"Spiritual perspective" assumes that which you are trying to prove and is invalid as evidence because of circular reasoning.
It needs to be repeated: every religion has some variation of "believe first, then see."
The result is people willing to force square pegs into round holes because they now have a vested interest in the outcome of the subject or phenomenon they are questioning.
Remember when you said "resurrections don't happen" as the reason evidence wouldn't lead to the resurrection? Ever wonder why I didn't repeat that? Because it would be circular reasoning. I can't say the resurrection didn't happen because resurrections don't happen. That is assuming what I'm trying to prove.
In order to ascertain whether something happened, you have to evaluate the evidence that it did. And the evidence for the resurrection is poor: five accounts written by non-witnesses decades up to a century after it happened. Paul's account of seeing the risen Christ is as self-serving as Joseph Smith's claim of translating golden plates.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John craft historical novels that betray themselves at every opportunity (no way do the first three leave out the resurrection of Lazarus if it really happened; no way did Pilate free a condemned man on Passover... whose name just happened to be Jesus Son of the Father. Joseph of Arimathea didn't exist because Arimathea, which means best disciple, didn't exist).
We've already been over the post resurrection contradictions.
We have zero firsthand accounts from the apostles. No accounts of their transformation from timid fishermen to bold spokesmen for God who escape from prison following undocumented earthquakes.
There is not a single documented historical account of anyone in a position to know refusing to renounce the resurrection on pain of death.
Empty tomb? There was none. The descriptions in the gospels defy common sense. It belonged to someone who didn't exist.
And he claimed there were 500 witnesses... an appearance no gospel writer found worth mentioning.
To say the evidence is lacking is being generous.
"Spiritual perspective" bypasses the reasoning process by assuming what you are trying to prove. It is not evidence.
I cannot assume resurrections don't happen to prove the resurrection didn't happen. You cannot assume it did happen to prove it happened. That's only fair.
In order to ascertain whether something happened, you have to evaluate the evidence that it did.
Perhaps there is simply an incontrovertible difference that resides within "what all" is and/or isn't factored into said evaluation.
All that you seem to be willing to include or accept into your evaluation of the question (did Jesus rise from the dead?), is scientific or material (i.e., physical) evidence directly associated with or touching the living Christ. Now, I do think that this was (to some degree) available to those in the early part of the book of Acts, as this would align with what is written in scripture on how God typically dealt with Israel in "signs, miracles, and wonders" (most notably starting with Moses.) Hence, it is written, that Israel required (and sought after) a sign. While this sort of evidence may have been particularly relevant in that day, not only do I think that such evidence doesn't exist today, but that it would work against what is purposed and intended for our day and time. The means of approach that God used with Israel (signs, miracles, wonders, etc.) may have worked temporarily... but, at least thus far, seems to have been rather weak or ineffective at establishing any sort long term or lasting results. Besides, why else would Christ ascend into (or through, if you prefer) the heavens and be removed from the sight of all men?
This doesn't mean that there is absolutely nothing left to evaluate for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not something (i.e., the resurrection) happened. It does, however, require a shift in focus away from only the kind of evidence referred to in the previous paragraph. The aforementioned evidence requires a "zooming in" on the bits and pieces. Perhaps the other requires more of a "zooming out," and a more intensive consideration of the whole of life... the reason for it, etc. It's not the "abandonment of logic" which you seem inclined to suppose, but rather, it's a very different approach to evaluating the issue, and ascertaining whether or not it happened.
The goalposts just won't stay still. "Zooming in" and "zooming out" is fair. You still need to consider the evidence. That's not the same as "spiritual perception," as I addressed earlier.
But when zooming and and zooming out, if you accept non-evidence AS evidence, you beg the question, creating a circular reasoning trap you cannot escape. The moment you say "the means of approach that God used with Israel," you've fallen into the trap. You are now taking as a given that which you are trying to prove. How did God deal with Israel? By parting the Red Sea and destroying the Egyptian Army (never happened)? By leading the Israelites out of Egypt (never happened)? By Noah's flood (never happened)? You cannot assume that which you are trying to prove and cite it as proof of that which you have assumed!
I mean, you can. You just can't make a logical argument for it without being called on it.
Seriously? Just how different might that be from this?
Furthermore, I'm curious if (or how) you might be able to better explain what this is, or how it works:
Because, aside from that part of my last post that you say is a "completely different" issue or question... seems I'm at a bit of a loss to see how you think it might (or does) work.
From Hebrews 11:1? Not seen with your physical eyes?
Yet, we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses...
