Prayers and praying.......

[J70]

Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...

If Jesus did exist what did he gain from as you put it "claiming to be the Son of God"? or was he just crazy?

Well first you assuming that its a historical fact that the historical Jesus, if he existed, did in fact claim to be the "Son of God". But that aside, if he did, he would hardly be the first or the last person in history to make such grandiose claims.

[The Iceman]

Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...

If Jesus did exist what did he gain from as you put it "claiming to be the Son of God"? or was he just crazy?

Well first you assuming that its a historical fact that the historical Jesus, if he existed, did in fact claim to be the "Son of God". But that aside, if he did, he would hardly be the first or the last person in history to make such grandiose claims.

Do you assume that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God or do you know He didn't?
Do you assume that there was not a man named Jesus recorded in other historical documents from the time or do you know?
Just curious......

[Eamonnca1]

The story of Jesus was shaped into whatever form suited the powers-that-be at the time. Hence the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas and a handful of other accounts of the events were conveniently taken out of the 'official' story.

[J70]

Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...

If Jesus did exist what did he gain from as you put it "claiming to be the Son of God"? or was he just crazy?

Well first you assuming that its a historical fact that the historical Jesus, if he existed, did in fact claim to be the "Son of God". But that aside, if he did, he would hardly be the first or the last person in history to make such grandiose claims.

Do you assume that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God or do you know He didn't?
Do you assume that there was not a man named Jesus recorded in other historical documents from the time or do you know?
Just curious......

I don't assume or "know" anything Iceman. The burden of proof is on those making the claims as to his supposed divinity.  And I have no idea whether or not the historical Jesus actually existed or whether, if he did, he claimed to be a god. Accounts (the gospels) written after his life claim he did exist. That's fine. And not really relevant in the grand scheme... even if such a man did exist, that doesn't do anything to make the case that the "Son of God" came down to earth.

[Tyrones own]

Kinda surprised you took the bait in here IM....there was only ever one direction
this thread was going to go!
I'd have thought  with PHP trolling in getting the ball rolling then having nothing at all to add might have given it away...

[Eamonnca1]

I don't assume or "know" anything Iceman. The burden of proof is on those making the claims as to his supposed divinity.  And I have no idea whether or not the historical Jesus actually existed or whether, if he did, he claimed to be a god. Accounts (the gospels) written after his life claim he did exist. That's fine. And not really relevant in the grand scheme... even if such a man did exist, that doesn't do anything to make the case that the "Son of God" came down to earth.

The Middle East was full of characters like him at the time. It's possible that his torture and execution (assuming it happened as described) coincided with an earthquake and the people jumped to some conclusion that the two events were linked. There was no such thing as a geological survey or richter scale in them days, natural disasters were all presumed to be "God's will" which, incidentally, is the same way people on this thread are talking about the Big Bang.

[Maguire01]

Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.

Skull you might need to check that out first. Matthew?
Mark also scribed his Gospel on behalf of Peter, maybe you've heard of him? Peter makes reference to Mark is one of his letters.
Luke was a Doctor and co-worker with St.Paul.
John was one of the 12 apostles.

This is what I am talking about folks. Skull can come on here and make bold claims without even fully understanding or doing some research.

Yes, but a few other points:

1 - There are plenty of contradictions and inconsistencies between the bible, even the synoptic gospels. And it's fairly clear that there was a bit of copying going on between these three.
2 - As another poster has pointed out, what books have been ommitted and why?
3 - How close are the current texts to the originals?
4 - There is considerable debate as to whether some of the gospels were actually written by their supposed authors.
5 - Some were written well after the death of Jesus.

[Hardy]

Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.

I think the case you’re stating is in favour of evidence-based reasoning. The distinction you state is not between evidence-based and dogma-based belief, which was the distinction I was making. I would expect my son to report a murder because the evidence I have of this likelihood is my experience of his behaviour in all the time I have known him.

The analogy with dogma-based belief would be if somebody (or the whole community, for a closer analogy) came to me and said – see your son there? If he witnessed a murder, we have decided that he wouldn’t report it. In fact, he would go off to Chetenham and back Imperial Commander in the Gold Cup instead.

