A few years ago, Ken Hamm debate Bill Nye on the subject of evolution.
Ken is not a scientist, but he's a young earth creationist who's studied the subject extensively and is no slouch. (He's an idiot, in my opinion, but he's not a stupid idiot).
Bill Nye is not a scientist either, but he is an advocate for science education.
So both men were asked, what would change your mind?
Ken said, Nothing. Nothing will change his mind. Nothing will shake his faith. Nothing can convince him that the Word of God is not true.
Bill Nye's answer: Evidence. Show me the evidence and I will change my mind.
I don't think it's a virtue to say I won't change my mind. I will. But with evidence.
And that's the key difference here. CLAIMS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Appeals to emotion are not evidence. Non sequiturs (like Romans 1) are not evidence.
When we say something like "the disciples saw him and did not believe," we are making an assumption that the story told in that particular gospel is true. It's not. It's a claim, and one that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. Mary Magdalene's silence is a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. When did Peter get to the tomb? John gives us a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject.
You know, when The Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield contradicts Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire, which contradicts Spider-Man Homecoming starring Tom Holland, which contradicts Spider-Man starring Nicholas Hammond, you don't try to harmonize the four accounts. Rather, you recognize each as a work of fiction interpreted by different storytellers. But name those storytellers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (even though those were NOT the authors of those books) and suddenly they're historians!
They're fiction writers.
So believe what you want, but real investigation does not begin with a conclusion.
Frankly, I don't see why (or how) believing in the resurrection of Christ would ever result from the intellectual processing of "evidence," for some number of reasons.
Perhaps this is a bit repetitive, but any and all experiential (or, experimental - if you prefer) evidence (as commonly defined) actually leads to the opposite conclusion - there isn't any resurrection from death. The simple fact is, the ONLY reason anyone nowadays (really) believes that Christ was raised from the dead and lives forevermore, is that they have opened themselves up to the possibility that they won't (rather, that they just can't) make it - or "make sense of it" (... I'm hesitant to think this can be strictly defined, or narrowed down to certain few words) - with their own limited and/or failed abilities.
If it (i.e., believing in the resurrection of Christ, which equates to salvation) were dependent on man's intellectual prowess or ability to "put together the evidence" (however you care to say or think of it)... then there is little doubt that those that were smarter or endowed with more intellectual or reasoning ability (or maybe even just "better access" to evidence) would be at the front of the line for salvation. Making God a respecter of persons, don't you think? Why so advantage some, if that were the case, when it comes to salvation?
Not very persuasive, and not in keeping with the opening posts on this thread, but nonetheless well said without being unnecessarily argumentative... and not the slightest bit personal.
Well done. I'll take some time either later this evening or, more likely, tomorrow to respond.
Why did I say it was not in keeping with the opening posts? Because the opening post on this thread features a video of William Lane Craig, and Craig does NOT argue that the evidence would lead one to conclude that the resurrection did not happen. Quite the opposite, Craig's argument is that the gospels are historical, irrefutable proof of the resurrection. He treats the empty tomb as historical fact, based on the gospels. He does NOT argue that God wants to throw smart people off the scent.
11 hours ago, TLC said:
Ifit (i.e., believing in the resurrection of Christ, which equates to salvation) were dependent on man's intellectual prowess or ability to "put together the evidence" (however you care to say or think of it)... then there is little doubt that those that were smarter or endowed with more intellectual or reasoning ability (or maybe even just "better access" to evidence) would be at the front of the line for salvation. Making God a respecter of persons, don't you think?
If I were still a Christian, I would be insulted by the insinuation.
But no, I do not think providing tangible evidence that the resurrection happened would make God a respecter of persons, ffs. Quite the opposite, I think it would make him someone who would have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.
This is really a very clear example of moving the goalposts.
We start a debate with "the evidence points to the resurrection" and literally, within a few pages of posts, change it to "the evidence points away from the resurrection: That's why you have to be humble, like me, to accept it."
It reminds me of Weird Al's parody of "Gangsta's Paradise," titled, "Amish Paradise."
Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? Well, I know I'm a MILLION times as humble as thou art!"