How does that work?
Bottom line? You're not going to be convinced by any kind of rational argument/logic. Neither will I be convinced by any argument you put forth.
However, the book Irrationality: a History of the Dark Side of Reason by Justin E.H. Smith includes this:
Quote
We turn next to what in some senses appears as the exact opposite of logic--claims of mystical experience--in which by definition the subject is unable to formulate in shareable propositions the experience in question, and thus unable to submit claims about it to logical scrutiny.
At the same time, historically speaking, mystical experience, and the way it is mobilized socially for the founding of new religious sects, has much in common with the paradox-mongering of some philosophical sects. In fact, while we think of cults as devoted to dogmas that are inscrutable or immediately false to outsiders, in fact they are also able, if not just as likely, to form around a shared interest in critical thinking or reason. Thus we see an illustration of the problem at the heart of our investigation, where devotion to reason as a supreme principle all too easily collapses into unreason.
Once you accept the unproveable as proof, nothing is unproveable.
It's quite twisted (of course)... but, not completely out in left field (from the post below.)
There's an obvious difference (or at least, should be obvious) between ascertaining whether something is real, and proving it is real.
Evidently your believing is bound to what can be proven. (Which is not at all uncommon, especially for those that tend more to their intellectual side.)
You do know and realize that this is the real crux of true (i.e., genuine) Christianity, don't you?
I've contended elsewhere on this site (I forget where, or in exactly what manner) that believing in the death and resurrection of Christ is (in this day and time) intrinsic to believing anything aside from or beyond what is (or can be) received and known only by our physical senses. In other words, it is what breaks the bondage to our physical senses of what can be believed. And, in light of that, there is presently no valid material "proof" of his resurrection... for if there were any, believing God would remain bound to the material reality of our senses.
This is why no one ever REALLY believes in the resurrection of Christ unless their heart is opened to it. And only when the inherent hardness of a man(or woman)'s heart is softened, does it ever allow room for it. Furthermore, I personally believe that a real softening of the heart starts with the recognition and acknowledgment of something written in Rom. 3:23. And when we "get" the reason (i.e., the heartfelt need) for our own redemption, verse 24 (of Rom. 3) springs to life within us... as it's understood why Christ is (and has to be) alive. Anything else no longer makes sense. Thus, leaving Rom. 3:23 (or its equivalent) out of the picture seems to stop anyone at the cross of Christ
I repeat that which is not refuted but merely repeated:
One you accept tht which is unprovable as true, nothing is unprovable.
What difference is there (in your thinking), if there is any, between that and either of the two statements below (which also, may or may not mean the same thing to you)?
Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be accepted as true.
Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be believed.
There's an obvious difference (or at least, should be obvious) between ascertaining whether something is real, and proving it is real.
Please explain HOW you can tell the difference between something you spiritually "ascertain" and a thought just popping into your head from who knows where.
I'm thinking of a number between one and infinity.
If you are connected to an omniscient God, tell me the number.
Every single religion has a variation of "believe and you will see."
You haven't addressed facts. You haven't refuted or contested the findings of educated professionals. All you have done is placed non evidence on the same plane as educated analyses of factual material. Seeing that your non evidence is inadequate, you declare it spiritual and claim that it's an Insight from the Almighty.
Muhammad could do that. Joseph Smith could do that. Victor Paul wierwille could do that. Any idiot could do that. But there's no evidence to support it.
How does your brain know for sure where any thought or sensation comes from?
I repeat:
1 hour ago, Rocky said:
Please explain HOW you can tell the difference between something you spiritually "ascertain" and a thought just popping into your head from who knows where.
Looking at this as a purely academic exercise, the answer to that question lies in The Advanced Class. According to the definitions Wierwille swiped from somebody (might have been B.G. Leonard), if something is revelation, it would be impossible to ascertain said information via the five senses. If you need the exact definitions from the class, I have them here somewhere. Probably using the syllabus to prop up a wobbly table leg or something.
Is there anything outside of the Bible that claims Jesus rose from the dead, such as historical records and things of the like? I've never personally seen anything but, then again, I'm not sure I ever really looked.
There is barely proof he existed, much less rose from the dead.
Spiritual insight is literally the opposite of evidence.
Belittling actual evidence with unnecessary qualifiers like "material" or "senses" betrays a lack of confidence in the non-evidence being asserted as equally valuable.
Evidence is evidence. If God is telling you something, prove it. Give me the number (which I have already disclosed to another poster so I can't pretend you were wrong if you are right).
