a priest and asking questions haha
Oh, believe me, I struggle with this. I mean, the bible was written by man .. and then there's all the versions of it. And then you get accused of "picking and choosing" what parts of the Bible you choose to believe in. Well, why not? I'm picking and choosing which version written by man I choose to be guided by.
 
Oh, believe me, I struggle with this. I mean, the bible was written by man .. and then there's all the versions of it. And then you get accused of "picking and choosing" what parts of the Bible you choose to believe in.
But then again, if you consider yourself a Christian, you are guilty :hihi:

But seriously, what I am hearing from you, I think you are more of a Deist. You should probably look into Deism. I feel Deism will give you the balance you are looking for.
 
Just so it's on record....I'm not against someone having faith and would never someone's faith. That's what you believe and I support that. Like I said before...I never talk about this stuff usually because of how easy it is to be taken the wrong way or that I'm in some way down talking someone's belief. That's not the case at all.....if anything what I believe is out of the norm and the one that needs explaining.
That being said if the Bible was meant as a guide to how to live your life in accordance with God then why would it be so cryptic and so open to interpretation? Not a knock on the Bible.....an honest question. I really need to go spend some time talking to a priest and asking questions haha
I believe all religions started at some point as a guide on how to live life as a "good" person. (in most cases for some kind or reward at the end). I also think "good" has different interpretations for different areas or religions. And that may also help explain why it can sometimes become cryptic.
 
Like I said, if you can provide verifiable proof, I'll believe you. But you are only giving me recursive "proof". And recursive "proof" doesn't cut it.


No.
If you tell me of something that doesn't defy logic or the laws of physics, I'll believe you. But, if you tell me of anything that defies logic or the laws of physics, I will not believe you.

If you told me there once lived a man named Jesus who started the Christian movement, I'd believe you.

But when you tell me that a man named Jesus, born to a virgin woman - who remained a virgin after the birth - magically impregnated by an angel on behalf of a god, who BTW happens to be that god incarnated, who walked around the ME raising the dead, curing deceases, walking on water, who went through the legal system of the time, died and resurrected, and no one wrote about him while he was alive, well, you are going to need some very substantial proof of that.

On a side note, so do Hindus, as the story of Jesus sounds a lot like the story of Krishna... and Krishna predates Jesus.


Sure, since the dawn of time, people have told stories from generation to generation, but they also drew stuff on cave walls to keep their stories straight. And even then, stories got so distorted, legends and myths were created. You telling me that, by word of mouth, the Christian stories passed 100% accurately from generation to generation through decades, you have to see why anyone, at the very least, would be skeptical of such premise, and cannot readily accept it as truth.


I am always willing to learn, but I am not willing to accept something on faith, especially those things that defy logic and the laws of physics. And again, recursive proof doesn't cut it. Recursive proof is basically saying "trust me".


It's not a question about willing to believe. Like I said, I am willing to learn, that is why I engage in this type of discussion.

And it is not just the one god, it is any of the other 3000-some gods .

And as for people wanting to believe, like I said to Marsha some pages ago... if you want to believe, if believing in this entity makes you happy and a better person, do not try to reason through it, do not try to make sense of it, don't even try to excuse it. Just believe on faith. That, and don't ever read anything I post about religion.

I’m getting tired. Maybe that’s your MO.

1.) You believe things that defy the law of physics all the time. You believe in love, memories, thoughts, feelings. None of which have verifiable proof other than you “feeling” them.

You also don’t think much for Physics apparently. Like the idea that energy can’t be created or destroyed but you believe someone/thing had to create God. Or Aquinas or Aristotle’s philosophy that says all things on the Earth are either potential or actual.

Logic isn’t a real thing. Logic is simply the boundaries humans put on things at different point in our history to keep us from believing without understanding. The logic you use wasn’t the logic someone from 2000 years ago used, and won’t be the logic that someone 2000 years from now uses.

On the majority, people drew on cave walls when we didn’t have a widely spoken language. This is a ridiculous argument against the sanctity or accuracy of the oral tradition.

You are doing an alarming disservice to something I truly believe you don’t know much about. If you did, you certainly wouldn’t be discounting it.

