MERGED-->Jesus- Tomb found with body + James Cameron is... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-25-2007, 11:13 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


I've felt the same way about so called "Biblical Archeologists" who rarely get the time of day when the do discover evidence to support biblical history.


ever heard of the Discovery Institute? you know, the scientists who find "evidence" for Intelligent Design?

same thing. when you know what you want, it becomes so much easier to find it.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:17 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




ever heard of the Discovery Institute? you know, the scientists who find "evidence" for Intelligent Design?

same thing. when you know what you want, it becomes so much easier to find it.
Weird, even Einstein acknowledged ID. What an idiot.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:20 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
I just saw this interesting post in response to the Time magazine article...


However, some so-called enlightenend people would never question Plato or Aristotle (very few copies and known 1200 - 1400 years following their origination), yet they question eyewitnesses recorded less than 30 years after Christ's Resurrection and of which we have over 25,000 original copies.



but this is absurd.

no one makes claims about Plato or Aristotle in the same way that they make claims about Jesus, and they don't use Plato or Aristotle to bash gay people or influence American legislation. those who take the Bible literally invite far, far, far more scrutiny, and thusly their claims should be placed under far, far, far more rigor, than anything by Plato or Aristotle.

good gosh. we're to take literally an eyewitness account 30 years after the fact as inerrant truth?

it is those who insist upon biblical inerrancy that invite the skepticism and often disdain you sometimes receive. the defensive posturing, and slamming of James Cameron, is only to be expected as it comes from a position of weakness ... such great claims are made, such unfair expectations have been placed upon Jesus and the Bible, that i suppose it's only natural to get feral in our defenses.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:22 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Weird, even Einstein acknowledged ID. What an idiot.


could you cite the precise propaganda pamphlet you've pulled this from?

i GUARANTEE you Einstein would reject resounding the crap we now know as ID.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:27 PM   #35
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:55 AM
People flat out do not rise from the dead. It's factual. Defibrillators can help resuscitate someone, or someone might be unconscious for a period of time, or even brain dead for a few minutes with no serious long term effects, but there's no rising from the dead. Miracles really need an agreed upon definition before we even go there. Maybe I am too cynical, hence not getting this God business. These comments by me are not about us in particular, but about how we (people) in general tend to ignore and grab which ever research backs up something we have already put stock in. I'm not saying we are ignorant, but if absolute proof ever came about, one way or the other, would be even believe it then? I'm thinking not.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:48 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

could you cite the precise propaganda pamphlet you've pulled this from?

i GUARANTEE you Einstein would reject resounding the crap we now know as ID.
I would guess it's an extrapolation from Einstein's pithy quote that "God does not play dice".

It is theoretically possible that ID could estimate that it's 99% likely that humans did not evolve through an accumulation of random mutations. The closest analogy would be if you had a coin, flipped it 100 times in a row and it came up heads every time. You'd probably conclude that it was designed to produce that outcome (i.e. it was two-headed).

In reality, I don't think we're ever going to understand what happened over the last billion years well enough to make a confidence estimate of the likelihood of random evolution producing humans. And even if we did, each side has a copout. If the estimate comes out against ID, IDers can always say that an Intelligent Designer can do whatever the hell he wants. If it comes out against blind watchmaker evolution, the pure naturalists can always invoke the anthropic principle -- if things didn't work out right, we wouldn't be here to comment on the matter. So in my view, there's not much value in using the study of evolution to argue for or against the existence of God. Your mileage may vary.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:55 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Weird, even Einstein acknowledged ID. What an idiot.
Now that is absurd; there is a difference between recognition that the universe is fine tuned for life (but since life that can produce observers can only possibly exist in a universe where it can exist does not infer creation when there can be a canvass of infinite) and the concept of theistic creation of life forms is vast. ID fails because it can never answer the question of origin in a scientific manner, it implicitly accepts natural selection and evolution on macro-scale and the core concept of irreducable complexity has failed to find any real world examples that held up to scrutiny.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:05 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
People flat out do not rise from the dead. It's factual. Defibrillators can help resuscitate someone, or someone might be unconscious for a period of time, or even brain dead for a few minutes with no serious long term effects, but there's no rising from the dead. Miracles really need an agreed upon definition before we even go there. Maybe I am too cynical, hence not getting this God business. These comments by me are not about us in particular, but about how we (people) in general tend to ignore and grab which ever research backs up something we have already put stock in. I'm not saying we are ignorant, but if absolute proof ever came about, one way or the other, would be even believe it then? I'm thinking not.
This is true. People also don't allow themselves to be martyred for a cause that they know to be a lie.

I don't think anybody is accusing you of being unreasonable, just pointing out that drawing an alternate conclusion from the evidence also has its share of difficulties as well.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:10 AM   #39
Refugee
 
Pinball Wizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Electric Lady Land
Posts: 1,972
Local Time: 09:55 AM
For all of our sakes, I hope that Tom Cruise is never reanimated.
__________________
Pinball Wizard is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:57 AM   #40
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Just for the record before I go to bed, my scorn is reserved entirely for James Cameron. If it were a filmmaker whose work I could respect, I may have a different opinion of this.

Maybe not, but I'd be less nasty about it.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 02-26-2007, 02:22 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


The main thing about the Lazarus story is that he appeared dead and the Jesus arrived and Lazarus lived again.

The followers of Christ witnessed this and the non-believers saw the resurrected Lazarus live out the rest of his days.

Now, that is powerful and most likely won converts to Jesus teachings.
These are good points to make, deep. The resurrection of Lazarus was powerful. Christ did it to set up his own resurrection (which he prophesized about numerous times). Although it certainly helped people see that he was "the Christ" they'd been waiting for, people still doubted him -- even his own disciples.

Quote:

One thing that has always bothered me about the Jesus resurrection story versus the Lazarus resurrection story is that while everyone got to see Lazarus live the rest of his life

The resurrected Jesus was of less benefit than Lazarus resurrection

What if Lazarus only appeared to a few of his family members for a few days and then vaporized, would it even be remembered, or the claim believed?

Why did Jesus' resurrection not take as well as Lazarus'?
It did take well, even more so than Lazarus'. It launched the faith. His disciples died for the faith based on this. Otherwise, he was just a dead dude like the next guy. He appeard to hundreds of people, too.

Quote:

Why didn't Jesus came back from the dead and give a second "Sermon on the Mount" for hundreds to see, like the High Priests, and Herod, and Pilot?
and live the rest of his days. like Lazarus?

Why is the testimony only from people that had something to gain by keeping the Jesus story going?
Again, he appeared to many, many people and performed numerous miracles. In fact, John ends his recording of the Gospel by saying "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Also, his disciples had nothing to gain by keeping his story going. The only thing they gained was torture and death!
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 02:26 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Also, deep, rather than live out his life like Lazarus, Christ left mainly because his work was finished. God did what he had to do for us. Christ kept telling his disciples that he had to leave so the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, could come. This occurs in Acts. Instead of Christ walking among us, he now dwells within those of us who are his followers through the Spirit.

This was done to help spread the news of what God had done for us and it's also the fruit of the work he did on the cross. Because he died for us, if we accept that act of love and grace, he'll dwell within us.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 02:38 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


good gosh. we're to take literally an eyewitness account 30 years after the fact as inerrant truth?
That's the point MadelynIris made earlier. The first, or earliest documents on the other great historical figures were written much longer after their death. Yet, they're seen as valid and reliable by scholars. The earliest document on Christ was written so much earlier than any one else that it stands out. Even though we're talking 30 years, compared to everyone else there's a sense of urgency felt.

And yes, 30 years seems like forever. However, you have to keep in mind a few things. Times were different. Entire books were often memorized. That was a regular practice for people, especially with religious texts. The other thing is if there were any challenges to the first recorded Gospel, it was still written within the same generation of those alive during the time of Christ's life it records. If there were objections, they would've been made.

Then there's the fact that there were so many -- we're talking a massive amount -- of copies made of the text almost immediately. It dwarfs the number of copies made for anyone else. Something was going on. Again, there's a sense of urgency.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 02:50 AM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
People flat out do not rise from the dead. It's factual. Defibrillators can help resuscitate someone, or someone might be unconscious for a period of time, or even brain dead for a few minutes with no serious long term effects, but there's no rising from the dead. Miracles really need an agreed upon definition before we even go there. Maybe I am too cynical, hence not getting this God business. These comments by me are not about us in particular, but about how we (people) in general tend to ignore and grab which ever research backs up something we have already put stock in. I'm not saying we are ignorant, but if absolute proof ever came about, one way or the other, would be even believe it then? I'm thinking not.
You're right on, Angela. It's factual -- people just don't rise from the dead. It's absured to think it can happen. You're right in using that logic.
With God though, if he is who he is, he and his ways are not something to be grasped by our minds. If there is a God, and he made you and me and breathed life into us, then raising someone from the dead should be pretty easy. You know? That's the line of logic used when talking about God.
Now, the biggest challenge for us as rational people is accepting that the logic and reality of God can enter our logic and reality.
That's where faith comes in. And even then, I would say faith is a form of logic, too. It's acknowledging "Hey, I know I can't explain and understand it all." For instance, to me, it's logical to say God created the Earth and each of us. The evidence I see for this is that there's way too much purpose behind the way things work, the way things work together and the way creation is enjoyed through beauty and love. For me, to say it all just came together on accident take more faith.

I'll shut up now.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 04:28 AM   #45
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:55 AM
Only shut up if you don't wish to continue. Yours and Speedracer's posts are learning me a fair amount, even if it is simply perspective from another.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com