Nobody in the initial posts or videos on this thread claimed the resurrection happened because God said so. All point to evidence, failing to recognize the embarrassing flaws in Luke and Acts.
Defend Luke! Defend the gospel writers! But "spiritual insight" is a chicken-sh*t excuse for recognizing the evidence opposes your position.
Spiritual insight is literally the opposite of evidence.
Belittling actual evidence with unnecessary qualifiers like "material" or "senses" betrays a lack of confidence in the non-evidence being asserted as equally valuable.
Evidence is evidence. If God is telling you something, prove it. Give me the number (which I have already disclosed to another poster so I can't pretend you were wrong if you are right).
Nobody in the initial posts or videos on this thread claimed the resurrection happened because God said so. All point to evidence, failing to recognize the embarrassing flaws in Luke and Acts.
Defend Luke! Defend the gospel writers! But "spiritual insight" is a chicken-.... excuse for recognizing the evidence opposes your position.
God told me you're full of .....
Now, based on the evidence, who's right?
Redirect and define things however you want, Raf. Doesn't make you or what you say right, and it sure doesn't indicate that you comprehend much of anything that I've said on the matter. Frankly, it was so ridiculous to me that anyone would say or might think that the "proof" (or evidence, if you prefer) they have for the resurrection is obtained by revelation (which was plainly alluded to), that I'm inclined to think your own chosen verbiage (i.e., "spiritual insight") and view of it probably isn't much different.
Not all evidence is "black or white," and not all evidence is conclusive. Neither is all evidence always obvious, or "verifiable." Personal witness and testimonies are often part of the evidence presented in any courtroom of law, where a jury is used to render a verdict on what the truth is. In short, your huffing and puffing here about certain qualifiers and that "evidence is evidence" really means nothing, other than you don't like the qualifiers. However, right from the get go you made it abundantly clear that you are tossing out and will nullify the evidence and testimony of scripture. So, aside from that, I likewise plainly stated that considered from a material (physical senses only) perspective, there isn't going to be any of the kind of evidence that you were looking for.
However, there can be (and are) reasons (transcending that which is written in scripture) for arriving at (i.e., ascertaining) a belief in (the truth of) the resurrection of Christ from the dead, that require an individual to "render a verdict." And even though you said that "Zooming in" and "zooming out" is fair, apparently you still either: (1) have no idea what I might have been referring to, or (2) have no idea how to do it as it relates to this particular issue. But, go ahead and plod along with your fun here. What you think of me or my view on the matter isn't going to change any.
Personal witness and testimonies are often part of the evidence presented in any courtroom of law, where a jury is used to render a verdict on what the truth is.
Agreed. And we have none.
Have you noticed that? Because it seems to have zipped right past you.
You want to talk about what's accepted in a court of law (where i spend 80% of my working days)? OOH. LET'S!
Witness testimony is respected. Hearsay (i heard from a friend whose cousin was dating a guy whose grandfather said he witnessed the resurrection) is not respected in a court of law. And that is literally all we have in the gospels
You know what else is accepted in a court of law? Expert testimony from the very people you harrumph as "intellectuals." You know, the ones who authenticate whether things like Hitler's diaries and II Timothy are actually written by their purported authors or by Epstein's mother or by a LIAR who's trying to mislead the gullible.
Let me ask you something:
Mary Magdalene was the first witness of the resurrection, right? Where the f did she go? Her presence is, at best, implied in Acts 1. And then she's gone. Poof.
Ever been to Arimathea? If so, you'd be the only one.
If you were walking from San Diego to Las Vegas, would you stop in Portland, Oregon? Because that is as ridiculous as what the Gospel of Mark has Jesus do during one of his constitutionals.
Aside from Barabbas, name one person Pilate released on Passover in accordance with his annual tradition. If he did this every year, there has to be some record of this policy, some resentment that an insurrectionist was spared because of a holiday. Pilate had no such policy. The gospels lied.
Point being, the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are not based on eyewitness accounts. They are based on hearsay handed down for at least a generation, likely more.
So PLEASE, let's use acceptable in court as a standard. It would literally leave you with no credible evidence for the resurrection at all.
However, right from the get go you made it abundantly clear that you are tossing out and will nullify the evidence and testimony of scripture.
Actually I provided significant facts that lead a reasonable person to conclude that scripture is not "evidence" but a CLAIM.
Joseph Smith had three witnesses sign a document swearing that they had seen the golden tablets from which the book of Mormon were translated. They were actual people who signed their documents, unlike the gospel writers, and yet we all rightly discount them as bullsh*t lies.