I’ve told you countless times that nearly all of the NT events have been proven archaeologically. You aren’t willing to believe that because I won’t go digging on the internet to provide you with Weblinks. If you ever care enough to know if it’s true or not, you’ll look. Or maybe you won’t. It’s not my job to make you.

And asking someone not to reason their way through it or to make sense of it is asking them to keep a weak faith in a subject they know very little about. It’s silly. This is a subject that CAN be reasoned through and CAN be made sense of because there is plenty of evidence that you can find. Your mind is just too barricaded shut to see it, discover it, look for it, care about it.

And lastly, as I said before. Though it can be made sense of, you are still a human being who has been on this Earth for probably between 20-80 years. You are part of a species that is one of if not the youngest on the planet and certainly the universe if other organisms do exist extraterrestrially. And yet you honestly believe that if something doesn’t make sense to you, if it doesn’t fit within your limited mind and emotional construct, then it can’t be real. It’s truly the height of human arrogance.
 
Have you also read the equal number of items that legitimately cast doubt on the factuality?
I’m not saying you don’t have some data to support your claim, but it’s no where close to the slam dunk you imply

I've mentioned before that one of the most fascinating courses I ever took was a biblical archeology class with a NT focus (I did also take one on the OT, and that archeology I found more interesting, though the Biblical content was less familiar to me). It was, as you say, not a 'slam dunk' in the factual sense. We also talked about the merits of the canonical and non-canonical works. What gets in and why.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is thought to predate the synoptics. In fact, some historians argue/believe that the synoptics used some of Thomas. Of course, you'd have to believe that it was written, then, within 50 years of Christ's death. But if we are going to establish chronology and general proximity to Christ's time on Earth, then that criterion becomes something to consider for Thomas. But then that raises other problems. It's political as well as historical.

In any event, there isn't some universal acceptance of it as literal truth as a de facto assumption of these works, synoptics and John.

I also find it strange to think about my Catholic faith in Christ as somehow comparable to faith in the belief that drinking Dr. Pepper every day is probably not good for my health. Even though I'd love to, because it's delicious.

The professor, incidentally, practicing Protestant (Methodist I think he was)
 
I’m getting tired. Maybe that’s your MO.
You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

1.) You believe things that defy the law of physics all the time. You believe in love, memories, thoughts, feelings. None of which have verifiable proof other than you “feeling” them.
All those things you mentioned, they all are chemical/electric reactions in the human brain. They have been studied for a long time, and continued to be studied. That's how it is possible to create drugs that alter moods, improve memory, enhance cognition, etc. You may want to read about the amygdala.

You also don’t think much for Physics apparently. Like the idea that energy can’t be created or destroyed but you believe someone/thing had to create God.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here, but as far as who or what created any god, given the number of gods recorded throughout history and when they represent, it is obvious that the idea of a god started as an attempt of early humans to explain the world and phenomena around them, like fire, rain, thunder, why plants grow, etc...

Or Aquinas or Aristotle’s philosophy that says all things on the Earth are either potential or actual.
I am not too big on philosophy. And especially not big on Thomas Aquinas, who was a priest, and basically set out to convince himself that Yahweh and Jesus were real.


Logic isn’t a real thing. Logic is simply the boundaries humans put on things at different point in our history to keep us from believing without understanding. The logic you use wasn’t the logic someone from 2000 years ago used, and won’t be the logic that someone 2000 years from now uses.
Logic is a real thing. Deductive reasoning has always been the same. What has changed is our knowledge of the world around us, and therefore we are bound to reach different conclusions given certain parameters, because we now know better.

On the majority, people drew on cave walls when we didn’t have a widely spoken language. This is a ridiculous argument
Whether they had widely spoken languages or not, is irrelevant, when the purpose was to pass the knowledge to their next generation, not the world.

against the sanctity or accuracy of the oral tradition.
Now, that is ridiculous.

You are doing an alarming disservice to something I truly believe you don’t know much about. If you did, you certainly wouldn’t be discounting it.
My heathen journey started just about 34 years ago, in a Catholic youth retreat of all places.