Funny thing, humility. Claiming it proves you don't have it. What you're describing is not humility. It's gullibility. Accepting something as true when the evidence shows you it's not is gullibility. It's not a virtue.
Well, if adapting (for lack of a better word) one's fundamental basis for reality (i.e., what is true) so as to allow for "help from above" (as another way to say it) is (as seems to be in your mind) only perceived as some sort of abandonment of (or disregard for) genuine intelligence or sound reasoning, then that appears to be the perspective of someone that has never actually (or genuinely) experienced help from above.
Yet when you claim that it takes humility to accept the resurrection and that you accept the resurrection, you claim the mantle of humility.
Yes, I do think it takes a certain humility for anyone to accept (i.e., believe) the resurrection, however said "certain humility" is not something that anyone should (nor can) lay claim to or don as something unique, "special" or in some weird way ubiquitous unto themselves. It's much too easy to find oneself moved or transitioned from an honest sense of humility to a rather high and mighty position of "more worth" and self-righteousness. So, please stop labeling this as some kind of moral justification or emotional rationalization (and/or stop taking it as a personal assault) and lay it (humility) down (and keep it) where it belongs.
1 hour ago, Raf said:
I contend that you do not accept the resurrection because you know it to be true, but despite the fact that you know it to be a fiction.
Then allow me to be perfectly clearly here: Your conclusion is false and your contention has absolutely no merit.
To repeat (in so many words), We simply do not share or have exactly the same basis for reality (i.e., what it true, or "real.") You limit your reality to what is or can be received via the physical senses. I do not. I believe that "reality" not merely can be... but is, determined (i.e., set in order) and augmented by the (invisible) logos (aka, "the Word of God".)
1 hour ago, Raf said:
Else you would defend it with facts, not with the contention that the facts lead to the opposite conclusion.
Your reality is determined in its entirely by, and communicated exclusively in terms of, "facts."
Yes, I do think it takes a certain humility for anyone to accept (i.e., believe) the resurrection, however said "certain humility" is not something that anyone should (nor can) lay claim to or don as something unique, "special" or in some weird way ubiquitous unto themselves.
I don't think the word ubiquitous means what you think it means. Then again, I could be wrong.
I don't think the wordubiquitousmeans what you think it means. Then again, I could be wrong.
I'm aware of its meaning. The point of it being, humility isn't. Not even with the "most humble" of men. Perhaps there's another way to say it, buy it was as poignant a way as I could think of at the time.
Surely not reason, which you have gleefully abandoned.
Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable... which I see as being a very erroneous premise.
However, I really don't care to delve much into why it is. (Especially given the degree of entrenchment you've expressed in that regard.)
You "reason" one way, and I reason another way. I have no issue seeing or admitting that, but apparently you do. Anything not done (i.e., reasoned) "your way" is ALWAYS thought of as being inferior, logically deficient, without merit, and (if little else)... void of reason.
Now, go right ahead and think or call this some sort of ad hominine attack on you, personally. But honestly speaking, it's not. It's faulting the perspective that you have presented on what is (or can be thought of as being) "reasonable."
When the apostle Paul, as his manner was, reasoned with various men in his day and time... do you likewise think (as you have done thus far) that because he based many of his words and thoughts on scripture that he too had "gleefully abandoned" reason? Or, perhaps you suppose that his (or anyone else's, for that matter) manner of reasoning was only valid (or reasonable) to the point that it contained or was based on hard factual (material) evidence. Frankly, it a bit of a challenge to me trying to understand why you're so stuck on "cold hard facts," so to speak. There's just too many times it seems that "said facts" (i.e., evidences) are incomplete, and eventually end up moving or changing.
Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable... which I see as being a very erroneous premise.
However, I really don't care to delve much into why it is. (Especially given the degree of entrenchment you've expressed in that regard.)
You "reason" one way, and I reason another way. I have no issue seeing or admitting that, but apparently you do. Anything not done (i.e., reasoned) "your way" is ALWAYS thought of as being inferior, logically deficient, without merit, and (if little else)... void of reason.
Now, go right ahead and think or call this some sort of ad hominine attack on you, personally. But honestly speaking, it's not. It's faulting the perspective that you have presented on what is (or can be thought of as being) "reasonable."