Why would I  give any credence to this suggestion? People might say “well, the whole community seems to believe it”. So I might agree to investigate the source of that belief:

What observed behaviour in my son leads you to such a detailed and specific conclusion, folks?
- Well it’s all written down here in this book.

Oh! Who wrote that book?
- An omnipotent entity. We call it God.

How do you know?
…. etc., etc.

Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.

Why do I need evidence that there is no God? It’s impossible to prove a negative. More to the point, there is no requirement to prove this particular one. I might as well ask you to prove that Enda Kenny isn’t a Vulcan.

And I agree that in absolute terms there is no knowing. The world works on probability and likelihood. Science, especially, proceeds on that basis. All of scientific theory is based on the balance of likelihood, taking into account all observed information. In fact, probability and even uncertainty are at the heart of quantum theory.

So my simple working model of reality is, as I said flippantly in a previous post, that I believe things that are likely to be true. This serves me for all practical purposes. For convenience, I have revised my own definition of “knowing”, as most people do, to fit in with that model. I cannot absolutely know that the sun will rise in the morning. But, for all practical purposes I know.

What would be bizarre and akin to the religious approach would be if I were to make up a theory that some benign cosmic goblin raises the sun above the horizon every day, but next Saturday night he’s going to die, so no sun on Sunday. This belief would have no validity, even if I could convince millions of people to accept it.

[Cold tea]

I've no doubt whatsoever that you feel and believe with all sincerity that you've a relationship with an alleged entity called Jesus. Doesn't make Jesus any more real though. The same goes for any number of religions, gods, prophets or L. Ron Hubbards.

It is well documented that Jesus existed - that has never been in question. What is questioned is whether or not He is the Son of God.
Thats for another thread. I encourage you to take some time to find out for yourself. That doesn't mean reading Wikipedia......

Well documented in a book written by people who never met the man!

[Hardy]

The bible is incontrovertible truth and unquestionably the word of God. Wikipedia is unreliable.

Discuss.

[theskull1]

it must be great being TO. He doesn't do contemplation anymore now that he knows all he needs to

[ONeill]

Hardy, is it true to say you reject any form of spirituality or any kind of reality lacking material proof?

What I mean is you adhere to the idea that the human race do not possess a sense which cannot be quantified using biological or physical examination?

Do you believe in the power of positive thought when it comes to overcoming illness or is that just bunkum to you because it cannot be seen or scientifically quantified?

If you answer yes to all the above, you then have a set of ideals/principles that will not allow the concept of faith to exist unless there is some form of material evidence. If that is the case, can you not accept that your method of evaluating human potential is simply your choice using your individual reasoning? The concept of faith has no material evidence and never will have. So, is it not reasonable to accept that the evidence-based outlook is just simply a choice that seems to be the only plausible option to those who think that way.

You are not open to the idea of a God or spiritual presence because you choose not to, using your evidence based principle. That principle makes the belief in something supernatural seem absurd.

There are those (many other millions/billions?) who do believe in something beyond what can be measured using science. It's almost a lifestyle choice. To me, both are equally plausible to the beholder.

[laoislad]

Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.

We've people on this board from both sides - some who believe and who think they are better than those who don't and some who don't believe and think they are better than those who do.

Both are equally annoying.

True,anyone who thinks they are better than the other is equally wrong I agree completely with you ,though you will have to point out to me who those posters are that do have faith who think they are better than those that don't.
Send me a PM if you wish.

I don't really care what anyone believes btw each to their own and all that,but IMO some of those who have no faith are often very smug and arrogant about the fact they think they are far more intelligent and wise than those who do have faith.

I'm sure it's often vice versa as well as you get c***ts in all walks of life,I'm just saying I find it more evident in those that have no faith.

You may find it more evident because the view those sort of people (like me, I'm assuming) are contrary to your own and so you notice them or take offense more. We're all much more forgiving of perceived arrogance in those who are on our side of an issue.