I’ve told you countless times that nearly all of the NT events have been proven archaeologically.
And countless times you have been wrong. There obviously are real places and real people mentioned in the Bible, but they are just the supporting cast to the story. We start with Jesus himself, the crucifixion, and resurrection. None of it proven, no matter how many creationist museums tell you so. From there it just goes downhill.

You aren’t willing to believe that because I won’t go digging on the internet to provide you with Weblinks.
No need. I have a very good idea what links you'll post, anyway.

If you ever care enough to know if it’s true or not, you’ll look. Or maybe you won’t. It’s not my job to make you.
Oh, I've been looking, since that Catholic youth retreat. I didn't set out to convince myself, I set out to find a reasonable truth.

And asking someone not to reason their way through it or to make sense of it is asking them to keep a weak faith in a subject they know very little about. It’s silly.
It all boils down to faith. Whether weak or strong.

This is a subject that CAN be reasoned through and CAN be made sense of because there is plenty of evidence that you can find.
No, there is no factual evidence. You keep saying that, but there isn't.

Your mind is just too barricaded shut to see it, discover it, look for it, care about it.
I am not going to preach it until I have it, no.

And lastly, as I said before. Though it can be made sense of, you are still a human being who has been on this Earth for probably between 20-80 years. You are part of a species that is one of if not the youngest on the planet and certainly the universe if other organisms do exist extraterrestrially. And yet you honestly believe that if something doesn’t make sense to you, if it doesn’t fit within your limited mind and emotional construct, then it can’t be real. It’s truly the height of human arrogance.
Ah, there it is. "You can't understand it".

We know far, far more about our planet and our universe than at any point in the history of humans. There are so many things that humans believed in the - distant and no so distant - past that we laugh about it now when we think that a person could think those things as being reasonable or factual, but in the end, we understand they didn't know better.

Yet, when it comes to religion, people continue to hold onto these ideas from thousands of years ago. There are still Bible literalists who believe Jonah survived 3 days inside a whale's stomach, that the Great Flood actually happened, that the Earth is 6000-some years old, that dinosaurs lived among humans, even that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. I don't think I have to list things Muslims believe which we now are false, like Mohammad's flying horse, or the 72 virgins awaiting in heaven.

The allure of religion, I think part of it is, humans want to feel comfortable with the unknown; part of it, religion has been used as a form of control of the masses for centuries; part of it is the hope for something better than the life people live and the world we live in.

I'll tell you, it is an emotional thing, looking at yourself in the mirror, and realizing you are without that hope. But in the end, I don't want to interpret things a certain way to justify a bias, or fool myself into believing the hope is real.
 
You don't have to answer if you don't want to.


All those things you mentioned, they all are chemical/electric reactions in the human brain. They have been studied for a long time, and continued to be studied. That's how it is possible to create drugs that alter moods, improve memory, enhance cognition, etc. You may want to read about the amygdala.


I don't understand what you are trying to say here, but as far as who or what created any god, given the number of gods recorded throughout history and when they represent, it is obvious that the idea of a god started as an attempt of early humans to explain the world and phenomena around them, like fire, rain, thunder, why plants grow, etc...


I am not too big on philosophy. And especially not big on Thomas Aquinas, who was a priest, and basically set out to convince himself that Yahweh and Jesus were real.



Logic is a real thing. Deductive reasoning has always been the same. What has changed is our knowledge of the world around us, and therefore we are bound to reach different conclusions given certain parameters, because we now know better.


Whether they had widely spoken languages or not, is irrelevant, when the purpose was to pass the knowledge to their next generation, not the world.


Now, that is ridiculous.


My heathen journey started just about 34 years ago, in a Catholic youth retreat of all places.


And countless times you have been wrong. There obviously are real places and real people mentioned in the Bible, but they are just the supporting cast to the story. We start with Jesus himself, the crucifixion, and resurrection. None of it proven, no matter how many creationist museums tell you so. From there it just goes downhill.


No need. I have a very good idea what links you'll post, anyway.