When the apostle Paul, as his manner was, reasoned with various men in his day and time... do you likewise think (as you have done thus far) that because he based many of his words and thoughts on scripture that he too had "gleefully abandoned" reason? Or, perhaps you suppose that his (or anyone else's, for that matter) manner of reasoning was only valid (or reasonable) to the point that it contained or was based on hard factual (material) evidence. Frankly, it a bit of a challenge to me trying to understand why you're so stuck on "cold hard facts," so to speak. There's just too many times it seems that "said facts" (i.e., evidences) are incomplete, and eventually end up moving or changing.
TLC, just curious, can you back up that claim (about the erroneous premise) with scripture?
The record of Daniel and some of his pals suggests that material facts provide a reasonable basis for decision making. In fact, the record in Daniel chapter 1 provides the basis for how to model scientific experiments, specifically medical research.
3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility—4 young men without any physical defect, handsome,showing aptitude for every kind of learning,well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the languageand literature of the Babylonians.[b]5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food and winefrom the king’s table.They were to be trained for three years,and after that they were to enter the king’s service.
6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel,Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.7 The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar;to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.
8But Daniel resolved not to defilehimself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way.9 Now God had caused the official to show favorand compassionto Daniel,10 but the official told Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your[c]food and drink.Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you.”
11 Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah,12 “Please testyour servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink.13 Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.”14 So he agreed to this and testedthem for ten days.
15 At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food.16 So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.
That model is now known as randomized control trials. Take equal numbers of test subjects, give half a placebo, and half the medication they want to test.
Record the results and RELY on said results and data for decisions and judgment.
Why didn't God tell Daniel to just tell Ashpenaz that he had special instructions from God?
While this may be only indirectly related to the thread topic of the question on the Resurrection of Christ, it does go to TLC's argument against rational argument. (Three comments above this one)
That concept (as TLC set it forth for us) has bothered me for quite some time. Besides TWI being caught up in fundamentalism, it's also fundamentally flawed regarding what really boils down to intuition. But VeePee taught the concept as "reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar." We've seen, both here on GSC and in other forums/platforms, things argued as truth/fact that simply lack any kind of legitimate reasoning or factual basis.
I'm reading a book by Rutger Bregman at this time. The book has political undertones and overtones and major themes. But that's not why I bring it up. Chapter 9 of Bregman's book is titled Beyond the Gates of the Land of Plenty. In that chapter, Bregman cites Daniel 1 for the first historical record of randomized control trials. And he gives great examples of how, not limited to trying out new pharmaceuticals, policy decisions that previously had been made on spendings immense amounts of money solely on the basis of intuition sometimes worked but often failed.
He then demonstrates, with extensive citation of source documentation, how evidence data takes the guess work out of the equation and makes all the difference in the world on outcomes that can make a difference in the lives of people.
My point is that I simply am appalled at the brazenness of TLC's silly irrational argument about what more reasonably should be labeled human intuition rather than revelation from God. Forty years ago, I bought into the silly irrational way of thinking. I don't anymore. But I don't consider myself atheist.
Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable... which I see as being a very erroneous premise.
13 hours ago, Rocky said:
TLC, just curious, can you back up that claim (about the erroneous premise) with scripture?
It's not a claim per se; it's my perspective on it... which quite frankly, seems (as evidenced below) that you have very little (if any) real or honest interest in.
12 hours ago, Rocky said:
My point is that I simply am appalled at the brazenness of TLC's silly irrational argument
You've already made up your mind, and seem to have it all figured out already.
But here's the rub. You totally missed what I was even talking about. (But go ahead, feel free to blame me for failing to communicate it properly, and take no blame yourself for failing to see it. I'm sure it's not the first or last time I'll be accused like that.)
12 hours ago, Rocky said:
While this may be only indirectly related to the thread topic of the question on the Resurrection of Christ, it does go to TLC's argument against rational argument. (Three comments above this one)
As I am not opposed to rational thinking based on material facts (and never said something as stupid or as silly as that.)