By what standard do you deny their testimony but accept the error-laden testimony of cowards who won't sign their names to what they wrote and were wrong about every claim they made that could be cross-referenced? Like the timing of Jesus' birth, the Quirinian census that required people to register where they did not live, the [non existent] slaughter of the innocents, Pilate's Passover traditions?
If I got that many facts wrong I would be fired, not defended as "God-breathed."
Actually I provided significant facts that lead a reasonable person to conclude that scripture is not "evidence" but a CLAIM.
Joseph Smith had three witnesses sign a document swearing that they had seen the golden tablets from which the book of Mormon were translated. They were actual people who signed their documents, unlike the gospel writers, and yet we all rightly discount them as bull.... lies.
By what standard do you deny their testimony but accept the error-laden testimony of cowards who won't sign their names to what they wrote and were wrong about every claim they made that could be cross-referenced? Like the timing of Jesus' birth, the Quirinian census that required people to register where they did not live, the [non existent] slaughter of the innocents, Pilate's Passover traditions?
If I got that many facts wrong I would be fired, not defended as "God-breathed."
Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be accepted as true.
Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be believed.
Raf and Rocky......
I admire your patience in continuing to debate with those who have clearly renounced the use of reason. It is an exercise in futility, imho, and as Thomas Paine said, it’s like “administering medicine to the dead.” LOL!
i say this not as a matter of condescending sarcasm, but as an objective view of the numerous grand debates throughout the course of mankind's history regarding the fundamentally contrary positions of reason versus faith. Oftentimes, the conclusion on both “sides” is that they tend to be mutually exclusive, precisely because their definition of terms is contradictory.
For example, take the word “evidence”. The “spiritual” definition of the bastardization of the meaning of “evidence” is epitomized by dictor paul’s incessant repetition of, ”Speaking in tongues is the manifestation in the senses realm, of the internal reality and presence of holy spirit. The evidence that you are born again from on high and that you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you!”.
This is a slick cover-up of the old logical fallacy of false equivalence. DP gets the “student” to equate speaking in tongues as MATERIAL EVIDENCE in the “senses realm” of holy spirit present in the person speaking. The cognitive dissonance of the illogic is smoothed over by the invention of a non-existent “spiritual realm” equal, if not superior to, the realm of the incomplete “natural man” which is unfortunately limited to only what she/he can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. However, every mammal on Earth learns everything it ever knows like that, so limiting mankind to the realm of incomplete “body and soul”, discounts or eliminates that which really sets humanity apart from all the other mammals....THE ABILITY TO THINK/REASON at a higher level than any other species on the planet. Once you can get a human being to equate being “limited to the 5 senses” to the need for the superior “spiritual knowledge” that SOMEONE ELSE owns the secret to, you diminish that person’s ability to THINK, and convince that person that she/he NEEDS the completion that only “God” can bring in order to really “know that you know that you know!” what the TRUTH is and what the meaning and purpose of life is. Neat trick used by every successful snakeoil salesman in history. LOL!
So, for the statement I quoted at the opening of this post to even be put forth as a meaningful, substantive, or rational topic for discussion or consideration is, imho, absurdly ludicrous. Hence, my admiration of your patience! Good luck in your medication administration to the intellectually dead walking among us under the guise of “spiritual” ANYTHING, let alone insight or wisdom............peace fellas!
When we were having the Great SIT Debate, I noticed that I was able to change minds by sticking to the facts and evidence while others resorted to wishful thinking and distortion of expert testimony.
That's how I feel about this excuse for a debate.
People are reading, and if they are being honest, they know who is presenting evidence and who is presenting excuses.
But I appreciate your input, DWBH. You certainly have a point.
I admire your patience in continuing to debate with those who have clearly renounced the use of reason. It is an exercise in futility, imho, and as Thomas Paine said, it’s like “administering medicine to the dead.” LOL!
i say this not as a matter of condescending sarcasm, but as an objective view of the numerous grand debates throughout the course of mankind's history regarding the fundamentally contrary positions of reason versus faith. Oftentimes, the conclusion on both “sides” is that they tend to be mutually exclusive, precisely because their definition of terms is contradictory.
For example, take the word “evidence”. The “spiritual” definition of the bastardization of the meaning of “evidence” is epitomized by dictor paul’s incessant repetition of, ”Speaking in tongues is the manifestation in the senses realm, of the internal reality and presence of holy spirit. The evidence that you are born again from on high and that you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you!”.