Oh, I've been looking, since that Catholic youth retreat. I didn't set out to convince myself, I set out to find a reasonable truth.


It all boils down to faith. Whether weak or strong.


No, there is no factual evidence. You keep saying that, but there isn't.


I am not going to preach it until I have it, no.


Ah, there it is. "You can't understand it".

We know far, far more about our planet and our universe than at any point in the history of humans. There are so many things that humans believed in the - distant and no so distant - past that we laugh about it now when we think that a person could think those things as being reasonable or factual, but in the end, we understand they didn't know better.

Yet, when it comes to religion, people continue to hold onto these ideas from thousands of years ago. There are still Bible literalists who believe Jonah survived 3 days inside a whale's stomach, that the Great Flood actually happened, that the Earth is 6000-some years old, that dinosaurs lived among humans, even that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. I don't think I have to list things Muslims believe which we now are false, like Mohammad's flying horse, or the 72 virgins awaiting in heaven.

The allure of religion, I think part of it is, humans want to feel comfortable with the unknown; part of it, religion has been used as a form of control of the masses for centuries; part of it is the hope for something better than the life people live and the world we live in.

I'll tell you, it is an emotional thing, looking at yourself in the mirror, and realizing you are without that hope. But in the end, I don't want to interpret things a certain way to justify a bias, or fool myself into believing the hope is real.
One quibble
While I don’t support his take on logic, I also don’t consider it a’real thing’ in the way I think you mean
It’s an abstraction and a contrivance - useful, but not a universal truth

The theory I like the most is that logic is a byproduct of written, sequential language
 
You don't have to answer if you don't want to.


All those things you mentioned, they all are chemical/electric reactions in the human brain. They have been studied for a long time, and continued to be studied. That's how it is possible to create drugs that alter moods, improve memory, enhance cognition, etc. You may want to read about the amygdala.


I don't understand what you are trying to say here, but as far as who or what created any god, given the number of gods recorded throughout history and when they represent, it is obvious that the idea of a god started as an attempt of early humans to explain the world and phenomena around them, like fire, rain, thunder, why plants grow, etc...


I am not too big on philosophy. And especially not big on Thomas Aquinas, who was a priest, and basically set out to convince himself that Yahweh and Jesus were real.



Logic is a real thing. Deductive reasoning has always been the same. What has changed is our knowledge of the world around us, and therefore we are bound to reach different conclusions given certain parameters, because we now know better.


Whether they had widely spoken languages or not, is irrelevant, when the purpose was to pass the knowledge to their next generation, not the world.


Now, that is ridiculous.


My heathen journey started just about 34 years ago, in a Catholic youth retreat of all places.


And countless times you have been wrong. There obviously are real places and real people mentioned in the Bible, but they are just the supporting cast to the story. We start with Jesus himself, the crucifixion, and resurrection. None of it proven, no matter how many creationist museums tell you so. From there it just goes downhill.


No need. I have a very good idea what links you'll post, anyway.


Oh, I've been looking, since that Catholic youth retreat. I didn't set out to convince myself, I set out to find a reasonable truth.


It all boils down to faith. Whether weak or strong.


No, there is no factual evidence. You keep saying that, but there isn't.


I am not going to preach it until I have it, no.


Ah, there it is. "You can't understand it".

We know far, far more about our planet and our universe than at any point in the history of humans. There are so many things that humans believed in the - distant and no so distant - past that we laugh about it now when we think that a person could think those things as being reasonable or factual, but in the end, we understand they didn't know better.

Yet, when it comes to religion, people continue to hold onto these ideas from thousands of years ago. There are still Bible literalists who believe Jonah survived 3 days inside a whale's stomach, that the Great Flood actually happened, that the Earth is 6000-some years old, that dinosaurs lived among humans, even that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. I don't think I have to list things Muslims believe which we now are false, like Mohammad's flying horse, or the 72 virgins awaiting in heaven.

The allure of religion, I think part of it is, humans want to feel comfortable with the unknown; part of it, religion has been used as a form of control of the masses for centuries; part of it is the hope for something better than the life people live and the world we live in.

