Who is Jesus?

[LuftWaffle]

Hi 808state,

Fair enough. Why do you think people don't want to submit to God?

I think Believer112 answered it beautifully. It's about autonomy and pride. About wanting to be your own boss and not wanting to answer to anybody.

And this is the basis of your argument against the resurrection, that it could potentially be a lie? Seriously, on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong do you think that argument is?

Supposed you've been witnessed doing a crime and your entire defense is based on 4 eye-witnesses potentially lying about seeing you?

Your attorney will suggest a plea-bargain, no?

LuftWaffle: And what would you say this reward is?

808state: Being at peace with God, being forgiven, eternal life with God, etc.

Your initial objection was that Christianity appeals to the human ego just like every other religion, you then references the rewards spoken of in Hebrews 11:6 and Matthew 5:12. I then asked you what you believe these rewards mean, and you then responded with being at peace with God, being forgiven and eternal life with God.

Have you forgotten what point you were making?

I don't see how being reconciled in forgiveness, making peace and desiring to spend an eternity with the One with whom you've been reconciled could possibly be further from appealing to the ego.

But you're assuming that people of other religions don't desire true goodness over rewards.

Hang on, where did I say that?

My statement was that Christianity is unique in that salvation isn't based on fulfilling certain requirements by which the person is justified, but the other way around. Salvation is given freely and then person desires virtue.

That's why I said, "Christianity is unique in this regard because it has the cause and effect reversed."

Muslims believe they will go to heaven through salvation, not through a series of requirements.

I never said that the concept of salvation is unique in Christianity, but rather how the salvation works.

Buddhists/Hindus believe that if someone only goes through the requirements for the sake of attaining Nirvana, then they will never attain Nirvana.

So then the requirement is that they have to not only make the requirements, but have a certain attitude as well before they'll attain Nirvana?

All I'm doing at this point is arguing that the resurrection could potentially be a lie. I'm not arguing that it is 100% in-fact a lie.

Why are you responding as if I said something different?

My words were, "And this is the basis of your argument against the resurrection, that it could potentially be a lie? Seriously, on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong do you think that argument is?" and, "...Supposed you've been witnessed doing a crime and your entire defense is based on 4 eye-witnesses potentially lying about seeing you?"

It would depend. If the writings originated from a reliable source, I would be more likely to believe it.

What would constitute a reliable source to you?

I don't think it's me pushing that cart uphill. A spectral image was something many people claimed to see at the time, a bodily resurrection wasn't. If this guy was supposed to be pass as the son of God, was he simply going to come back as something that many believed any old ordinary human could come back as or something that was much less common? Information spread through word of mouth. Not tv. Not pictures. Many people during this time were also gullible (hence why so many of them believed in ghosts.) People could twist stories any way they wanted to, and they could get others to believe them. It's not as ridiculous as you seem to think it is.

Right, you've made up this whole 'ghosts' idea a couple of posts back, and because you've decided in your head that people saw ghosts all the time, you now claim that they're gullible for believing in these ghosts....which you made up?

Can you prove that sighting of ghosts happened more at that time then say, 50 years ago? How do you know these sightings weren't real? You're just making up ad hoc speculations and throwing them on the table, which is weird since you were the one claiming earlier that you relied on logic and reason?

Edited February 24, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

...continued,

What I'm arguing is that survival encompasses many things, it's not some simple act, but a very complex one. It's made up of many different experiences. Like I said in my pervious post, keeping your physical self healthy is just as important as keeping your emotional/mental self healthy. It's through our instincts, it's through what gives us pleasure and what gives us displeasure, that's what directs us in our path to a meaningful life.

How is any of this related to meaning? Look at what you're saying: survival "encompasses many things", that it's "not a simple act, but a complex one", that it's made of "many different experiences" and that keeping your emotional and mental self healthy is important. To be frank, all this seems like nothing more than page filler. You haven't actually shown how mere survival is gives meaning and purpose to life.

