And Nothing Heard My Scream

[AgingYoung]

Once again, if we stop imposing our ideas on reality, which reality does not support, then the problems caused by our attempt to impose our imaginings on the world vanish with them.

I don't see any "right" here at all. <*Poof* Problem of determining what gives anyone a right vanishes>

Each of us must decide how to act in this world. No one else can do that for us. We can choose to follow a code of conduct that has been established before we were born. We can choose to select from many. We can choose to go it alone. That's just the natural state of things. I don't see any rights involved.

Personally, I also don't see the things "right" and "wrong" in the world, either. <*Poof* Problem of deciding "right" and "wrong" vanishes>

There are only actions and consequences. That's how I decide what to do -- I ask myself what the result will be. And being human, a member of a social species which has altruistic as well as selfish urges, and having to face the consequences every day of my choices in society, I try to do what I think will have the best outcome for myself, my family, my country, my species, and my planet. (Sadly, however, it so far has proven impossible for me to consistently do all that at once.)

Other folks will come to their own conclusions and do what they will. The Powers of the Earth will shift and change, and laws and punishments along with them. Talk of "rights" is only so much jabber, unless we're talking about rights in a legal sense.

But if someone calls the shots differently from the way I call them, where does this talk of moral rights get me? Nowhere.

The question of what gives someone the right <*Poof*> to say their idea of right and wrong <*Poof* *Poof*> is superior is a non-question. My concern is with the non-theoretical, non-abstract, very mundane and very real power structures that allow one group to impose its code of conduct on another.

I'm still thinking but I took the time to read this again. No doubt it's a thoughtful piece. I'm still trying to figure out how you do that <*Poof* *Poof*>.

Gene

 

[kieran]

kieran, In one way there is little difference in that regardless of the moral authority of the quran to own people or slaves and to do with them as you please that's wrong.

* 4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.

Quibbling over the idea of what 'are forbidden unto you' doesn't address the quranic basis for married women not being forbidden unto you if you own them. I'll admit the term is vague yet there's no vagueness in the foundational teaching of the quran and the explanation of mohommed to

* 33:50 ... Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war

wage war and take booty. Dancing around the point by stating a conclusion of a sweeping generalization for me and further changing the point to me and further moving from a reasoned manner to an emotional one by name calling doesn't address that clear moral basis the muslim has based on the teaching of the quran and the life example of their founder.

Gene, I am now genuinely, completely and utterly, confused.

Name calling? Have you got me confused with another poster? Please clarify this.

As I said in my previous text, if I misrepresented you - just say so. I was making a genuine attempt at clarification. Hint: before you spout off again ... a suitable text for such a statement would be: "Kieran - you have misrepresented me."

However, just to clarify things, as I think the alternative deserves a , ... are you really saying that you think there is little difference between a christian who rapes and a muslim who has never raped? A simple "Yes" or "No" answer will suffice.

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer on who gets to make the "perfect judgement" call ... is it Gene or Jesus? Lots of words in the last message about perfect lives. All pointless. All you are saying is that Jesus is the only person to have lived a perfect life ... so everyone else has led an imperfect life ... so given identical degrees of imperfection, is belief in Jesus necessary? Reminder, you stated that it is in post #153 of this thread. Do you still stand by that statement? Sorry to repeat the question but you seem to be avoiding it. I don't need an essay in response. Just an answer.

 

[AgingYoung]

kieran,

• Have you got me confused with another poster?

An iranian friend taught me that. It's called talking
to the walls so the rats can hear. Just to keep
things simple, yes, I had you confused with someone
else.

• are you really saying that you think there is
  little difference between a christian who rapes and a
  muslim who has never raped?

no, if I think I understand what you think that I
thought when I said that you said that... there could
still be a problem here.

• Also, I'm still waiting for an answer on who gets
  to make the "perfect judgment" call ... is it Gene or
  Jesus?

Jesus is the righteous judge; I'm not qualified. I'm
the judge taking a few swigs.

• so given identical degrees of imperfection, is
  belief in Jesus necessary?

Yes. I think your point of that question was the
fairness of it; that being born in a christian
environment gives me an edge vs. someone that never
heard of Jesus. I honestly don't know why or how
that's fair. As that passage I mentioned (romans
I think) they are a law unto themselves and will
be judged by that law. I believe the standard is prefection.
Now if I were judging I'd have to include some mercy.

Gene

 

[kieran]

Gene, thanks for your answers. My confusion has abated. As you already know, I can't say I agree with the belief in Jesus bit, but at least we know where we both stand on things. As for debating over religon, I don't think either of us will make a dent in the others position, it is a question of belief and ours are different. However, having said that, I am enjoying your (on-line) company and I look forward to reading your future posts.

Regards, Kieran

 

[I less than three logic]

• Have you got me confused with another poster?

An iranian friend taught me that. It's called talking
to the walls so the rats can hear. Just to keep
things simple, yes, I had you confused with someone
else.

• are you really saying that you think there is
  little difference between a christian who rapes and a
  muslim who has never raped?

no, if I think I understand what you think that I
thought when I said that you said that...

I can assure you that no emotion was involved, nor any name calling, I merely labeled your statement as I saw it. It seems, however, that I owe you an apology as it now appears that I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I would still offer the advice of painting with a thinner brush.

there could
still be a problem here.

I’m not sure what this part is trying to say. Perhaps you could clear up any lingering confusion by amending your previous statement to mean exactly what you were trying to say.

As to the differences between the life of Jesus and Mohammad, given the examples you’ve provided here and my general knowledge on the topic, I’d conclude that the stories about the life of Jesus portray him as a more moral person than the stories of Mohammad portray him, according to my own ethical perspective. Does this make a Christian inherently superior to a Muslim? No, I think people should be evaluated according to their own actions as an individual, not based on opinions held against a group they happen to belong to. Along that line of thought, I wouldn’t be surprised if numerous Muslims behave in a more ethical manner than many Christians.

Again, I’d like to point out that I’m not defending Muslims, expressing their superiority over Christianity, or visa versa. I consider many of their practices to be immoral according to my ethical perspective. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to; slavery, oppression of women, torture, and unjustified killing (including both executions and wars for religious reasons). However, many of these practices exist within Christianity as well. You can argue about the extent to which each extend the practice, but then you’re just arguing for the lesser of two evils. Also note that while I consider these practices pertaining to each religion immoral, I do not consider every member of each religion an immoral person, nor do I express my superiority over those that belong to either religion.

I hope you can accept my apology for any misinterpretations on my part, and for the less than pleasant discussion we’ve had as a result. I also hope you take the time to review the course of this discussion, and perhaps, realize how one could interpret what you said the way that I did.

 

[Roboramma]

The point is the foundational teachings and the life example of the founder. Jesus didn't own slaves. mohommed did. Jesus didn't wage war. mohommed did.

Okay, let me try to make what I'm saying clear. I'm not saying "Islam is better than Christianity" or "Christianity and Islam are equal" because I simply don't have the knowledge to make that claim.
My previous post was a query, though I admit, one I thought I knew the answer to, and it seems I was correct.

Anyway, we know very little about the life example of Jesus, but as you accept what the bible says about that, I can accept that you consider that to be the heart of Christianity. Fair enough.
However, you can't suggest that Jesus frowns on all things that he didn't do in his life, can you? Does he have something against owning cars, for instance? (Note, I'm not being condescending, I'm trying to illustrate a point of logic the best way I know how).
Since we can't assume that he was against everything he didn't do in his life, we can't assume he was against slavery. A better assumption would be that if he thought it was morally abhorrent he would have said something about it! I mean, if he didn't want us to keep slaves, don't you think he'd have mentioned that?

I know that if I was the son of god, and I could influence the moral philosophy of my people for thousands of years to come I would have mentioned it.

If you own them or they're your slave it's a different
matter. It's clear also that a married free woman has
different rights than a slave. By all means draw your
own conclusions. Slavery is prevalent today in the
sudan.