I'll tell you, it is an emotional thing, looking at yourself in the mirror, and realizing you are without that hope. But in the end, I don't want to interpret things a certain way to justify a bias, or fool myself into believing the hope is real.

We are just on two entirely different ends of the spectrum. And thats ok. I don’t have the desire nor the energy to continue this conversation. I made every point I wanted to, and I have come to the conclusion that you and I don’t agree on a single thing. Not one. single. thing. And when that conclusion is reached, so is a wall.

Thanks for your time.

Edit: I lied. We agreed on one thing: we both found it too petty to “dislike” the others posts. That was good.
 
One quibble
While I don’t support his take on logic, I also don’t consider it a’real thing’ in the way I think you mean
It’s an abstraction and a contrivance - useful, but not a universal truth

The theory I like the most is that logic is a byproduct of written, sequential language

I am not interested in going down that path. Whatever you want to call it, whatever you think it is, deductive reasoning has not changed, and will not change. What will change is our understanding and knowledge of the world around us.
 
I am not interested in going down that path. Whatever you want to call it, whatever you think it is, deductive reasoning has not changed, and will not change. What will change is our understanding and knowledge of the world around us.
That’s fine, it’s a very useful tool - like algebra
It’s just that it seems to be a learned system and not innate
 
That’s fine, it’s a very useful tool - like algebra
It’s just that it seems to be a learned system and not innate

Again, whatever you want to call it, whatever importance you want to give it, however you want to describe it, whatever origin you want to give it.
 
I've mentioned before that one of the most fascinating courses I ever took was a biblical archeology class with a NT focus (I did also take one on the OT, and that archeology I found more interesting, though the Biblical content was less familiar to me). It was, as you say, not a 'slam dunk' in the factual sense. We also talked about the merits of the canonical and non-canonical works. What gets in and why.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is thought to predate the synoptics. In fact, some historians argue/believe that the synoptics used some of Thomas. Of course, you'd have to believe that it was written, then, within 50 years of Christ's death. But if we are going to establish chronology and general proximity to Christ's time on Earth, then that criterion becomes something to consider for Thomas. But then that raises other problems. It's political as well as historical.

In any event, there isn't some universal acceptance of it as literal truth as a de facto assumption of these works, synoptics and John.

I also find it strange to think about my Catholic faith in Christ as somehow comparable to faith in the belief that drinking Dr. Pepper every day is probably not good for my health. Even though I'd love to, because it's delicious.

The professor, incidentally, practicing Protestant (Methodist I think he was)
This seems so interesting. Would love to sit through or read more about this.
 
For the record, there is absolutely zero independent corroboration of the New Testament outside of the New Testament. Zero. There is absolutely zero contemporary evidence, and while the hypothesis of "oral history" is often appealed to, there is zero evidence of that either. Not to mention that a lot if not most of it is known to be forged (i.e. half of Paul's letters are known forgeries from the second century, and most of the other epistles aren't believed to have been written by whom they claim to be).

From the authentic* letters of Paul, which predated the Gospels by a generation (*assuming they weren't 2nd century forgeries themselves, as suspected by the "Dutch Radicals"):

Corinthians 1:22 - "Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"

Doesn't seem like the miracles and wisdom of that Jesus guy made too much of an impression, right?

Also consider the "Corithian Creed," 1 Corithians 15:

"...for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings, and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, afterwards he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, and certain also did fall asleep; afterwards he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. And last of all -- as to the untimely birth -- he appeared also to me..."

Compare that sequence with anything in the Gospels and you'll see they don't match too well. Why is that the case, if "oral history" was so strong?
 
Regarding the Gospel of Thomas, it's a collection of wisdom sayings that generally considered second century, but some of the sayings may date back much further -- i.e. they may not have been attributed to Jesus until the second century. Also from the Nag Hammadi find was a document titled "Eugnostos the Blessed," which provides a similar example, as it was re-written by Christians as "The Sophia of Jesus Christ," attributing the wisdom sayings to Jesus instead of Eugnostos. Again, faking and forging was part and parcel of early Christianity (at least until the Catholic Church rose to authority and finalized what was canon and destroyed all else to the contrary).
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom