Actually Mormons differ significantly from orthodox Christianity on key doctrinal issues such as the Trinity (particularly the person of Jesus Christ). The Protestant/Catholic disagreement over the Apocrypha isn't quite as big as the everyone/Mormons disagreement over the book of Mormon. Stuff like alcohol and polygamy are secondary issues. And the Seventh Day Adventists are generally regarded as a little odd and not the best representatives of orthodox Christianity.
You can't run every decision by the people or have a poll prepared in advance on the subject. And the people don't have the knowledge, training, experience, advice, etc. to make good, informed decisions on a lot of topics. I don' live in the US, I would want to elect someone who was able to think for themselves and able to make intelligent, principled decisions that will bring about the most good, rather than being beholden to every whim of the public. To take an extreme example, what if a majority of the public thought that it would be a good idea to nuke a country that was harbouring terrorists? Or that the government should increase provision of services while cutting taxes? Pr that global warming is a myth and measures to stop it should be ignored. Or some other idiotic or unfeasible idea?
You seem to have this strange idea that if you exercise any of your own judgement, then you must be a dictator. If there are open and free elections before, during and at the end of your time in office in which the public are fully informed of your character and your policies and therefore know that form time to time you will make decisions they do not agree with, but you think are better for the country, then you're not a dictator; you're an elected official exercising the powers granted by the constitution, with the permission of the public.
Sometimes the public are just wrong and it's better to have someone with intelligence and principles, rather than a robot who is a slave to polls.
Whoops, should have said 'with the exception of software'. My bad. The rest is true though and even if distribution does change to primarily being over the Internet (Which it wont for quite a while, if ever), there's still going to be a massive legacy collection of physical media. I'd be very surprised if some sort of drive capable of reading CDs and DVDs disappeared any time in the next 10 years. I'd not be in the least bit surprised to still find something there in 20 years in fact.
Why on earth would they do that? It's the main distribution media for software and movies and readers are backwards compatible with CDs, which are the main distribution format for music. None of that was ever true of the floppy.
That article's a mess: poor grammar; photos that focus more on looking arty rather than providing information (the fourth one down is near useless); horrendous distortion in some of the shots (the second one down makes the screen look like it's melting); and attempts to make the writer look smarter by using fancy words that the writer doesn't even know the meaning of (you cannot have an eliolated CPU).
If you can get past that though, the content's not bad. I'm curious about what battery life would be like with the brightness turned down, WiFi and BLuetooth off and just using Office/iWork for some actual work. Just using TextEdit I was able to get 8 hours out of my old iBook, but my MacBook can't stretch that far.
I don't really have any more time to pursue this discussion, but I will answer this one point since it has a reasonable amount of relevance to the rest:
The idea that the apostles "wouldn't have had any motivation" unless Jesus actually existed is false. People die believing falsehoods all the time -- hell, how many Muslim suicide bombers die believing they'll get 72 virgins in heaven? By your logic, it must be true, otherwise they wouldn't die for it.
The difference is that the apostles knew if it was true or not, whereas as suicide bombers merely believe. I find it curious that they would have tremendously suffered and died for something they knew to be a lie and that so many others joined them in that when if Jesus didn't rise, his body could have been produced to snuff Christianity out instantly. It was certainly in the interests of the Jewish and Roman authorities to do so.
I imagine that one counter you will have is uncertainty about Jesus' actual existence and death, but that's not seriously disputed even among atheistic theologians.
For each thing that the Bible claims God did (including promises kept), there is no evidence that it ever happened except for the Bible itself. That's not corroboration.
Sorry to use a simplistic example, but if I hand you a book about a character named Bob who claims, in chapter 1, that he will return from the dead, and then chapter 12 describes him returning from the dead, that's not evidence that it actually happened. Not even if there are hundreds of other claims he makes early in the book that are later borne out; it's all the same source.
There is historical evidence to suggest Jesus did rise from the dead. Not 100% proof, but evidence. There's evidence that other events happened, though in many cases there would be no way for the evidence to tell you if God was responsible or not because so often God is described as working through means.
"Liar" isn't the only other option; he could have been insane, confused, mis-represented by those who wrote down what happened, or entirely fictional.
I agree and was simplifying the situation somewhat.
I'm not certain what evidence there is that Jesus even existed, aside from what's in the Bible.
A fair bit. Tacitus, Josephus, a few other people. The existence of the gospel, which themselves have superior historical credentials. Also if he hadn't existed, it would have been pretty easy to crush the church at the beginning and the apostles certainly wouldn't have had any motivation to die proclaiming he had died and risen.
Christianity definitely has a set of core beliefs that almost everyone who self-identifies as a Christian agrees on; but that doesn't make any of it true, rational, or a good idea to follow.
Agreed, though the more people who agreed on the authenticity of a document, the more likely it is to have been true, or at elast an accurate representation of what was believed to have taken place. The early church took apostolic succession very seriously and was very eager to make sure that whatever it taught was in line with what they themselves had been taught by the apostles. The overwhelming majority of churches agreed that the gospels and Paul's letters represented what they had been taught.
Where did I judge? Concern for someone's dismissal of love as purely physical/chemical reaction is not judging someone. Feeling sorry for someone as a result of the views they hold is not judging them either. I am not comparing our moral goodness, nor am I stating whether you are going to heaven or hell. I have made no comment about whether or not you are saved. I could now say that unless you have asked God for forgiveness for all you've done wrong and trusted in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to accomplish that, then you will assuredly go to hell, but equally assuredly will go to heaven if you do do it. In all this, you are no different to me.
I'm... not exactly sure what that means (it's not quite parseable)
My apologies. Replace and n with an f and it all makes sense:
but biblical faith is based on the evidence of past action: trust in the trustworthy.
there's a lot of things written in the Bible for which there is no evidence other than the Bible. Claiming that this is sufficient evidence that they really did happen is unsound
You've got things mixed up. I take the bits for which there is evidence and from them am able to trust in the bits for which there is no external evidence either way. When it comes to the theology of faith in God, there is evidence for God's actions in the past where he keeps his promises, leading me to believe that he will keep other promises, much like how other relationships work.
There's a lot you can take away from the Bible besides "what's written in there really happened, as written";
If Jesus isn't the Son of God then, as you say, there is no reason to listen to him over anyone else (and arguably less reason because he's then a liar).
some of whom knew that they were writing thinly veiled attacks on the Romans (e.g. Revelation)
Actually the theme of Revelation is that the church must persevere in the face of persecution. It's actually a warning against failing to persevere and and encouragement that the victory of Christ means it is worth persevering (and possible).
Also keep in mind that "the Bible" was settled on by the Church hundreds of years after Christ supposedly existed, and they decided to exclude certain books which many of their members had until that point considered entirely valid holy texts.
Most churches agreed on most books of the canon and had done so for some time. There was more than sufficient agreement to establish the core doctrines of Christianity
I don't disagree with you about universal health care being good (I live in the UK and greatly appreciate the NHS, warts and all) or about money not always being spent on the best causes, but this program is just a drop in the bucket and is most helpful for the people who rely most on TV for contact with the outside world. It seems pretty reasonable. But we're a little off topic here.
About this at least, you are correct. Believing because you want something to be true would be foolish. Believing because you are compelled to by the conclusion is much better.
To be fair now, that's like being upset that someone who says they can't afford to buy you car goes and buys someone else a pair of slippers. $40 doesn't pay for a lot of health care.
Right, the most powerful being in the universe made us imperfect
Not restricted to being in the universe and didn't make us imperfect.
then demands us not to sin
Actually, Paul's letter to the Romans helps clarify that we were handed over to sin as punishment for disobedience. It's a subtle difference.
and of course when we fail the best solution is to kill himself as a blood sacrifice
Actually it was the Son submitting to the Father's plan and freely sacrificing himself by being put to death by other moral agents (people).
so he can make himself happy?
He was already happy.
Trying to change it from the literal interpretation, which is how most people in history took the creation story, to an allegorical one only increases the stupidity. God symbolically killed himself for a symbolic original sin? Oh, ok then, I symbolically give a shit in that case.
I quite agree. Besides which, why treat a historical event as symbolic?
You can get all offended and act like you're so much more civilized than us
I answered all your questions; if I was outrageously offended, I probably wouldn't have. Additionally, I've gone back to read all my comments and I'm having trouble picking out the bit where I act more civilised than you. Could you possibly enlighten me on that subject so we can explored where our interpretation of certain phrases differs?
I really don't care. I'm equally offended
Uh huh.
by dogma so we're even on that.
Dogma is essentially doctrine that is considered to have supreme evidence for its truth and is therefore regarded as authoritative and foundational to other doctrines. What about that offends you? Or is it dogmatism that is the real problem, which is another matter entirely?
Speaking of arrogance. Which one of us is the one that thinks he knows more than science can show us and asserts it without any contact with this supposed other realm of existence?
Might I suggest the use of punctuation or alternative phrasing in future long sentences? I'm afraid it took me a few attempts to parse. Would help avoid any misunderstandings. And discussion of epistemology do not require contact with another realm of existence. Not sure I'm even happy with the phrase; sounds like superstitious astrological claptrap.
You are infinitely more arrogant and presumptuous than we could ever be.
Don't you find that phrase somewhat ironic? Especially in the light of the rest of your comments? Seriously, what have I assumed about you? Why don't you go through all the comments we've made to each other and note every time someone makes an assumption about the other person. When you've done that, post the list and we'll discuss the validity of your claims.
Incidentally, you never answered my question about your age after I answered yours. You have me at a disadvantage there.
I'm sure your wife to love to hear that your marriage is simply a result of physical and chemical reactions. Is that how you proposed to her, or did you tell her you love her?
That's completely illogical. No bound by the laws of nature =/= unable to interact with the natural world.
Back what up?
You claimed the existence of contradictions but didn't back up your claim with an evidence or reasoning.
Only through science can we actually KNOW things. The rest is just hearsay.
That's nonsense. You don't 'KNOW' anything through science. The closest you can get to 'KNOW'ing something is in mathematics. Science involves building little models of systems that produce the same results for a given input as the real counterpart they are intended to represent. That doesn't mean reality functions in the same manner as the model; it just means that the model is our best means of predicting how reality will behave. At any time some new result could come along and turn the model on its head. You never 'KNOW' ANYTHING in science. Once you think you do, you're not doing science anymore and you end up with the Flat Earth Society./p
I find it somewhat ironic that your email address begins with 'loverevolutionary' yet you seek to reduce everything to physics and chemistry. If that is truly your position then we are at an impasse, particularly in light of your specious comment than no man who believes in anything beyond the physical and chemical can be educated. Plenty of educated men - well educated - would take issue with your statement.
How do we know Jesus rose from the dead? Gospels written mostly by men who didn't know him? Gospels that contain contradictions even between themselves? Why would you believe the gospels over any other ancient text that describes miracles?
I believe because of the strong historical credentials of the documents, they consistent and coherent testimony with one another, with other New Testament documents and with the rest of the Bible and because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit. But you're likely not interested in the last one.
Are you married? If so, please don't tell me you use the scientific method to analyse how well your marriage is going or I really will despair for the world.
Wrong. You don't get to just say if God is testable or not. I'm sure you wish you could just change things like that on a whim but no not happening. God is defined as testable only because Christians make certain claims about his actions.
We're debating about the Christian God. The Christian God is defined as not being subject to natural laws. Ergo, if you want to test a god, you cannot be talking about the Christian God. If you are able to test god, then that calls into question the claim that the Christian God exists, but you cannot demand that he be testable.
God is defined as testable only because Christians make certain claims about his actions. If ever God contacted humans, there would be a way to detect and prove that it happened.
That's somewhat different to testing God and falls more properly within the domain of historical research rather than scientific endeavour.
As in many other places, the Bible contradicts itself there.
What a pithy statement. Where's the evidence to back it up?
