Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Rusty Tyler]

We do.

That's what the new testament is for.

Do you have proof for evolution? You weren't there for the Big Bang, right?

 

[Olmstead]

If someone is requesting that it be cast out, it is probably causing serious problems of an evil nature.
Some Jinns (genies) are considered

Djinn, also known as jinn or genies, are supernatural beings in pre-Islamic Arabian religion and Islam.
They are considered to be accountable for their actions and can be either good, evil, or neutral,
often depicted as mischievous forces in folklore.
Wikipedia Fandom

Joke flying over your head aside, do you believe in Djinn?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

LOL
Are you nuts?
No one does that.
I don't need proof that Jesus heals.
I already believe it.

Family Miracles in Healing Rooms | Testimonies | Bethel Church Redding, CA

A family, including the mother, a baby, and a nine-year-old, gets touched by God and receives healing for various health issues during a Friday night service at Bethel.

www.bethel.com

See post 576, please.

 

[JayUtah]

Information in a book, right?

Results of studies in evolutionary biology are widely available in the customary literature. Their logic and data are laid bare for you to examine and challenge.

Isn't the Bible testable evidence?

The Bible makes claims, some of which can be tested. Among its testable claims are those that are evidently false; you have acknowledge those. Among its untestable claims are ordinary claims and supernatural claims. Supernatural claims are inherently improbable on their face. You seem to accept all of them at face value, regardless of facial likelihood. Since the claims are untestable, we can make a reasoned decision regarding believe solely according to the prima facie plausibility standard. Claims that purport to violate known laws of natural behavior have a low a priori probability of being true, and there is no testable evidence with which to arrive at a better posterior probability.

A person doesn't have to be recognized as a Christian to accept the Bible.
It's probably 50% or better.

I previously asked you for your factual basis for your claim that "most reasonable people" accept the Bible as factual. Your answer then was to appeal to the collective belief of Christians. Now you're making a contradictory claim. You still have no factual basis for the widespread acceptance you claim for the Bible as factual and/or reliable.

Christian books stores are full of them.

Mormon bookstores are full of Mormon commentary on the Bible as well as plenty of pseudoscience purporting to support the divine origin and historical veracity of the Book of Mormon. Why should we give your commentaries any special weight?

I'm asking you to treat it differently than other books.

Which directly contradicts what you told me not more than a few hours ago. I told you that if any other book purporting to be factual and reliable made patently supernatural or otherwise improbable claims, those claims would militate against its reliability. Therefore your acceptance of the Bible despite these patent indicia of unreliability (some of which you acknowledge) had more to do with you wanting to treat the Bible specially.

Now the mask is off: that's exactly what you're demanding we do. Unfortunately for skeptics this equates to granting the Bible a preferentially lower standard of evidence compared to other books. You won't get that.

The Bible is there to challenge established fact.

You seem impervious to the notion that you can't do that with warm-fuzzies.

But since people walking on water is not established fact, you probably reject it.

Yes, we reject the ability of a human to walk on water for any number of physical, empirical, and historical reasons. Hence if someone claims to have done it, we want objective, testable evidence that it has occurred. Absent that, the previous reasons stand. Pointing out that the claim was recorded in a book doesn't change the essential nature of the claim or the standard of proof for it.

Any other ancient books that you would trash?
I didn't think so. What does that tell you?

That you are putting words in people's mouths.

Is the Book of Mormon an ancient book? It claims to be. Is the Book of Mormon the word of God? It claims to be. Is the Book of Mormon an accurate historical record? Its readers claim it is.

You've nailed the problem. Skeptics aren't willing to treat the Bible as special, the way you take it and the way you demand others take it. You want one standard of proof for the Bible and a different standard of proof for everything else. Whereas your critics apply the same standard of proof to all sources that make the same or similar claims. Not all ancient books make supernatural claims. Not all books that make supernatural claims are ancient.

 

[theprestige]

That would be a miracle, correct?
Removing an evil spirit.

Puns aside, a miracle is an event that is contrary to our understanding and expectation of how things are supposed to work. And they always lack corroborating evidence.

The achievement of heavier than air flight was not a miracle. Every step of the way was taken in accordance with what we understand and expect from the natural world.

Anything that conforms to nature may seem miraculous due lack of understanding. All the events we still consider "miracles" today are the ones without corroboration, and without any identifiable connection to the way the natural world actually works. A lot of people reasonably conclude that accounts of miracles are false narratives.

What's evil about it?

For me it's the juniper. Can't stand the taste. Literally the one canonical spirit I will not touch. Vodka? All day every day. Islay single malt? Sure. Cheap tequila? If I must. Gin? The power of Christ compels you to get the hell out of my drinks cabinet.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There's the problem: No one does that. People who already believe it, believe it. Here you have a bunch of people who do not already believe it.

The thing is, are you quite sure no one does that? The earliest story I've heard of someone attempting to measure the power of prayer was Francis Galton, who reasoned that prominent people ought to be paying less for life insurance as, if they ever fell sick, they would have an entire parish, or even an entire country, praying in church for their recovery. So he set out to calculate the strength of the effect statistically. As you may have guessed, the measured life-extending benefit of intercessory prayer turned out to be zero.

Or, just to prove you don't have to be some kind of fancy schmancy scientificologist to examine extraordinary claims..

"Are You Smarter Than A Nine Year Old?" Special Magic Healing Edition

Emily Rosa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Thermal]

That's what the new testament is for.

Do you have proof for evolution? You weren't there for the Big Bang, right?

Do you defer just as much to the teachings of the Koran? The Bhagavad Gita? How about the Book of Thermal? Lots of miraculous exploits and convenient tithing instructions in that bad boy.

 

[Mojo]

If someone is requesting that it be cast out, it is probably causing serious problems of an evil nature.
Some Jinns (genies) are considered

Djinn, also known as jinn or genies, are supernatural beings in pre-Islamic Arabian religion and Islam.
They are considered to be accountable for their actions and can be either good, evil, or neutral,
often depicted as mischievous forces in folklore.
Wikipedia Fandom

"British garrison twelve, drunken Arabs sixty eight. Which erm, just goes to prove, that gin is a dashed good drink. Goodnight."

 

[sackett]

About that unfortunate word "cult."

Time was, cult was used in an anthropological sense to mean any
focused worship or adoration, from the bizarre to the harmless: snake handling,
Maryolatry, the Risen Elvis, any old thing.

Then it acquired a narrowed usage to denote intense religions that could be
regarded as unhealthy and even predatory. Plenty of those still around, god
he knoweth.

It now has sloppily negative connotations, and people use it rather indiscriminately to
label any parcel of beliefs they don't happen to follow.

Here I raise my voice* to advocate for a still simpler use of the term cult.
Let's try applying it to any doctrine that requires a devotee to

BELIEVE

Using "belief" to mean "accept as true in the absence of evidence."**

Would that be simultaneously broad and narrow enough? Hands?

* Not a very loud voice, here on our little village forum. Can't help it.
** Am I repeating myself? Even unto ad nauseum?***
*** Don't answer that.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Anyone with half a brain can be an unbeliever.

Good luck making the grade. We're rooting for you.

 

[Mojo]

About that unfortunate word "cult."

Time was, cult was used in an anthropological sense to mean any
focused worship or adoration, from the bizarre to the harmless: snake handling,
Maryolatry, the Risen Elvis, any old thing.

Then it acquired a narrowed usage to denote intense religions that could be
regarded as unhealthy and even predatory. Plenty of those still around, god
he knoweth.

It now has sloppily negative connotations, and people use it rather indiscriminately to
label any parcel of beliefs they don't happen to follow.

Here I raise my voice* to advocate for a still simpler use of the term cult.
Let's try applying it to any doctrine that requires a devotee to

BELIEVE

Using "belief" to mean "accept as true in the absence of evidence."**

Would that be simultaneously broad and narrow enough? Hands?

* Not a very loud voice, here on our little village forum. Can't help it.
** Am I repeating myself? Even unto ad nauseum?***
*** Don't answer that.

I think it means "religion with fewer followers than mine."

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't trashed it at all. I've just pointed out why it's perfectly understandable that its authors got a lot wrong. They were, inevitably, ignorant of all the facts that were not discovered until after they died.

I'm also inclined to understand the nature of religious storytelling throughout history. Modern Christianity has solidified on the notion of an inerrant, complete canon. I honestly don't think that's the tradition the various early Christian writings arose from. I don't think the early authors or the early believers really cared so much whether the feats attributed to Jesus were real or not. I don't think they saw anything wrong with embellishing the stories told about Jesus. Where the various councils drew the line is when the alleged feats of Jesus (as recounted in the rejected books) were embellished to create a connection with other faith traditions—Jesus the Magician, etc.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

See post 576, please.

**cough** 551 **cough**

 

[Mojo]

"God Ted, I've heard about those cults. Everyone dressing in black and saying our Lord's going to come back and judge us all."
"No... no Dougal, that's us."

 

[JayUtah]

Initially I thought it was a circulation issue. I shook my hands and relaxed them at my sides.
The condition persisted. I finally asked God what it was. It was then that I could sense that these were delicate flames.

And you think that's a methodology that would convince skeptics your explanation is factual?

I wasn't trying to prove anything.

But now you are. Sadly you didn't collect what would have been regarded as more objective, testable evidence of your claim.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Do you defer just as much to the teachings of the Koran? The Bhagavad Gita? How about the Book of Thermal? Lots of miraculous exploits and convenient tithing instructions in that bad boy.

I found the book of Thermal to be a giant rollercoaster of a novel in four hundred sizzling chapters. A searing indictment of domestic servitude in the eighteenth century, with some hot gypsies thrown in.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

**cough** 551 **cough**

I did mean #576, but your 551 will be fine.

 

[JayUtah]

That's what the new testament is for.

Asked and answered. The New Testament is what makes the claim. It is not evidence that the claim is true. Your persistent unwillingness to understand the difference between a claim and proof of the claim is the reason you keep wrongly saying your critics ignore your evidence.

Do you have proof for evolution?

We have evidence that it occurred in the past. We have evidence that it continues to occur. This supports a theory for how it operates, to a standard of proof widely accepted by the scientific community. It is not presented as irrefutable fact. However, any refutation of it would have to supply objective, testable evidence that the current model doesn't predict. And any new model that incorporates the new evidence would also have to encompass the old evidence.

You weren't there for the Big Bang, right?

Of course not. That's why the Big Bang (which was proposed by a Catholic priest, by the way) is considered a theory, not a fact. It is currently the best theory we have (according to objective, testable evidence) for how the universe arose. That can be challenged only by better objective, testable evidence.

 

[Thermal]

I found the book of Thermal to be a giant rollercoaster of a novel in four hundred sizzling chapters. A searing indictment of domestic servitude in the eighteenth century, with some hot gypsies thrown in.

Yet My Venmo isn't showing that you grasped the profound meaning of auto debit tithing? Do you really want to burn in Hell?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I sit stand by what I posted in the other thread..

I find myself strongly reminded of the days when evangelical schools and colleges used to have their students sign up to social media sites to proselytise to the ungodly. I think this site was blacklisted because we enjoyed the supply of chew toys too much. Maybe someone didn't get the memo?