This is a slick cover-up of the old logical fallacy of false equivalence. DP gets the “student” to equate speaking in tongues as MATERIAL EVIDENCE in the “senses realm” of holy spirit present in the person speaking. The cognitive dissonance of the illogic is smoothed over by the invention of a non-existent “spiritual realm” equal, if not superior to, the realm of the incomplete “natural man” which is unfortunately limited to only what she/he can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. However, every mammal on Earth learns everything it ever knows like that, so limiting mankind to the realm of incomplete “body and soul”, discounts or eliminates that which really sets humanity apart from all the other mammals....THE ABILITY TO THINK/REASON at a higher level than any other species on the planet. Once you can get a human being to equate being “limited to the 5 senses” to the need for the superior “spiritual knowledge” that SOMEONE ELSE owns the secret to, you diminish that person’s ability to THINK, and convince that person that she/he NEEDS the completion that only “God” can bring in order to really “know that you know that you know!” what the TRUTH is and what the meaning and purpose of life is. Neat trick used by every successful snakeoil salesman in history. LOL!
So, for the statement I quoted at the opening of this post to even be put forth as a meaningful, substantive, or rational topic for discussion or consideration is, imho, absurdly ludicrous. Hence, my admiration of your patience! Good luck in your medication administration to the intellectually dead walking among us under the guise of “spiritual” ANYTHING, let alone insight or wisdom............peace fellas!
LOL! As Raf said, you make a good point (I'd say, a GREAT point).
However, I don't consider my role in this "discussion" as having anything to do with patience... because I have ZERO expectation for a rational outcome that might include changing anything TLC believes.
I'm not really trying to get anyone to change his mind as much as I am trying to expose the embarrassing condescension behind the notion that God did not provide adequate evidence for the resurrection because he didn't want smart people to have an unfair advantage, a proposition that, by the way, can be found nowhere in scripture.
Honestly, i would be embarrassed if someone defended my belief system by proclaiming it ran counter to how smart people would interpret the evidence. Nothing in the Bible even hints at the suggestion that objective evidence is the enemy of the gospel. It's only when you recognize the evidence leads to an embarrassing conclusion that people suddenly try to claim there's a natural dichotomy between faith and evidence when it comes to the resurrection.
The apostles would be humiliated by the argument, as would Paul and his 500 unnamed witnesses the gospel writers never bothered to document [because it never f-ing happened].
The whole point of the gospels and Acts is to demonstrate that the evidence favors the resurrection. How embarrassed would the writers be to discover, 2000 years later, their defenders admitting the actual evidence is not on their side.
Claims are not evidence. The gospels and Acts are not evidence. They are claims that do not stand the test of objective scrutiny.
So, for the statement I quoted at the opening of this post to even be put forth as a meaningful, substantive, or rational topic for discussion or consideration is, imho, absurdly ludicrous.
How convenient for you to only quote part of the post, to make it appear as though those statements were something (anything) other than at attempt to clarify what Raf had said previously. Par for the course, I suppose. Aside from that, however, I don't disagree with or object to most of the rest of your post, other than to note that the ability to "think/reason at a higher level" alludes to doing so in a manner that can (or at least, might) take into consideration the possibility that there certain (invisible) realities that are only possible to ascertain through the use of reasoning at ahigher level!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Raf
"Spiritual perspective" assumes that which you are trying to prove and is invalid as evidence because of circular reasoning.
It needs to be repeated: every religion has some variation of "believe first, then see."
The result is people willing to force square pegs into round holes because they now have a vested interest in the outcome of the subject or phenomenon they are questioning.
Remember when you said "resurrections don't happen" as the reason evidence wouldn't lead to the resurrection? Ever wonder why I didn't repeat that? Because it would be circular reasoning. I can't say the resurrection didn't happen because resurrections don't happen. That is assuming what I'm trying to prove.
In order to ascertain whether something happened, you have to evaluate the evidence that it did. And the evidence for the resurrection is poor: five accounts written by non-witnesses decades up to a century after it happened. Paul's account of seeing the risen Christ is as self-serving as Joseph Smith's claim of translating golden plates.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John craft historical novels that betray themselves at every opportunity (no way do the first three leave out the resurrection of Lazarus if it really happened; no way did Pilate free a condemned man on Passover... whose name just happened to be Jesus Son of the Father. Joseph of Arimathea didn't exist because Arimathea, which means best disciple, didn't exist).
We've already been over the post resurrection contradictions.
We have zero firsthand accounts from the apostles. No accounts of their transformation from timid fishermen to bold spokesmen for God who escape from prison following undocumented earthquakes.