Evidently you missed this:
17 hours ago, TLC said:
You "reason" one way, and I reason another way. I have no issue seeing or admitting that,
The issue at hand undoubtedly resides in seeing or understanding the difference between a reality based exclusively on material (i.e., physical) evidence, and reality based (or formulated, if you prefer) on such evidence augmented with spiritual (aka, invisible) information. The later doesn't exclude or deny the former, it supersedes it.
12 hours ago, Rocky said:
But I don't consider myself atheist.
So what? There's far more agnostics than atheists, not to mention the many that think or claim to be Christian, that are still bound in their thinking to the limits of their physical senses.
If you really (i.e., more honestly) want scriptural support for examples of reasoning beyond the boundaries of the physical sense, some of the easier to grasp examples of it are probably found in the Pauline epistles. (Although, perhaps you - like others of note here at GSC - don't really recognize and consider those writing as being "scripture.")
For instance, what "material facts" do you think Paul used as a reasonable basis to conclude (Eph. 2:19) that these Gentiles at Ephesis (to who he was writing) were fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God? Or, for that matter, that Jesus was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification (Rom. 4:25)?
I really wish I could chime in on this, but I'm not too proud to say that you guys are talking way over my head. And my parents never had the money to bribe me into a college that would take my poor pathetic grades. I do have a dog I bribed into obedience school for 125 dollars though. Sorry. I felt I had to chime in and let you know I'm trying to follow this, but I'm just having a really hard time. Excuse the interruption.
I really wish I could chime in on this, but I'm not too proud to say that you guys are talking way over my head. And my parents never had the money to bribe me into a college that would take my poor pathetic grades. I do have a dog I bribed into obedience school for 125 dollars though. Sorry. I felt I had to chime in and let you know I'm trying to follow this, but I'm just having a really hard time. Excuse the interruption.
It's really not all that complicated. It boils down to our perception and understanding of reality. In other words, what we believe is real (or true.)
Consider, for example, 2Kings 6:15-20.
What was real?
...depends on what (or who's) perspective you are looking at it from.
Or, does it? Did "what was real" in the situation actually change?
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
Likewise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Frankly, I don't see why (or how) believing in the resurrection of Christ would ever result from the intellectual processing of "evidence," for some number of reasons.
Perhaps this is a bit repetitive, but any and all experiential (or, experimental - if you prefer) evidence (as commonly defined) actually leads to the opposite conclusion - there isn't any resurrection from death. The simple fact is, the ONLY reason anyone nowadays (really) believes that Christ was raised from the dead and lives forevermore, is that they have opened themselves up to the possibility that they won't (rather, that they just can't) make it - or "make sense of it" (... I'm hesitant to think this can be strictly defined, or narrowed down to certain few words) - with their own limited and/or failed abilities.
If it (i.e., believing in the resurrection of Christ, which equates to salvation) were dependent on man's intellectual prowess or ability to "put together the evidence" (however you care to say or think of it)... then there is little doubt that those that were smarter or endowed with more intellectual or reasoning ability (or maybe even just "better access" to evidence) would be at the front of the line for salvation. Making God a respecter of persons, don't you think? Why so advantage some, if that were the case, when it comes to salvation?
Edited by TLCadded italicized words
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That was actually very well articulated.
Not very persuasive, and not in keeping with the opening posts on this thread, but nonetheless well said without being unnecessarily argumentative... and not the slightest bit personal.
Well done. I'll take some time either later this evening or, more likely, tomorrow to respond.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Why did I say it was not in keeping with the opening posts? Because the opening post on this thread features a video of William Lane Craig, and Craig does NOT argue that the evidence would lead one to conclude that the resurrection did not happen. Quite the opposite, Craig's argument is that the gospels are historical, irrefutable proof of the resurrection. He treats the empty tomb as historical fact, based on the gospels. He does NOT argue that God wants to throw smart people off the scent.
If I were still a Christian, I would be insulted by the insinuation.
But no, I do not think providing tangible evidence that the resurrection happened would make God a respecter of persons, ffs. Quite the opposite, I think it would make him someone who would have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.
This is really a very clear example of moving the goalposts.
We start a debate with "the evidence points to the resurrection" and literally, within a few pages of posts, change it to "the evidence points away from the resurrection: That's why you have to be humble, like me, to accept it."