Then you don't believe Jesus Christ died on the cross and then rose bodily to Heaven. There is NO evidence for that.
You may not find the evidence conclusive, but it is absurd to claim there is no evidence. The gospels (and indeed the rest of the NT) are evidence, amng other things and there is evidence to support their veracity. Evidence =/= 100% proof and absence of 100% proof =/= total absence of evidence.
Please go and gain some knowledge about the physical world in any other way besides science then report your results.
I'll do that if you go ask all the historians of the world if they're scientist and if their field of study is another branch of science, or a separate discipline.
Paleontology is a science which is used by a certain group of historians. As I've previously said, historians make use of science without being scientists themselves. This is much like scientists making use of mathematics while being engaged in a separate discipline. Actually, that's a great example of a field of knowledge that doesn't employ the scientific method at all and many mathematicians would argue is much more an art than a science.
That use of the term "UK" really means "England"... ulster is also more complex.
So much so that it is located in two differen countries. I suspect the use of the term "ulster" really means the 6 counties of the 9 county province of Ulster that comprise "Northern Ireland"?;)
Fairly common actually. A fair number of the current faculty at Oxford would believe in a personal god and some would even call themselves Christian. Plenty of historical precedent for that too. Many of the greatest physicists were evangelical Christians, e.g. Faraday and Maxwell.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Mormons differ significantly from orthodox Christianity on key doctrinal issues such as the Trinity (particularly the person of Jesus Christ). The Protestant/Catholic disagreement over the Apocrypha isn't quite as big as the everyone/Mormons disagreement over the book of Mormon. Stuff like alcohol and polygamy are secondary issues. And the Seventh Day Adventists are generally regarded as a little odd and not the best representatives of orthodox Christianity.
You can't run every decision by the people or have a poll prepared in advance on the subject. And the people don't have the knowledge, training, experience, advice, etc. to make good, informed decisions on a lot of topics. I don' live in the US, I would want to elect someone who was able to think for themselves and able to make intelligent, principled decisions that will bring about the most good, rather than being beholden to every whim of the public. To take an extreme example, what if a majority of the public thought that it would be a good idea to nuke a country that was harbouring terrorists? Or that the government should increase provision of services while cutting taxes? Pr that global warming is a myth and measures to stop it should be ignored. Or some other idiotic or unfeasible idea?
You seem to have this strange idea that if you exercise any of your own judgement, then you must be a dictator. If there are open and free elections before, during and at the end of your time in office in which the public are fully informed of your character and your policies and therefore know that form time to time you will make decisions they do not agree with, but you think are better for the country, then you're not a dictator; you're an elected official exercising the powers granted by the constitution, with the permission of the public.
Sometimes the public are just wrong and it's better to have someone with intelligence and principles, rather than a robot who is a slave to polls.
Whoops, should have said 'with the exception of software'. My bad. The rest is true though and even if distribution does change to primarily being over the Internet (Which it wont for quite a while, if ever), there's still going to be a massive legacy collection of physical media. I'd be very surprised if some sort of drive capable of reading CDs and DVDs disappeared any time in the next 10 years. I'd not be in the least bit surprised to still find something there in 20 years in fact.
Why on earth would they do that? It's the main distribution media for software and movies and readers are backwards compatible with CDs, which are the main distribution format for music. None of that was ever true of the floppy.
That article's a mess: poor grammar; photos that focus more on looking arty rather than providing information (the fourth one down is near useless); horrendous distortion in some of the shots (the second one down makes the screen look like it's melting); and attempts to make the writer look smarter by using fancy words that the writer doesn't even know the meaning of (you cannot have an eliolated CPU). If you can get past that though, the content's not bad. I'm curious about what battery life would be like with the brightness turned down, WiFi and BLuetooth off and just using Office/iWork for some actual work. Just using TextEdit I was able to get 8 hours out of my old iBook, but my MacBook can't stretch that far.