There is not a single documented historical account of anyone in a position to know refusing to renounce the resurrection on pain of death.
Empty tomb? There was none. The descriptions in the gospels defy common sense. It belonged to someone who didn't exist.
Paul. never. cited. the. empty. tomb. as. evidence.
And he claimed there were 500 witnesses... an appearance no gospel writer found worth mentioning.
To say the evidence is lacking is being generous.
"Spiritual perspective" bypasses the reasoning process by assuming what you are trying to prove. It is not evidence.
I cannot assume resurrections don't happen to prove the resurrection didn't happen. You cannot assume it did happen to prove it happened. That's only fair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps there is simply an incontrovertible difference that resides within "what all" is and/or isn't factored into said evaluation.
All that you seem to be willing to include or accept into your evaluation of the question (did Jesus rise from the dead?), is scientific or material (i.e., physical) evidence directly associated with or touching the living Christ. Now, I do think that this was (to some degree) available to those in the early part of the book of Acts, as this would align with what is written in scripture on how God typically dealt with Israel in "signs, miracles, and wonders" (most notably starting with Moses.) Hence, it is written, that Israel required (and sought after) a sign. While this sort of evidence may have been particularly relevant in that day, not only do I think that such evidence doesn't exist today, but that it would work against what is purposed and intended for our day and time. The means of approach that God used with Israel (signs, miracles, wonders, etc.) may have worked temporarily... but, at least thus far, seems to have been rather weak or ineffective at establishing any sort long term or lasting results. Besides, why else would Christ ascend into (or through, if you prefer) the heavens and be removed from the sight of all men?
This doesn't mean that there is absolutely nothing left to evaluate for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not something (i.e., the resurrection) happened. It does, however, require a shift in focus away from only the kind of evidence referred to in the previous paragraph. The aforementioned evidence requires a "zooming in" on the bits and pieces. Perhaps the other requires more of a "zooming out," and a more intensive consideration of the whole of life... the reason for it, etc. It's not the "abandonment of logic" which you seem inclined to suppose, but rather, it's a very different approach to evaluating the issue, and ascertaining whether or not it happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The goalposts just won't stay still. "Zooming in" and "zooming out" is fair. You still need to consider the evidence. That's not the same as "spiritual perception," as I addressed earlier.
But when zooming and and zooming out, if you accept non-evidence AS evidence, you beg the question, creating a circular reasoning trap you cannot escape. The moment you say "the means of approach that God used with Israel," you've fallen into the trap. You are now taking as a given that which you are trying to prove. How did God deal with Israel? By parting the Red Sea and destroying the Egyptian Army (never happened)? By leading the Israelites out of Egypt (never happened)? By Noah's flood (never happened)? You cannot assume that which you are trying to prove and cite it as proof of that which you have assumed!
I mean, you can. You just can't make a logical argument for it without being called on it.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Bottom line? You're not going to be convinced by any kind of rational argument/logic. Neither will I be convinced by any argument you put forth.
Edited by RockyHowever, the book Irrationality: a History of the Dark Side of Reason by Justin E.H. Smith includes this:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Once you accept the unprovable as proof, nothing is unprovable.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It's quite twisted (of course)... but, not completely out in left field (from the post below.)
There's an obvious difference (or at least, should be obvious) between ascertaining whether something is real, and proving it is real.
Evidently your believing is bound to what can be proven. (Which is not at all uncommon, especially for those that tend more to their intellectual side.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I repeat that which is not refuted but merely repeated:
One you accept tht which is unprovable as true, nothing is unprovable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
What difference is there (in your thinking), if there is any, between that and either of the two statements below (which also, may or may not mean the same thing to you)?
Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be accepted as true.
Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be believed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Please explain HOW you can tell the difference between something you spiritually "ascertain" and a thought just popping into your head from who knows where.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
How does your brain know for sure where any thought or sensation comes from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh please.
I'm thinking of a number between one and infinity.
If you are connected to an omniscient God, tell me the number.
Every single religion has a variation of "believe and you will see."
You haven't addressed facts. You haven't refuted or contested the findings of educated professionals. All you have done is placed non evidence on the same plane as educated analyses of factual material. Seeing that your non evidence is inadequate, you declare it spiritual and claim that it's an Insight from the Almighty.