Then going further:

If you want to be a bit more spiritual about it, it's about experiencing life. Life can be it's own reward. If I die, and that's it, it doesn't discount any of the experiences I had on this earth. It doesn't mean that they didn't happen and that they didn't effect another's life. That's enough for me. I don't need anything more than that, at one point in my life I thought I did, but I don't.

Has your argument changed? Before you claimed survival by itself gave meaning to life, now you're saying experiences give meaning to life. But experiences aren't survival, one could be in a coma and still surviving, but not really experiencing anything. If a person is in a coma, has their life lost it's value, and meaning and purpose?

The problem with relying on experiences to create meaning in life is that it simply doesn't work. There are so many accounts of individuals who reach the top of their career in business or sport or rock and roll or whatever, who then suddenly finds themselves having to deal with inescapable depression. The problem with experiences is that they're fleeting and in and of themselves meaningless. The experience only has as much meaning as is given to it by the experiencer.

So, what you're arguing is because no one survives in the long run then temporary survival is meaningless? Close, but no cigar. Temporary survival gives us something that simply not existing doesn't give us: Experience. It gives us life. Is that not enough for you? Why?

Actually survival in and of itself isn't enough for most people. A phychologist (Martin Seligman) did an interesting study on the baby boomer generation and what he found was that in a single generation, cases of depression increased by ten times. He ascribes this increase in depression to people no longer believing that their lives have a greater purpose and people generally try to make meaning for themselves. They generally go to college so that they can get a good job, then they work hard to earn a good salary, and then they retire and eventually die.

So while you may claim that it's possible to make meaning for yourself, practical reality speaks otherwise. People are more depressed, and it's not surprising at all, because when you lose ultimate meaning, then nihilism is almost inevitable.

Because of the philosophical bias toward scientism, life itself has lost meaning for many people. The general mindset today is that the only things we can truly know are things that can be empirically investigated. In other words everything in this world is either chemistry or physics.

John Cyril at Berkeley university said, "The entire world is made up of aggregates of particles standing in fields of forces relative to other aggregates of particles".

As an atheist you must surely agree to this utterly empty and pointless status quo, not true? According to this worldview you are nothing more than a collection of chemicals being interacting with other aggregates of particles through the laws of nature, and as an atheist I don't see, you can claim there's more to life than this, other than appealling to imagined meaning, purpose, reason and morality.

Now, I have to point out that since this guy is a "mad-man", he isn't in an emotionally healthy place. He isn't surviving mentally so he becomes destructive physically. It's why surviving both emotionally and physically is important.

Mental survival? How would one determine who is surviving mentally and who isn't? If all we are are a chance colocation of atoms then how would one even approach something like sanity or insanity? The difference between you and that mad-man is chemical. He didn't do anything intrisically wrong or meaningless or irritional, because according to this worldview there is no objective right and wrong, no meaning and all things are determined by the laws of nature, so there's no real rationality.

In fact given materialism, and given that there's no ultimate meaning, what is 'irrational' about his actions?

So sanity is based on subjective norms, and nothing else. My analogy might as well read, "Suppose just any man...", he is afterall following your beliefs to their logical conclusion, so he's only really mad if you can prove an objective standard for how one ought to think.

Now, if he blows up the entire planet, no one would be alive so how could anyone mourn the loss of it?

Yes, and that's precisely my point. If there is no greater purpose, to life, then if all life is suddenly eliminated, nothing really bad happened, nothing of intrisic value has been lost, according to the materialist worldview. Our sentiments are mere evolutionary survival aids. Love, affection, family, charity, virtue are all just constructs of the selfish gene. There would be nothing to mourn even if someone was there to mourn.

Edited February 24, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Yes, and that's precisely my point. If there is no greater purpose, to life, then if all life is suddenly eliminated, nothing really bad happened, nothing of intrisic value has been lost, according to the materialist worldview. Our sentiments are mere evolutionary survival aids. Love, affection, family, charity, virtue are all just constructs of the selfish gene. There would be nothing to mourn even if someone was there to mourn.

It's funny that these ideas are pitched as though they're in the public interest because if these guys ever succeeded in converting me, I can't see any reason why I wouldn't feel above everyone else's moral code and make up my own - and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

Edited February 24, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog

[808state]

You are missing the point. The fact that the Bible makes no attempt to hide the flaws of the followers of Jesus and makes no attempt to paint them as white washed saints points to the Bible's credibility and its honesty in dealing with the facts. The writers of the New Testament even those who are writing about themselves are brutally honest about their own flaws, which is not typical of those who are trying to make up stories about themselves.

I'm not missing the point, I just don't think it's a very strong one. I don't think it was in the writer's motive to glorify themselves necessarily. If that were the case, then why involve Jesus at all? Why not make themselves the complete center of the story? The entire point was to glorify a particular character, not necessarily themselves. If they came out looking perfect all the time, it would undermine the point they were trying to make. Jesus is what they are trying to "sell" essentially, and they themselves were the examples of what Jesus could do for your everyday average person. The more flawed they are as people, the more great it makes their eventual transformation, and it makes their "product" (Jesus) look more impressive as well.

Because He strikes at the heart of human pride. He tells you that on your own, you are a miserable, hopeless wretch and you stand before Him condemned and are helpless in your own strength to do anything about it. He tells you that you have nothing good in you, that your entire life in His eyes is empty, chaotic and perverted. He tells you that apart from Him, you are spiritually dead and headed for hell. You stand before Him guilty under the law and under the merciless thumb of sin. He tells you that your best deeds on your best day is nothing but filthy menstral rags in His sight.

God tells us in His word that He is within His rights to destroy us as sinners, but that He has instead chosen to have mercy on us and to give us the opportunity of redemption. This redemption is not because you deserve it (you deserve to be rubbed out), but because God has chosen to have mercy on you and to love you in spite of your sinful condition.

But this is a perfect set up for manipulation for reasons I already mentioned in the previous post. It puts the believer in a place of complete submission, and it makes it very easy for someone to take advantage of that vulnerability. It's pretty formulaic, and you see in played out in life in many different contexts. You get someone to believe that you are superior to them and that they're better off with you rather than without you. It would make sense that someone would apply this to a religion as well. If you want someone to follow a particular religion, you put a deity in the center of that religion so the follower will have something in the religion that they feel a genuine connection to. You make sure it's known that the follower will always be inferior to that deity, and that they are to obey that deity no matter what.

You don't understand. God relates to man redemptively, Buddha does not. The difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that Christianity is wholly centered upon and wrapped up in and intrinsically linked to the person of Jesus. You cannot be a Christian without participating in the person of Jesus. Christianity is Christ.

In Buddhism on the other hand, you do not have to know anything about the person of Buddha to follow Buddha. Buddha is not a redeemer and any "redemption" that Buddhism offers is based on the efforts of Buddhists.

Christ is the redeemer of man. Buddha did not redeem humanity. Buddha does not offer a free gift of eternal life. In Buddhism, you seek to earn those things on your own merit and effort. It all depends on you. In Christianity, redemption is a free gift not based on personal merit or personal effort.

Right. I feel like this where our differing perspectives will really start to clash. I understand that the Bible teaches that Jesus is where people will find strength and the desire to be good, but it still sets guidelines for how people are supposed to live their lives, and the point is still for Christians to follow those guidelines to the best of their ability. And from my perspective, since I don't believe Jesus to have any supernatural powers or divine significance then I don't really believe that Jesus is anything more than a placebo in all of this so, ultimately, Christianity doesn't differ from other religions in this regard.

Except, that is not what God is doing. God is honest with us about spiritual condition and how hopeles and helpless we are about it. He offers us salvation as a free gift, not to manipulate, but He does it out of His mercy. I don't see any manipulation in it at all.

God does not offer happier lives, though. Rather He asks us to be willing to give up all, deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.

The reason why you don't see the manipulation is because you already believe it to be Truth. That's where you and I differ.

Yes, but what I said was that no human would have thought them up in ancient times due to not having a frame of reference for them. Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. In thousands and thousands of years and countless gods, not one of the hundreds of pagan cultures contemporary with ancient Israel created any such God. That God was sinless and separate from creation were also not part of any ancient theologies. Furthermore, the redemptive nature of God was not part of any ancient view of their gods. Their gods cared nothing for man and were in most cases, just amplified versions of humanity. Their gods were created, but the God of the Bible is eternal without beginning or end. That should do for now.

Right, but some of these ideas existed independently prior to the Bible. Certainly someone could have thought to combine them? And really, there are some logical flaws in a being that is omnipotent to begin with so it wouldn't surprise me that a human would apply these characteristics to a God at all.

As far as humans not being able to think up a sinless God goes, typically the deity heading a religion doesn't condone the things he is telling people not to do, so naturally the Christian God is going to be "sinless." It's just logical. Maybe the question is, could it be possible that humans could even create the moral code that is presented in the Bible?

As far as God being separate from his creation, i'd imagine you would have to exist separately from your own creation in-order to create it. It's logic. It's not so unbelievably advanced that no human could draw that conclusion.

Yes, and that makes my point. They have to earn what they are seeking for. They have to earn it in tandem with a sincere desire. The point is that they STILL have to earn it. It is still ultimately based on their own efforts, and the problem is that even if they achieve what they are seeking, it won't bring them to God. Jesus said of Himself,"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, but through me." (Jn14:6)

Jesus is the only way to God. Even if ones finds what they are looking for in another religion, once they die, they enter eternity lost and separated from God.

Again, the issue with this argument is that it already assumes that Jesus actually has the power to have that effect on his followers. If he does, then you're right. But if he doesn't, then Christianity is no different from other religions in regard to being expected to live your life in a certain manner.

Again, many of the rules of debate that take place in a courtroom apply (albeit in a different context) to the rules of debate outside of the courtroom. It is not the one "making the claim" that has the burden of proof, but the one who makes who makes the claim that the status quo must be changed.

In this context, the status quo is the assumed accuracy of the text of Scripture. Those who claim the text of the Bible is inaccurate, false or unbelievable have the burden of proof to support their assertions. The Bible does not have to "prove" its accuracy. Rather it is its detractors who must demonstrate that sufficient evidence exists to challenge the accuracy of the Bible.

You have this backwards. The rules of debate were not born in a courtroom, but they carry over into the courtroom. So, burden of proof is not solely on those making any kind of negative claim against someone, but anyone making the initial claim regardless of whether it's positive or negative. It only works the way it does in a courtroom because you typically don't take people to court for the sake of proving their innocence. You don't say, "hey, i'm taking your butt to court because you didn't kill my dog."

[808state]

Then your unbelief has no platform. The Bible is either true or it is not. There is no fence to ride. Either you believe what is written or you don't. To claim it is "unverified" is not really saying anything.

No, I think it does, I don't believe because no one has given me reason to believe. Many people have claimed to have come into contact with bigfoot for decades, but I don't necessarily believe that he exists just because a lot of people say he does, there has to be a bit more to it than that.

I cannot verify to you what I had for breakfast last Thursday. I cannot verify to what I was thinking about earlier this morning. If I tell you that earlier this morning I was thinking about my grocery list, you would just have to take my word for it. The fact that I cannot verify it, really doesn't mean anything. You may choose to disbelieve what I claim is true on the grounds that I cannot verify it, but that is really neither here nor there. The fact that later, I went out and actually bought groceries is evidence that my claim is true, despite the fact that I still cannot actually "verify" that I really was thinking about a list of groceries before I went shopping. You can make up anything you want to in your mind to explain away the correlation of what I claimed I was thinking and what I did later. That is not really sufficient, though. Either you believe me, or you don't.

In the same way, the evidence is there to support the claims of the disciples and the veracity of the Bible, both in terms of internal and external evidence. That does not mean you cannot dream up a "possible" scenario to explain away the correlation of claims to evidence, but just because you can concoct an alternate explanation, it doesn't mean that you have offered anything of intellectual value to the discussion and you certainly have not really provided an intellectually satisfying platform to justify your unbelief.

You come off as someone who will accept any alternate explanation, no matter how absurd or counter-intuitive to observable reality in order to preserve unbelief, which tells me that you really can't (or won't) deal with the evidence for the veracity of Scripture.

I think perhaps you're letting your belief blind you from the fact that what you have offered as evidence simply is not sufficient enough to people who don't already believe. The issue is that most of the arguments you have given me were still assuming that certain unverified parts of the Bible had actually occurred. So, you were essentially trying to verify unverified information with unverified information. It doesn't work.

You are still missing the point. This kind of nonsense is what I mean when I say that you operate against observable reality. There is no motivation for someone who is trying to present a factual account to suddenly decide to mix in a bunch of false information.

When was the last time someone wrote a biography on Martin Luther King Jr. and suddenly decided to claim that He climbed up on a flying purple unicorn and flew into outerspace?

The Qu'ran provides historical context to supernatural claims. In Greek mythology, the Trojan War provides historical context to a conflict that happened between a few goddesses/gods. In-fact, there were many myths in those times that had historical context. So, this is not uncommon.

It is counter-intuitive to observable reality that a person who goes out of their way to be factually correct on minute details of geography, genealogical records, history and even the names and titles of important people to suddenly mix in false, or misleading information. The fact that they include supernatural events does NOT mean that their claims regarding to those supernatural events are either false or entirely unverifiable.

Could you demonstrate how the writers "went out of their way" to be factual about geographical, genealogical, and historical information?

Just now, there is monumental evidence in Saudi Arabia of the real Mt. Sinai. Saudi Arabia is biblical Midian. The Saudis do not allow people to get too close, but there is evidence of the exact events described in the Bible including the Lord's descent to Sinai and even the rock out of which water flowed to the Children of Israel. You can google most of that, as it is in the pubic domain.

No amount of evidence will convince anyone unwilling to be convinced, though.

I'll be sure to look into this.

[808state]

I think Believer112 answered it beautifully. It's about autonomy and pride. About wanting to be your own boss and not wanting to answer to anybody.

Okie dokie. Though, I would say that, that type of freedom comes with it's own burdens as well.

Your initial objection was that Christianity appeals to the human ego just like every other religion, you then references the rewards spoken of in Hebrews 11:6 and Matthew 5:12. I then asked you what you believe these rewards mean, and you then responded with being at peace with God, being forgiven and eternal life with God.

Have you forgotten what point you were making?

I don't see how being reconciled in forgiveness, making peace and desiring to spend an eternity with the One with whom you've been reconciled could possibly be further from appealing to the ego.

I think it appeals to human desire. People can very easily get lost at some point in their life, and religion can provide these people with meaning, purpose, and comfort. I don't see Christianity being different than other religions in that regard.

Hang on, where did I say that?

My statement was that Christianity is unique in that salvation isn't based on fulfilling certain requirements by which the person is justified, but the other way around. Salvation is given freely and then person desires virtue.

That's why I said, "Christianity is unique in this regard because it has the cause and effect reversed."

There's a problem with this argument, and I'll just repeat what I said to Shiloh:

I understand that it teaches that Jesus is where people will find strength and the desire to be good, but it still sets guidelines for how people are supposed to live their lives, and the point is still for Christians to follow those guidelines to the best of their ability. And from my perspective, since I don't believe Jesus to have any supernatural powers or divine significance then I don't really believe that Jesus is anything more than a placebo in all of this so, ultimately, Christianity doesn't differ from other religions in this regard.

Why are you responding as if I said something different?

My words were, "And this is the basis of your argument against the resurrection, that it could potentially be a lie? Seriously, on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong do you think that argument is?" and, "...Supposed you've been witnessed doing a crime and your entire defense is based on 4 eye-witnesses potentially lying about seeing you?"

Your implication that I'm arguing against the resurrection would suggest that you're saying something different than what I am actually saying. I'm not arguing against the resurrection, I'm arguing against the idea that their is a sufficient amount of evidence for the resurrection. I'm not arguing definitively that it did or didn't happen.

What would constitute a reliable source to you?

An un-biased source that has multiple other sources verifying it.

Right, you've made up this whole 'ghosts' idea a couple of posts back, and because you've decided in your head that people saw ghosts all the time, you now claim that they're gullible for believing in these ghosts....which you made up?

Can you prove that sighting of ghosts happened more at that time then say, 50 years ago? How do you know these sightings weren't real? You're just making up ad hoc speculations and throwing them on the table, which is weird since you were the one claiming earlier that you relied on logic and reason?

I would hope that you would at-least do a google search before you accuse me of lying.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/dailylifeaspects/qt/RomanGhosts.htm

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/ghoststories.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_ancient_Egyptian_culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mesopotamian_religions

Of course, I can't prove these sightings weren't real, but it's not really relevant one way or another to the point I'm trying got make.

[808state]

How is any of this related to meaning? Look at what you're saying: survival "encompasses many things", that it's "not a simple act, but a complex one", that it's made of "many different experiences" and that keeping your emotional and mental self healthy is important. To be frank, all this seems like nothing more than page filler. You haven't actually shown how mere survival is gives meaning and purpose to life.

It's evident in how our bodies work that there are wrong and right ways to live our lives. I already demonstrated why in the previous post. Physically, we're meant to live in the physical sense. Simply staying alive. But then emotionally/mentally we're meant to live in more than just a physical sense, in actually experiencing life and the people in it since we are social beings after-all. Of course, I think keeping your physical self and your emotional self healthy go hand in hand with one another. And as I pointed out before, the specific meaning and purpose is going to differ from person to person.

Has your argument changed? Before you claimed survival by itself gave meaning to life, now you're saying experiences give meaning to life. But experiences aren't survival, one could be in a coma and still surviving, but not really experiencing anything. If a person is in a coma, has their life lost it's value, and meaning and purpose?

I feel like you just skimmed over what I wrote. I said surviving not just physically, but also mentally/emotionally.

If a person is in a coma, their life still deserves respect. They're still a real person that had real experiences, and that should be respected.

The problem with relying on experiences to create meaning in life is that it simply doesn't work. There are so many accounts of individuals who reach the top of their career in business or sport or rock and roll or whatever, who then suddenly finds themselves having to deal with inescapable depression. The problem with experiences is that they're fleeting and in and of themselves meaningless. The experience only has as much meaning as is given to it by the experiencer.

Many people have shallow ideas of what "success" is. Many people put their self-worth in achieving a certain amount of approval from others, and of course, they find themselves still feeling empty once they get that approval. You have to do something because you love to do it and have that be the primary reason for doing it, not for fame or money or approval. That can be hard for many people to figure out.

Actually survival in and of itself isn't enough for most people. A phychologist (Martin Seligman) did an interesting study on the baby boomer generation and what he found was that in a single generation, cases of depression increased by ten times. He ascribes this increase in depression to people no longer believing that their lives have a greater purpose and people generally try to make meaning for themselves. They generally go to college so that they can get a good job, then they work hard to earn a good salary, and then they retire and eventually die.

So while you may claim that it's possible to make meaning for yourself, practical reality speaks otherwise. People are more depressed, and it's not surprising at all, because when you lose ultimate meaning, then nihilism is almost inevitable.

Again, when I say "surviving" I did clarify it multiple times by pointing out that it's not just survival in a physical sense. Of course if people don't find meaning in their lives, they're going to be depressed. It not easy to live life with it all figured out for you, but it's possible as many people, my self included, can attest.

Because of the philosophical bias toward scientism, life itself has lost meaning for many people. The general mindset today is that the only things we can truly know are things that can be empirically investigated. In other words everything in this world is either chemistry or physics.

John Cyril at Berkeley university said, "The entire world is made up of aggregates of particles standing in fields of forces relative to other aggregates of particles".

As an atheist you must surely agree to this utterly empty and pointless status quo, not true? According to this worldview you are nothing more than a collection of chemicals being interacting with other aggregates of particles through the laws of nature, and as an atheist I don't see, you can claim there's more to life than this, other than appealling to imagined meaning, purpose, reason and morality.

I need to make that I do consider myself to be an Agnostic-Atheist so while, at the moment, I don't see any reason to believe there is more to life than what we have here, that doesn't mean that I don't believe there is a possibility of something more. That said, I don't believe science provides any "Truth" in the world nor does it actually claim to. I'm not sure if we can "Truly" know anything, but that's another discussion.

Anyways, what I believe is that we're human-beings and as human-beings we function a certain way. We go through a wide array of feelings and experiences in our lives, and I figure since I was born this way then I was meant to experience this life. Why do we exist? I don't know. I can only go by what I observe on this Earth. It's pretty apparent to me that being healthy both physically and emotionally is something that our bodies want us to do.

Mental survival? How would one determine who is surviving mentally and who isn't? If all we are are a chance colocation of atoms then how would one even approach something like sanity or insanity? The difference between you and that mad-man is chemical. He didn't do anything intrisically wrong or meaningless or irritional, because according to this worldview there is no objective right and wrong, no meaning and all things are determined by the laws of nature, so there's no real rationality.

In fact given materialism, and given that there's no ultimate meaning, what is 'irrational' about his actions?

Ah. But I believe there can be an objective right and wrong with this world view. Again, in comes down to how we as humans react to things, both physically and mentally. Let's taking killing for example, say a country wanted to legalize killing so people could have the freedom to kill whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. Now, as human beings, we are social. We experience empathy, love, sadness, anxiety, etc. All of these emotions are what would keep us from actually keeping free for all killing legal. It would not work in society because of how we function as human beings. Living in constant fear of being killed or of having loved ones killed is no way to live your life. It works the same way as if you were to put your hand on that hot stove, it hurts so you pull your hand away.

I would argue that the best moral system would be the moral system that desires human beings to have the maximum amount of freedom possible before that freedom starts infringing on the freedoms of others. We look at potential results of particular actions, and choose the actions that lead to the most beneficial results for the people involved.

How do we judge sanity or insanity, I think if a mental "difference" starts causing disruption in the life of the person with that "difference" and/or in the lives of other people then we can infer that whatever that "difference" is, probably isn't ideal. Now, obviously we have to examine why that "difference" isn't ideal before we decide whether or not that "difference" is the problem. But, let's take a sociopath for example, they typically experience a lot of anguish over the fact that they can't connect to people the way they want to. Sometimes this results in very cruel and sometimes violent actions toward others. We can infer that their inability to experience empathy for other humans beings is often times harmful not only to others but to themselves as well, and because of that, it's not an ideal/stable state to be in.

Yes, and that's precisely my point. If there is no greater purpose, to life, then if all life is suddenly eliminated, nothing really bad happened, nothing of intrisic value has been lost, according to the materialist worldview. Our sentiments are mere evolutionary survival aids. Love, affection, family, charity, virtue are all just constructs of the selfish gene. There would be nothing to mourn even if someone was there to mourn.

I don't agree. If someone was there to mourn, then they would have a lot to mourn for. At the end of the day, we're humans and we're going to feel things regardless of whether or not we want to. That person is going to experience sadness. Why is that? I don't know. It just is.