I don't really have any more time to pursue this discussion, but I will answer this one point since it has a reasonable amount of relevance to the rest:
The difference is that the apostles knew if it was true or not, whereas as suicide bombers merely believe. I find it curious that they would have tremendously suffered and died for something they knew to be a lie and that so many others joined them in that when if Jesus didn't rise, his body could have been produced to snuff Christianity out instantly. It was certainly in the interests of the Jewish and Roman authorities to do so.
I imagine that one counter you will have is uncertainty about Jesus' actual existence and death, but that's not seriously disputed even among atheistic theologians.
There is historical evidence to suggest Jesus did rise from the dead. Not 100% proof, but evidence. There's evidence that other events happened, though in many cases there would be no way for the evidence to tell you if God was responsible or not because so often God is described as working through means.
I agree and was simplifying the situation somewhat.
A fair bit. Tacitus, Josephus, a few other people. The existence of the gospel, which themselves have superior historical credentials. Also if he hadn't existed, it would have been pretty easy to crush the church at the beginning and the apostles certainly wouldn't have had any motivation to die proclaiming he had died and risen.
Agreed, though the more people who agreed on the authenticity of a document, the more likely it is to have been true, or at elast an accurate representation of what was believed to have taken place. The early church took apostolic succession very seriously and was very eager to make sure that whatever it taught was in line with what they themselves had been taught by the apostles. The overwhelming majority of churches agreed that the gospels and Paul's letters represented what they had been taught.
Where did I judge? Concern for someone's dismissal of love as purely physical/chemical reaction is not judging someone. Feeling sorry for someone as a result of the views they hold is not judging them either. I am not comparing our moral goodness, nor am I stating whether you are going to heaven or hell. I have made no comment about whether or not you are saved. I could now say that unless you have asked God for forgiveness for all you've done wrong and trusted in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to accomplish that, then you will assuredly go to hell, but equally assuredly will go to heaven if you do do it. In all this, you are no different to me.
My apologies. Replace and n with an f and it all makes sense:
but biblical faith is based on the evidence of past action: trust in the trustworthy.
You've got things mixed up. I take the bits for which there is evidence and from them am able to trust in the bits for which there is no external evidence either way. When it comes to the theology of faith in God, there is evidence for God's actions in the past where he keeps his promises, leading me to believe that he will keep other promises, much like how other relationships work.
If Jesus isn't the Son of God then, as you say, there is no reason to listen to him over anyone else (and arguably less reason because he's then a liar).
Actually the theme of Revelation is that the church must persevere in the face of persecution. It's actually a warning against failing to persevere and and encouragement that the victory of Christ means it is worth persevering (and possible).
Most churches agreed on most books of the canon and had done so for some time. There was more than sufficient agreement to establish the core doctrines of Christianity
I don't disagree with you about universal health care being good (I live in the UK and greatly appreciate the NHS, warts and all) or about money not always being spent on the best causes, but this program is just a drop in the bucket and is most helpful for the people who rely most on TV for contact with the outside world. It seems pretty reasonable. But we're a little off topic here.
About this at least, you are correct. Believing because you want something to be true would be foolish. Believing because you are compelled to by the conclusion is much better.
To be fair now, that's like being upset that someone who says they can't afford to buy you car goes and buys someone else a pair of slippers. $40 doesn't pay for a lot of health care.
Not restricted to being in the universe and didn't make us imperfect.
Actually, Paul's letter to the Romans helps clarify that we were handed over to sin as punishment for disobedience. It's a subtle difference.
Actually it was the Son submitting to the Father's plan and freely sacrificing himself by being put to death by other moral agents (people).
He was already happy.
I quite agree. Besides which, why treat a historical event as symbolic?
I answered all your questions; if I was outrageously offended, I probably wouldn't have. Additionally, I've gone back to read all my comments and I'm having trouble picking out the bit where I act more civilised than you. Could you possibly enlighten me on that subject so we can explored where our interpretation of certain phrases differs?
Uh huh.
Dogma is essentially doctrine that is considered to have supreme evidence for its truth and is therefore regarded as authoritative and foundational to other doctrines. What about that offends you? Or is it dogmatism that is the real problem, which is another matter entirely?