Which sucks, but you can't blame that on Islam exclusively. By that logic we could blame slavery in America in the 18th century on Christianity, and I would not make that suggestion.

Now if it's a matter of you're right I'm wrong and arguing over the meaning of 'are forbidden unto you' then it's a game. For some in the world it's more than that. It's quite real.

Gene, let me say that I agree that Islam has a very bad influence on many people in the world today, and I find that horrible. I also happen to think that Christianity has a bad influence on a lot of people in the world as well but I'd rather not get into that because I don't want to insult you, and am happy for the moment to agree to disagree about the influence of your religion.

In general I'm not very happy with what religion does to people in the field of politics.

You say that arguing about the meaning of "are forbidden unto you' is a game, but that's because you've already accepted what it means to you. If you accept that you could be wrong, then it's no longer "just a game" because maybe it is meaningful to say that Islam doesn't promote rape. On the other hand, if you are certain you're right, and that it's obvious that you are, then it's clearly meaningless to argue about it, and I must be doing so only because I'm looking for an excuse to say that you're wrong about this.

But that's not why I'm making the argument. I genuinely think that you're misinterpreting it, and that you're misinterpreting Christianity based on modern morality that isn't contained in the bible. I know you disagree with that. That's why we're having this discussion after all.

(and sorry I'm not keeping up very well with it. I get easily distracted... )

 

[JLam]

Ah, the argument that atheism leads to inhumanity in a disgusting new form! How are you my tired old friend? Oh, I am so sorry. Dredged up and shoved into a new suit, paraded about with your tattered and rotten innards showing. Such abuse you must be forced to endure.

In the context of the thread, it's great. Short, pithy, and to the point.

 

[AgingYoung]

Rob,

• Anyway, we know very little about the life example
  of Jesus, but as you accept what the bible says about
  that, I can accept that you consider that to be the
  heart of Christianity. Fair enough.

I agree we don't know all that could be known. The
witness John said, 'And there are also many other
things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be
written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain the books that should be
written. Amen.' I can give you that point. Not only
do I consider the gospel accounts to be the heart of
christianity but all of christondom does. Now if
you'll give me the point of using the gospel accounts
to humor me or for the sake of argument I'd ask first
that you consider it on it's own evidentiary merits as
proof of the fundamental teachings of Jesus and his
life. I agree it's a scant record yet it's all we
have to go on.

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or
Identification
General provision.
(a) The requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to
admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what
its proponent claims.

(b) Illustrations.
By way of illustration only, and not by way of
limitation, the following are examples of
authentication or identification conforming with the
requirements of this rule:

8. Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence
that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A)
is in such condition as to create no suspicion
concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where
it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in
existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.

There was a certain scallywag from the past with a
rabble rousing and unstable lifestyle who submitted
that the gospel accounts should be dismissed because
they were 'hearsay upon hearsay'.

Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded
under the hearsay rule if each part of the
combined statements conforms with an exception
to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.

Now some of the gospel accounts might be considered
hearsay yet that's questionable. There is one though
that can't be as readily dismissed as hearsay. The
eyewitness John testifies, 'This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.'

If in the court of your opinion you can see a rational
basis for accepting the accounts concerning Jesus I
will proceed with your several questions. If on the
other hand you can't I'll have to think about it some
more.

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

I couldn’t help but notice your reference of a “certain scallywag from the past with a rabble rousing and unstable lifestyle who submitted that the gospel accounts should be dismissed because they were 'hearsay upon hearsay'.” I believe you were implying this scallywag is Thomas Paine, considering your previous comments in this thread. Again, I contend that if you believe that hearsay was the strongest argument Paine used to discredit the Bible within his writing the Age of Reason, then I can only assume you have not actually read what he had wrote.

Also, you’ve gone through the trouble of finding and quote some rule of evidence for us, including Rule 805 – Hearsay Within Hearsay. You even bolded some parts you considered important for us, yet I don’t believe you understand what that particular rule means. The rule you’ve quoted does not exempt any hearsay in and of itself; this rule is dependent upon other exemptions to the hearsay rule. The rule states that hearsay offered within another example of hearsay is still admissible in court if both forms of hearsay are exempted by another rule. So in order for you to assert that the “hearsay upon hearsay”, or any hearsay for that matter, is admissible, you must point out which exemption allows the hearsay to be admissible in the first place.

Furthermore, I’d like to address your mention of John 21:24 to provide an example that John’s accounts within the Bible are not hearsay. Now, I’d like to point out the other rule you’ve quoted for us, Rule 901 – Requirement of Authentication or Identification. Selecting example 8 was a good call since this is the closest one you could use to allow for the admissibility of the Bible in court. However, notice that it must conform to all three requirements. Yet, since the very thing we are debating, in the court in our minds, is the authenticity of the Bible, this document cannot even pass the first condition. The very act of debating the authenticity of something would consequently create at least a little suspicion concerning its authenticity. To do otherwise, one would be guilty of circular logic.

Come to think of it, the whole idea of using the Bible to prove the authority of the Bible in regards to providing an accurate account of the life of Jesus consists entirely of circular logic. I would think the notion would be dismissed from evidence on account of Rule 403. For surely there are grounds for prejudice in using statements taken from the Bible to provide for the authenticity of the Bible.

So far, the court of my opinion concerning the Bible as an accurate account concerning Jesus, things are not exactly going in the “Holy One’s” favor.

 

[AgingYoung]

Rob,

Aren't you interested?

Gene

 

[Roboramma]

Rob,

Aren't you interested?

Sort of, yeah. I'll try to respond.

The thing about your response, Gene, is not that I disagree with you, it's that you only responded to one minor point in my post. The point that you responded to was one that I already said I would conceed for the sake of argument: ie. that since we were talking (for now) about the affects of your beliefs rather than their veracity, that I was willing to let go of the question of whether or not they have anything to do with Jesus, per se.

That said, I still have to point out that I don't accept that just because the bible says something it can be taken as evidence that it's true. I accept that Jesus probably lived as the most likely thing - it's easier to beleive that a religion was created by his followers than he was made up.
But that's about all that I'll take from the bible. Someone saying that someone else was a virgin when she gave birth, or that Jesus made water into wine, etc. is an extraordinary claim and requires more than just their say-so.
But, again, I'm willing to say, "You and other Christians believe these things, therefore they are what Christianity is about" and leave Jesus out of it for now. Basically I'm saying that I can't accept that Jesus necessarily taught those things (though I concider it likely that he taught something like some of them), but it doesn't really matter to the discussion we're having whether he did or not.

The main reason I'm not responding much right now, though, Gene, is that I'm not really sure what we are talking about anymore...

Anyway, if you want to continue the conversation, could you go back and address the main points I made in my last post? Particularly this one:

However, you can't suggest that Jesus frowns on all things that he didn't do in his life, can you? Does he have something against owning cars, for instance? (Note, I'm not being condescending, I'm trying to illustrate a point of logic the best way I know how).
Since we can't assume that he was against everything he didn't do in his life, we can't assume he was against slavery. A better assumption would be that if he thought it was morally abhorrent he would have said something about it! I mean, if he didn't want us to keep slaves, don't you think he'd have mentioned that?

 

[AgingYoung]

Rob,

That said, I still have to point out that I
don't accept that just because the bible says
something it can be taken as evidence that it's
true.

A similar case of this is when a testator states in a
will they are of sound mind and body. If you would
want to impeach the testimony of the testator you need
some evidence. The idea that people lie so it's
possible they were lying isn't substantial enough to
impeach the testimony. Sweeping generalizations
aren't adequate; you need something specific.

If you object to the evidence (yet don't deny it's
relevance) because it would be a waste of time
considering it because there is sufficient evidence
already available I'd ask 'what evidence are you
talking about?' I know the new testament can be
reconstructed practically in it's entirety from the
writings of the church fathers but it would make more
sense to look at the source they used.

There is no other event from the ancient world with
more documentary evidence than the life and death of
Jesus. There is also an amazing amount of
archaeological evidence. That evidence puts the
writings of the new testament in the era that it's
claimed to be written. I saw an exhibit at the
smithsonian that displayed the bone box of Caiaphas.
My faith isn't just in God or in Jesus but in the
ability of the historian to, in a forensic manner,
piece together the details of our past. I believe
that John's righteousness exceed the high moral
standard of a politician. I would hope most
people have a higher standard.

It's out of the realm of sense to say that the
historical record would prejudice or mislead or
confuse. One of the implications in that is that
people aren't smart enough to sort out matters for themselves.

A better assumption would be that if he thought
it was morally abhorrent he would have said something
about it! I mean, if he didn't want us to keep slaves,
don't you think he'd have mentioned that?

You can give people general guidelines or you can give
them detailed descriptions on how to breath. When
Jesus said, 'do unto others' and 'love your neighbor
as yourself' I think those ideas preclude the concept
of slavery.

I understand the tactic of not taking someone's
position seriously or giving them a point. If you can
reduce the christian's position to, 'it's true, it
willie willie is!' or make it appear that it's a
belief in a purple invisible dragon you don't have to
think about the matter too much. Earlier in the
thread someone suggested that my faith was a gamble
and asked why not odin or thor. My belief in God has
never been on that level. I wouldn't even suggest
that a person believe in God 'just in case, you never
know there could be a hell.' I would suggest that you
take a better look at the evidence and make up your
mind from there. That's a more reasoned approach than
to just dismiss the evidence out of hand.

Gene

 

[Pup]

There is no other event from the ancient world with
more documentary evidence than the life and death of
Jesus. There is also an amazing amount of
archaeological evidence. That evidence puts the
writings of the new testament in the era that it's
claimed to be written. I saw an exhibit at the
smithsonian that displayed the bone box of Caiaphas.
My faith isn't just in God or in Jesus but in the
ability of the historian to, in a forensic manner,
piece together the details of our past.

What I'm still not understanding, is how one can go from "There is evidence that the historic events in the New Testament were reported accurately" to "There is evidence that god exists and Jesus is his son and spoke for him."

Observers can be fooled or be mistaken. People can be deceptive.

It's even simpler to prove the basic facts about any number of currently living psychics, magicians, cult leaders, etc. by using witnesses, data, videotapes, etc.

But the fact that an honest person said, "I saw Uri Geller bend a spoon with his mind and it looked real to me," is NOT the same as "Uri Geller has paranormal powers that allow him to bend spoons with his mind," anymore than "I saw him turn water into wine" is the same as "he can magically turn water into wine through divine power."

Otherwise, there are thousands of people who've made claims similar to Jesus's, all of whom can be documented as well if not better, some of whom are living today. Why believe that Jesus was the son of god, just because he said so, when Joe Schmoe in the psychiatric ward is making the same claim, and you can investigate for yourself to prove that he's a real person?

 

[I less than three logic]

Well, you probably have me on ignore by now, but I’d like to respond to some of your claims in this post, too.

A similar case of this is when a testator states in a
will they are of sound mind and body. If you would
want to impeach the testimony of the testator you need
some evidence. The idea that people lie so it's
possible they were lying isn't substantial enough to
impeach the testimony. Sweeping generalizations
aren't adequate; you need something specific.

How is this similar? Wills are signed and notarized to provide for authenticity, what provides for the authenticity of the statements within the Bible, aside from one’s belief in it?

There is no other event from the ancient world with
more documentary evidence than the life and death of
Jesus. There is also an amazing amount of
archaeological evidence. That evidence puts the
writings of the new testament in the era that it's
claimed to be written.

I’m sorry, but so far you’ve offered no evidence. You’ve only presented anecdotal reports at best. Anecdotes may be sufficient to support that a person name Jesus lived at that time, was a good person, and could even be sufficient to show he was crucified by the Romans. However, none of this would make Jesus special and is, therefore, irrelevant. Thousands of people were crucified by the Romans, many of which, I would assume, were good people too. In order for Jesus to stand out and be considered the son of God, you really need the stories of, at least, the miraculous birth and resurrection. Stories which reek of mythology and didn’t surface until centuries after all this supposedly took place. Anecdotes are not sufficient to support either of these stories.