It reminds me of Weird Al's parody of "Gangsta's Paradise," titled, "Amish Paradise."
Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? Well, I know I'm a MILLION times as humble as thou art!"
Funny thing, humility. Claiming it proves you don't have it. What you're describing is not humility. It's gullibility. Accepting something as true when the evidence shows you it's not is gullibility. It's not a virtue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, if adapting (for lack of a better word) one's fundamental basis for reality (i.e., what is true) so as to allow for "help from above" (as another way to say it) is (as seems to be in your mind) only perceived as some sort of abandonment of (or disregard for) genuine intelligence or sound reasoning, then that appears to be the perspective of someone that has never actually (or genuinely) experienced help from above.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Incidentally, the following are exclusively your words and thoughts, and do not in any way come anywhere even remotely close to mine:
In a broad and generally sense of the word, yes, I do not think humility is anyone here's longsuit. (Myself included.)
So there...
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yet when you claim that it takes humility to accept the resurrection and that you accept the resurrection, you claim the mantle of humility.
I contend that you do not accept the resurrection because you know it to be true, but despite the fact that you know it to be a fiction.
Else you would defend it with facts, not with the contention that the facts lead to the opposite conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yes, I do think it takes a certain humility for anyone to accept (i.e., believe) the resurrection, however said "certain humility" is not something that anyone should (nor can) lay claim to or don as something unique, "special" or in some weird way ubiquitous unto themselves. It's much too easy to find oneself moved or transitioned from an honest sense of humility to a rather high and mighty position of "more worth" and self-righteousness. So, please stop labeling this as some kind of moral justification or emotional rationalization (and/or stop taking it as a personal assault) and lay it (humility) down (and keep it) where it belongs.
Then allow me to be perfectly clearly here: Your conclusion is false and your contention has absolutely no merit.
To repeat (in so many words), We simply do not share or have exactly the same basis for reality (i.e., what it true, or "real.") You limit your reality to what is or can be received via the physical senses. I do not. I believe that "reality" not merely can be... but is, determined (i.e., set in order) and augmented by the (invisible) logos (aka, "the Word of God".)
Your reality is determined in its entirely by, and communicated exclusively in terms of, "facts."
Mine is not, nor can it be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You have not countered my contention. Only expanded upon it.
Good day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm not actually surprised that you can't relate to it or make much sense of it, but I suspect some of the other readers that visit here might.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Based on what?
Surely not reason, which you have gleefully abandoned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
sorry. i meant Humbly Abandoned
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Honestly, this was over the moment you admitted the evidence would lead to my conclusion and not yours.
This is a discussion forum, not a "who shall not be moved no matter where the evidence may lead" contest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I don't think the word ubiquitous means what you think it means. Then again, I could be wrong.
adjective
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
sigh...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm aware of its meaning. The point of it being, humility isn't. Not even with the "most humble" of men. Perhaps there's another way to say it, buy it was as poignant a way as I could think of at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable... which I see as being a very erroneous premise.
However, I really don't care to delve much into why it is. (Especially given the degree of entrenchment you've expressed in that regard.)
You "reason" one way, and I reason another way. I have no issue seeing or admitting that, but apparently you do. Anything not done (i.e., reasoned) "your way" is ALWAYS thought of as being inferior, logically deficient, without merit, and (if little else)... void of reason.
Now, go right ahead and think or call this some sort of ad hominine attack on you, personally. But honestly speaking, it's not. It's faulting the perspective that you have presented on what is (or can be thought of as being) "reasonable."
When the apostle Paul, as his manner was, reasoned with various men in his day and time... do you likewise think (as you have done thus far) that because he based many of his words and thoughts on scripture that he too had "gleefully abandoned" reason? Or, perhaps you suppose that his (or anyone else's, for that matter) manner of reasoning was only valid (or reasonable) to the point that it contained or was based on hard factual (material) evidence. Frankly, it a bit of a challenge to me trying to understand why you're so stuck on "cold hard facts," so to speak. There's just too many times it seems that "said facts" (i.e., evidences) are incomplete, and eventually end up moving or changing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
TLC, just curious, can you back up that claim (about the erroneous premise) with scripture?