This thread is an internet discussion of praying and prayer, is it not? If you're offended by the tone of the discussion, then ignore the thread or don't read the offender's posts. Personally, I think religion and faith and prayer gets far, far more respect than it is due at this point in our history, and I'm going to point that out in discussions like this. And yes, I absolutely feel that many, many people are simply indoctrinated into religion, and whether out of fear or superstition or a passive contentment in their worldview, simply never seriously consider that the beliefs in which they've been brought up might not bear scrutiny. If you find those views debateable, well then address them and have a discussion, but spare us the complaining because a tiny minority of non-believers have lately begun to assert themselves and challenge the hegemony of religious belief.

Quite a rant there J70.
For the record I couldn't give a toss what you challenge or question regarding ones religious beliefs I just don't think there is a need to be an arrogant p***k when doing so.

[Hardy]

Hardy, is it true to say you reject any form of spirituality or any kind of reality lacking material proof?

What I mean is you adhere to the idea that the human race do not possess a sense which cannot be quantified using biological or physical examination?

I don’t/can’t know. I have a little trouble understanding your proposition of “a sense which cannot be quantified using biological or physical examination?”. I’m not sure what you mean, but I think the follow on below will cover what you’re asking.

Do you believe in the power of positive thought when it comes to overcoming illness or is that just bunkum to you because it cannot be seen or scientifically quantified?

I outlined my concept of knowing and belief. So in general I don’t believe “in” things. I believe or don’t believe things based on my criterion of knowledge - that they are likely or unlikely to be true based on observed evidence. I haven’t studied “the power of positive thought”, so I‘m not in a position to make a definitive judgement. But from the limited amount of observed evidence I’d be aware of and from my own experience, I’m inclined to think that a positive mental attitude is important in fighting an illness. I don’t imagine there’s any “spiritual” (whatever that means) or metaphysical component to this. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the brain has an important role to play in how the body functions, including how it heals itself.

If you answer yes to all the above, you then have a set of ideals/principles that will not allow the concept of faith to exist unless there is some form of material evidence.

I don’t. Of course the concept of faith exists. Its usefulness in forming a model of reality is what we’re discussing.

If that is the case, can you not accept that your method of evaluating human potential is simply your choice using your individual reasoning? The concept of faith has no material evidence and never will have. So, is it not reasonable to accept that the evidence-based outlook is just simply a choice that seems to be the only plausible option to those who think that way.

Of course. And I’m presenting, as best I can, my case for why it’s the only plausible option. Stated simply, it’s

(1)   The adoption of an approach that says (as science, for instance, does) we know very little. We search for answers in a methodical fashion using assumptions (hypotheses) based on observed facts; if our search throws up evidence that our assumptions were wrong, we accept that and start again. This approach has given us all the real knowledge we have about how the world works.

(2)   The rejection of an approach that says (as religion for instance, does) we know everything because we were told it by God, so there’s no need to search for answers. If evidence shows up that our assumptions were wrong, we must reject that evidence, because God cannot be wrong.

You are not open to the idea of a God or spiritual presence because you choose not to, using your evidence based principle. That principle makes the belief in something supernatural seems absurd.

Indeed. “Choose” is an important word. I’ve stated the basis for my choice. Those who believe in God choose to do so. What is the basis for their choice? In fact, how do you just “choose” to believe something in the absence of a concrete reason for such a choice? How is a choice made like this to believe in God more valid than a choice to believe in any of the infinite number of other unsupported hypotheses of how the world works?

There are those (many other millions/billions?) who do believe in something beyond what can be measured using science. It's almost a lifestyle choice. To me, both are equally plausible to the beholder.

Agreed, except for the last sentence. How can they possibly be equally plausible (as a model of reality, I mean). Isn’t that a complete suspension of judgement and reason? Again, my test would be – if God is as valid as science, what invalidates the infinite number of other hypotheses? Or even the few popularly suggested ones? How is God more plausible than Russell’s Teapot, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn?

[ONeill]

How is God more plausible than Russell's Teapot, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn?

'God' doesn't have to be a physical or invisible identity with description. Can it not just be the First Cause? Something created time. I'm not up to speed on this but isn't it an accepted scientific truth that there was a 'start'; that time is not, nor has been, infinite?