Also, what of Achilles, do you accept the accounts of his life from the Iliad? The son of a king named Peleus, and Thetis, a sea nymph. There is archaeological evidence to support a war in the ancient city of Troy as told in the Iliad. So why not accept the rest of the Iliad when it has similar support of its credibility as the Bible?

http://www.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy.html/

You can give people general guidelines or you can give
them detailed descriptions on how to breath. When
Jesus said, 'do unto others' and 'love your neighbor
as yourself' I think those ideas preclude the concept
of slavery.

Too bad you weren’t around to inform everyone of this when Christians were exercising their perceived right to have slaves.

Christianity and History: Bible, Race, and Slavery

How about these taken from Titus 2:

“9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.”

This, along with several others, seems to be saying slaves were part of Christian culture, but perhaps I’m not interpreting it correctly. However, I picked this one on purpose. Please them well in all things? Why does this not include sexual ways, are they not part of all things? Shall we conclude that Christians have a biblical right to rape slaves because one could interpret this in such a way? That was the logic you attempted to use earlier I believe.

Really, it is futile to attempt to rationally support religion, any religion. Thus, why we apply the term faith to them, because there is no other way to conclude they are true then by relying on faith.

 

[AgingYoung]

Pup,

My point from the beginning was the moral authority of
the christian vs. the muslim based on the life and
teachings of the founders of the two religions. The
question is 'what is your moral basis for doing what
you do?' In order to prove the point I asked that the
book of John be considered as an account of the life
and teachings of Jesus. The quran in its entirety
could be considered for the muslim. mohommed's claim
was that an angel gave him the teachings in it.

I think people impose their beliefs on others based on
belief of superiority; either moral, intellectual or
physical. Whether they have a 'right' to or not, it
is a fact of life. Whether there is a right or wrong
people act as if there is. Since the majority of
people imagine that they have the right to impose
their idea of right and wrong on others at all levels
the idea that it's theoretical is now *un poofed*. On
a practical level these are the facts.

Observers can be fooled or be mistaken. People
can be deceptive.

That is a possibility yet as a matter of jurisprudence
possibilities don't rise to the level of evidence or
admissibility. Analogies don't either. For instance
if this 'psychic' can be disproved then every
supernatural idea is categorically disproved.

What I'm still not understanding, is how one
can go from "There is evidence that the historic
events in the New Testament were reported accurately"
to "There is evidence that god exists and Jesus is his
son and spoke for him."

If you accept the evidence that is the conclusion. I
understand it's not that simple. I was brought up a
methodist then became agnostic then I became a
christian. As an agnostic I wasn't going to say I
believed something if I didn't. I think the truth is
that a lie is wrong. On a practical level I've had
slimey, stinking lawyers create a reality for me and
make me answer to their contrived existence. Now if
it's ok for them to lie it must be ok for me to.
That's how wars start. On a very real and practical
level if you let them slap you until they're happy you
can walk away with 1/2 your wallet. If you want to
fight they'll take you for everything your worth.

Idealistically the courts have a role to find the
truth. On a practical level that's not the case. A
good lawyer knows the law and procedure but an
excellent lawyer knows the judge. An excellent lawyer
with mediocre ability will beat a good lawyer every
time. It would be good if you could get politics out
of the courts but that's impossible. On the matter of
procedure I've had times where the truth of the matter
(that I witnessed) was deemed irrelevant. That's
enough to make a sane person scream. You try every
angle yet the court won't hear it.

Your question is a very personal one. I admitted at
the beginning that I had no desire to be anything but
superficial. What persuades me might not persuade
you. There is also the point that some people aren't
willing to be persuaded. As Jesus put it (in a
parable) some won't believe even if one were raised
from the dead.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

criminal insanity:

• A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to ditinguish right from wrong.