Muhammad could do that. Joseph Smith could do that. Victor Paul wierwille could do that. Any idiot could do that. But there's no evidence to support it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I repeat:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Looking at this as a purely academic exercise, the answer to that question lies in The Advanced Class. According to the definitions Wierwille swiped from somebody (might have been B.G. Leonard), if something is revelation, it would be impossible to ascertain said information via the five senses. If you need the exact definitions from the class, I have them here somewhere. Probably using the syllabus to prop up a wobbly table leg or something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
There is barely proof he existed, much less rose from the dead.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Spiritual insight is literally the opposite of evidence.
Belittling actual evidence with unnecessary qualifiers like "material" or "senses" betrays a lack of confidence in the non-evidence being asserted as equally valuable.
Evidence is evidence. If God is telling you something, prove it. Give me the number (which I have already disclosed to another poster so I can't pretend you were wrong if you are right).
Nobody in the initial posts or videos on this thread claimed the resurrection happened because God said so. All point to evidence, failing to recognize the embarrassing flaws in Luke and Acts.
Defend Luke! Defend the gospel writers! But "spiritual insight" is a chicken-sh*t excuse for recognizing the evidence opposes your position.
God told me you're full of sh*t.
Now, based on the evidence, who's right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Redirect and define things however you want, Raf. Doesn't make you or what you say right, and it sure doesn't indicate that you comprehend much of anything that I've said on the matter. Frankly, it was so ridiculous to me that anyone would say or might think that the "proof" (or evidence, if you prefer) they have for the resurrection is obtained by revelation (which was plainly alluded to), that I'm inclined to think your own chosen verbiage (i.e., "spiritual insight") and view of it probably isn't much different.
Not all evidence is "black or white," and not all evidence is conclusive. Neither is all evidence always obvious, or "verifiable." Personal witness and testimonies are often part of the evidence presented in any courtroom of law, where a jury is used to render a verdict on what the truth is. In short, your huffing and puffing here about certain qualifiers and that "evidence is evidence" really means nothing, other than you don't like the qualifiers. However, right from the get go you made it abundantly clear that you are tossing out and will nullify the evidence and testimony of scripture. So, aside from that, I likewise plainly stated that considered from a material (physical senses only) perspective, there isn't going to be any of the kind of evidence that you were looking for.
However, there can be (and are) reasons (transcending that which is written in scripture) for arriving at (i.e., ascertaining) a belief in (the truth of) the resurrection of Christ from the dead, that require an individual to "render a verdict." And even though you said that "Zooming in" and "zooming out" is fair, apparently you still either: (1) have no idea what I might have been referring to, or (2) have no idea how to do it as it relates to this particular issue. But, go ahead and plod along with your fun here. What you think of me or my view on the matter isn't going to change any.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Agreed. And we have none.
Have you noticed that? Because it seems to have zipped right past you.
You want to talk about what's accepted in a court of law (where i spend 80% of my working days)? OOH. LET'S!
Witness testimony is respected. Hearsay (i heard from a friend whose cousin was dating a guy whose grandfather said he witnessed the resurrection) is not respected in a court of law. And that is literally all we have in the gospels
You know what else is accepted in a court of law? Expert testimony from the very people you harrumph as "intellectuals." You know, the ones who authenticate whether things like Hitler's diaries and II Timothy are actually written by their purported authors or by Epstein's mother or by a LIAR who's trying to mislead the gullible.
Let me ask you something:
Mary Magdalene was the first witness of the resurrection, right? Where the f did she go? Her presence is, at best, implied in Acts 1. And then she's gone. Poof.
Ever been to Arimathea? If so, you'd be the only one.
If you were walking from San Diego to Las Vegas, would you stop in Portland, Oregon? Because that is as ridiculous as what the Gospel of Mark has Jesus do during one of his constitutionals.
Aside from Barabbas, name one person Pilate released on Passover in accordance with his annual tradition. If he did this every year, there has to be some record of this policy, some resentment that an insurrectionist was spared because of a holiday. Pilate had no such policy. The gospels lied.
Point being, the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are not based on eyewitness accounts. They are based on hearsay handed down for at least a generation, likely more.
So PLEASE, let's use acceptable in court as a standard. It would literally leave you with no credible evidence for the resurrection at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually I provided significant facts that lead a reasonable person to conclude that scripture is not "evidence" but a CLAIM.
Joseph Smith had three witnesses sign a document swearing that they had seen the golden tablets from which the book of Mormon were translated. They were actual people who signed their documents, unlike the gospel writers, and yet we all rightly discount them as bullsh*t lies.
By what standard do you deny their testimony but accept the error-laden testimony of cowards who won't sign their names to what they wrote and were wrong about every claim they made that could be cross-referenced? Like the timing of Jesus' birth, the Quirinian census that required people to register where they did not live, the [non existent] slaughter of the innocents, Pilate's Passover traditions?