The record of Daniel and some of his pals suggests that material facts provide a reasonable basis for decision making. In fact, the record in Daniel chapter 1 provides the basis for how to model scientific experiments, specifically medical research.
3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome,showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians.[b] 5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table.They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.
6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel,Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7 The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.
8 But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. 9 Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel, 10 but the official told Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your[c] food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you.”
11 Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, 12 “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink.13 Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.”14 So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days.
15 At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16 So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That model is now known as randomized control trials. Take equal numbers of test subjects, give half a placebo, and half the medication they want to test.
Record the results and RELY on said results and data for decisions and judgment.
Why didn't God tell Daniel to just tell Ashpenaz that he had special instructions from God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
While this may be only indirectly related to the thread topic of the question on the Resurrection of Christ, it does go to TLC's argument against rational argument. (Three comments above this one)
That concept (as TLC set it forth for us) has bothered me for quite some time. Besides TWI being caught up in fundamentalism, it's also fundamentally flawed regarding what really boils down to intuition. But VeePee taught the concept as "reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar." We've seen, both here on GSC and in other forums/platforms, things argued as truth/fact that simply lack any kind of legitimate reasoning or factual basis.
I'm reading a book by Rutger Bregman at this time. The book has political undertones and overtones and major themes. But that's not why I bring it up. Chapter 9 of Bregman's book is titled Beyond the Gates of the Land of Plenty. In that chapter, Bregman cites Daniel 1 for the first historical record of randomized control trials. And he gives great examples of how, not limited to trying out new pharmaceuticals, policy decisions that previously had been made on spendings immense amounts of money solely on the basis of intuition sometimes worked but often failed.
He then demonstrates, with extensive citation of source documentation, how evidence data takes the guess work out of the equation and makes all the difference in the world on outcomes that can make a difference in the lives of people.
My point is that I simply am appalled at the brazenness of TLC's silly irrational argument about what more reasonably should be labeled human intuition rather than revelation from God. Forty years ago, I bought into the silly irrational way of thinking. I don't anymore. But I don't consider myself atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It's not a claim per se; it's my perspective on it... which quite frankly, seems (as evidenced below) that you have very little (if any) real or honest interest in.
You've already made up your mind, and seem to have it all figured out already.
But here's the rub. You totally missed what I was even talking about.
(But go ahead, feel free to blame me for failing to communicate it properly, and take no blame yourself for failing to see it. I'm sure it's not the first or last time I'll be accused like that.)
As I am not opposed to rational thinking based on material facts (and never said something as stupid or as silly as that.)
Evidently you missed this:
The issue at hand undoubtedly resides in seeing or understanding the difference between a reality based exclusively on material (i.e., physical) evidence, and reality based (or formulated, if you prefer) on such evidence augmented with spiritual (aka, invisible) information. The later doesn't exclude or deny the former, it supersedes it.
So what? There's far more agnostics than atheists, not to mention the many that think or claim to be Christian, that are still bound in their thinking to the limits of their physical senses.
If you really (i.e., more honestly) want scriptural support for examples of reasoning beyond the boundaries of the physical sense, some of the easier to grasp examples of it are probably found in the Pauline epistles. (Although, perhaps you - like others of note here at GSC - don't really recognize and consider those writing as being "scripture.")
For instance, what "material facts" do you think Paul used as a reasonable basis to conclude (Eph. 2:19) that these Gentiles at Ephesis (to who he was writing) were fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God? Or, for that matter, that Jesus was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification (Rom. 4:25)?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wait until he finds out Paul didn't write Ephesians and that Daniel never existed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
I really wish I could chime in on this, but I'm not too proud to say that you guys are talking way over my head. And my parents never had the money to bribe me into a college that would take my poor pathetic grades. I do have a dog I bribed into obedience school for 125 dollars though. Sorry. I felt I had to chime in and let you know I'm trying to follow this, but I'm just having a really hard time. Excuse the interruption.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It's really not all that complicated. It boils down to our perception and understanding of reality. In other words, what we believe is real (or true.)
Consider, for example, 2Kings 6:15-20.
What was real?
...depends on what (or who's) perspective you are looking at it from.
Or, does it? Did "what was real" in the situation actually change?
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.