Might I suggest the use of punctuation or alternative phrasing in future long sentences? I'm afraid it took me a few attempts to parse. Would help avoid any misunderstandings. And discussion of epistemology do not require contact with another realm of existence. Not sure I'm even happy with the phrase; sounds like superstitious astrological claptrap.
Don't you find that phrase somewhat ironic? Especially in the light of the rest of your comments? Seriously, what have I assumed about you? Why don't you go through all the comments we've made to each other and note every time someone makes an assumption about the other person. When you've done that, post the list and we'll discuss the validity of your claims.
Incidentally, you never answered my question about your age after I answered yours. You have me at a disadvantage there.
Wow. So humanity is contingent upon having the right beliefs? Maybe Hitler did make it to South America after all.
No, it's an accusation that their claim lacks substance and has been addressed by existing scholarship many times.
On reflection I realise that. Mea culpa. Had recently been discussing the topic and leapt to an assumption.
Depends what you mean by faith. I agree if you mean blind faith, but biblical faith is based on the evidence on past action: trust in the trustworthy.
I'm sure your wife to love to hear that your marriage is simply a result of physical and chemical reactions. Is that how you proposed to her, or did you tell her you love her?
That's completely illogical. No bound by the laws of nature =/= unable to interact with the natural world.
You claimed the existence of contradictions but didn't back up your claim with an evidence or reasoning.
That's nonsense. You don't 'KNOW' anything through science. The closest you can get to 'KNOW'ing something is in mathematics. Science involves building little models of systems that produce the same results for a given input as the real counterpart they are intended to represent. That doesn't mean reality functions in the same manner as the model; it just means that the model is our best means of predicting how reality will behave. At any time some new result could come along and turn the model on its head. You never 'KNOW' ANYTHING in science. Once you think you do, you're not doing science anymore and you end up with the Flat Earth Society. /p
You mean you cannot rebut my arguments and have nothing left to say? Very well.
I find it somewhat ironic that your email address begins with 'loverevolutionary' yet you seek to reduce everything to physics and chemistry. If that is truly your position then we are at an impasse, particularly in light of your specious comment than no man who believes in anything beyond the physical and chemical can be educated. Plenty of educated men - well educated - would take issue with your statement.
I believe because of the strong historical credentials of the documents, they consistent and coherent testimony with one another, with other New Testament documents and with the rest of the Bible and because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit. But you're likely not interested in the last one.
Are you married? If so, please don't tell me you use the scientific method to analyse how well your marriage is going or I really will despair for the world.
We're debating about the Christian God. The Christian God is defined as not being subject to natural laws. Ergo, if you want to test a god, you cannot be talking about the Christian God. If you are able to test god, then that calls into question the claim that the Christian God exists, but you cannot demand that he be testable.
That's somewhat different to testing God and falls more properly within the domain of historical research rather than scientific endeavour.
What a pithy statement. Where's the evidence to back it up?
You may not find the evidence conclusive, but it is absurd to claim there is no evidence. The gospels (and indeed the rest of the NT) are evidence, amng other things and there is evidence to support their veracity. Evidence =/= 100% proof and absence of 100% proof =/= total absence of evidence.
I'll do that if you go ask all the historians of the world if they're scientist and if their field of study is another branch of science, or a separate discipline.
Paleontology is a science which is used by a certain group of historians. As I've previously said, historians make use of science without being scientists themselves. This is much like scientists making use of mathematics while being engaged in a separate discipline. Actually, that's a great example of a field of knowledge that doesn't employ the scientific method at all and many mathematicians would argue is much more an art than a science.
So much so that it is located in two differen countries. I suspect the use of the term "ulster" really means the 6 counties of the 9 county province of Ulster that comprise "Northern Ireland"? ;)
Fairly common actually. A fair number of the current faculty at Oxford would believe in a personal god and some would even call themselves Christian. Plenty of historical precedent for that too. Many of the greatest physicists were evangelical Christians, e.g. Faraday and Maxwell.