Gene

 

[Roboramma]

Gene, I don't understand what you're talking about.

First off, when we speak of evidence we're not talking about courts of law. We're talking about a reason to believe one thing or another. The concept is better taken as a scientific one than a legal one.

If I asked you for evidence that of body Thetans, showing me evidence of the existence of L. Ron Hubbard wouldn't help much.
Do you see that?

To make myself clear: how do you go from "Jesus was a man who lived 2000 year ago and was crucified" to, "Jesus was the son of God"?
If I told you that I am the son of God, would that be valid evidence of it?

Would it convince you? And if not, why does the word of Jesus convince you?

Please try to answer without giving meaningless legalistic definitions. So far, I have not seen how they have any bearing on what we're talking about. Thanks.

 

[Roboramma]

You can give people general guidelines or you can give
them detailed descriptions on how to breath. When
Jesus said, 'do unto others' and 'love your neighbor
as yourself' I think those ideas preclude the concept
of slavery.

Concidering how long it took before anyone made that connection, I think that if Jesus had any intelligence at all, and any compassion for the generations of slaves, not to mention the generations of sinners who would take slaves not realising their error, he might have made things a little more clear.
He knew who he was talking to. He should have known that they would not make that connection, so why not spell it out?
After all, a physics teacher could skip the first two weeks of a course, and suddenly everything would be lost on his students, but he could just say, "well, it's all there, you just have to figure it out".
Telling people something that they don't understand is no better than not telling it to them at all. If no one was going to make the connection between his teachings and slavery (and it is an ambigous connection) then we can't say that Jesus taught anything about slavery. If he had a problem with it, he should have said so.
He didn't say so. So, I assume he didn't have a problem with it. That or he just didn't care about the generations of people who would suffer because he didn't bother to mention that slavery is wrong.

I would suggest that you
take a better look at the evidence and make up your
mind from there. That's a more reasoned approach than
to just dismiss the evidence out of hand.

Give me some evidence and I'll look at it.

 

[AgingYoung]

Rob,

Probably the best place to start would either be in
the middle.

If I told you that I am the son of God, would
that be valid evidence of it?

It doesn't make much sense when right before that you
dismissed the idea of reasoning to facts based on testimony
preferring , 'The concept is better taken as a
scientific one than a legal one.' I would think that
if you were the son of God that you'd have better
sense to think that history could be measured in a
graduated cylinder or weighed out on a triple beam or
destructively tested by maybe putting it in a pipe and
smoking it. Claims are subject to legal review;
legal review isn't null and void based on poorly
conceived claims. There is a slight amount of
hypocrisy in starting off asking for scientific
evidence of history then attempting to dismiss the
evidence with logic. Your claim or any claim is very
irrelevant to the evidence presented in the gospel of
John. L. Ron Hubbard's claims are (in addition to
being irrelevant) hearsay, unless you give him the
point that he witnessed these murdered space-aliens
that were once part of the local galactic
confederation of 75 million years ago, ruled over by
the evil galactic overlord Xenu (sometimes said as
Xemu). I don't think he's saying he saw that.

Give me some evidence and I'll look at it.

Denying the evidence doesn't cause it not to be evidence.
You have a lot of faith calling things that aren't as though
they were. The rules of evidence are a well thought out
logical system. Using logic to dismiss the use of logic
isn't reasonable.

Gene

edit: poorly conceived claims aren't evidence that all claims
are poorly conceived.

 

[Roboramma]

Denying the evidence doesn't cause it not to be evidence.
You have a lot of faith calling things that aren't as though
they were. The rules of evidence are a well thought out
logical system. Using logic to dismiss the use of logic
isn't reasonable.

Of course it doesn't. So tell me, what is the evidence? This isn't a court of law, the truth isn't determined by the same means as people are put in prison, so I'm not interested in legal definitions. They aren't adding to this discussion.

Just tell me, what evidence do you have that Jesus was the son of god? I get the impression that your only evidence is that someone else said that he said so. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
If I'm right, please tell me, would you accept anyone's claim to being the son of god? If not, why not?