If I got that many facts wrong I would be fired, not defended as "God-breathed."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Perhaps Raf could get a part-time gig as a J-school adjunct teaching classes developed by University of Washington professors Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf and Rocky......
I admire your patience in continuing to debate with those who have clearly renounced the use of reason. It is an exercise in futility, imho, and as Thomas Paine said, it’s like “administering medicine to the dead.” LOL!
i say this not as a matter of condescending sarcasm, but as an objective view of the numerous grand debates throughout the course of mankind's history regarding the fundamentally contrary positions of reason versus faith. Oftentimes, the conclusion on both “sides” is that they tend to be mutually exclusive, precisely because their definition of terms is contradictory.
For example, take the word “evidence”. The “spiritual” definition of the bastardization of the meaning of “evidence” is epitomized by dictor paul’s incessant repetition of, ”Speaking in tongues is the manifestation in the senses realm, of the internal reality and presence of holy spirit. The evidence that you are born again from on high and that you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you!”.
This is a slick cover-up of the old logical fallacy of false equivalence. DP gets the “student” to equate speaking in tongues as MATERIAL EVIDENCE in the “senses realm” of holy spirit present in the person speaking. The cognitive dissonance of the illogic is smoothed over by the invention of a non-existent “spiritual realm” equal, if not superior to, the realm of the incomplete “natural man” which is unfortunately limited to only what she/he can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. However, every mammal on Earth learns everything it ever knows like that, so limiting mankind to the realm of incomplete “body and soul”, discounts or eliminates that which really sets humanity apart from all the other mammals....THE ABILITY TO THINK/REASON at a higher level than any other species on the planet. Once you can get a human being to equate being “limited to the 5 senses” to the need for the superior “spiritual knowledge” that SOMEONE ELSE owns the secret to, you diminish that person’s ability to THINK, and convince that person that she/he NEEDS the completion that only “God” can bring in order to really “know that you know that you know!” what the TRUTH is and what the meaning and purpose of life is. Neat trick used by every successful snakeoil salesman in history. LOL!
So, for the statement I quoted at the opening of this post to even be put forth as a meaningful, substantive, or rational topic for discussion or consideration is, imho, absurdly ludicrous. Hence, my admiration of your patience! Good luck in your medication administration to the intellectually dead walking among us under the guise of “spiritual” ANYTHING, let alone insight or wisdom............peace fellas!
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When we were having the Great SIT Debate, I noticed that I was able to change minds by sticking to the facts and evidence while others resorted to wishful thinking and distortion of expert testimony.
That's how I feel about this excuse for a debate.
People are reading, and if they are being honest, they know who is presenting evidence and who is presenting excuses.
But I appreciate your input, DWBH. You certainly have a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
LOL! As Raf said, you make a good point (I'd say, a GREAT point).
Edited by RockyHowever, I don't consider my role in this "discussion" as having anything to do with patience... because I have ZERO expectation for a rational outcome that might include changing anything TLC believes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not really trying to get anyone to change his mind as much as I am trying to expose the embarrassing condescension behind the notion that God did not provide adequate evidence for the resurrection because he didn't want smart people to have an unfair advantage, a proposition that, by the way, can be found nowhere in scripture.
Honestly, i would be embarrassed if someone defended my belief system by proclaiming it ran counter to how smart people would interpret the evidence. Nothing in the Bible even hints at the suggestion that objective evidence is the enemy of the gospel. It's only when you recognize the evidence leads to an embarrassing conclusion that people suddenly try to claim there's a natural dichotomy between faith and evidence when it comes to the resurrection.
The apostles would be humiliated by the argument, as would Paul and his 500 unnamed witnesses the gospel writers never bothered to document [because it never f-ing happened].
The whole point of the gospels and Acts is to demonstrate that the evidence favors the resurrection. How embarrassed would the writers be to discover, 2000 years later, their defenders admitting the actual evidence is not on their side.
Claims are not evidence. The gospels and Acts are not evidence. They are claims that do not stand the test of objective scrutiny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
How convenient for you to only quote part of the post, to make it appear as though those statements were something (anything) other than at attempt to clarify what Raf had said previously. Par for the course, I suppose. Aside from that, however, I don't disagree with or object to most of the rest of your post, other than to note that the ability to "think/reason at a higher level" alludes to doing so in a manner that can (or at least, might) take into consideration the possibility that there certain (invisible) realities that are only possible to ascertain through the use of reasoning at a higher level!
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.