[Guest]

You have this backwards. The rules of debate were not born in a courtroom, but they carry over into the courtroom. So, burden of proof is not solely on those making any kind of negative claim against someone, but anyone making the initial claim regardless of whether it's positive or negative. It only works the way it does in a courtroom because you typically don't take people to court for the sake of proving their innocence. You don't say, "hey, I'm taking your butt to court because you didn't kill my dog."

The Supreme Court Of Truth With No Mercy No Excuses No Buts Except

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

The Precious Blood Of The LORD Jesus Christ

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Revelation 1:5

And Because

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

One

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20

Wouldn't

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

One Will Stay

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. Isaiah 64:6-7

As They Were

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

You See

____________

Believe

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

And Be Blessed Beloved

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Love, Joe

[LuftWaffle]

Hi 808state,

This is going to be a short post, because I think the discussion has run its course and continuing further would probably not serve anything more than has been served thus far.

I'd like to summarize how I see some of the key issues.

The criteria by which you measure historical evidence is unrealistic. I think if you applied that consistently, then much of what we know about history would have to be labled as 'unsure'.

The reason I say this, is because while the number of testimonies or accounts can be quantified, the bias of any account can rarely be established. If you can doubt the resurrection (or the evidence, if you will) based on bias (seeing that there are multiple accounts, I'm assuming your issue is bias), then surely you must also doubt the ghost stories in Rome, unless you've ruled out bias and/or established complete objectivity. I'm not sure how this is possible for any historical account. It's also not a standard approach since in a legal dispute or courtcase there will rarely not be bias, yet testimony is still accepted.

In terms of Christianity being no different than other religions, according to your last post you're basing that position on the idea that they're all a placebo. But that's not how one ought to go about comparing different views. If you're going to base a comparison on the notion that the various beliefs you're comparing are all false, then it's obvious that from that viewpoint they're all the same. Religions, like other beliefs should be compared according to their claims.

I don't think you've really shown that any meaning in life can exist if there is no ultimate meaning. You're saying our bodies and emotions are set up that way, but yet you're saying there's something wrong with the sociopath's physical and emotional setup. So we should all do what we're setup to do except those that are setup differently. You're creating an absolute based on the tyrrany of 'normality'. Since sociopaths are in the minority their physical and emotional make-up must be wrong. But from a materialistic point of view, there cannot really be an absolute imperative. The sociopaths are only wrong as long as they're in the minority, but who says they're not just pioneers of evolution? Imperative measured against society is still subjective because society is composed of individuals.

I've given examples of people who have climbed to the top of some category, and you've answered it by saying, "You have to love what you do and not just do it for fame or money". I don't really think you're qualified to *know* every depressed successful person's intentions during the making of their successes. How could you possibly know that those ending up depressed were simply, 'not loving what they do'.

You've also not responded to the research done by Martin Seligman, which shows a link between 'making your own meaning' and 'depression'.

Lastly with regard to the analogy of whether anything intrinsically valueable has been lost if the world suddenly disappeared. It seems you believe it's value to be entirely subjective. It's only really a loss if someone was there to miss it. That demonstrates that life, love, emotion, experience, morality, has no real intrinsic value. It's all subjective. It's only as valueable as it's deemed to be, which begs the question why one should deem anything as valueable.

I think that summary about covers the key points for me. You're ofcourse welcome to have the final say, but I think for me the discussion has become rather like that monopoly game I was talking about earlier.

808state, I sincerely believe that you're not being reasonable in your evaluation of Christianity. If you applied the same criteria to everything in life that you do to the evidence we've offered, I think you'd find yourself doubting even the ground under you feet.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary, for those who don't believe, no proof is possible" - Stuart Chase

I can't say that I agree 100% with Stuart Chase, which is why I have my own saying on this:

There are two types of students: those who study in order to find work, and those who study in order to avoid work. Likewise there are two types of seekers: those who seek in order to find truth, and those who keep on seeking in order to avoid the truth.

Anyway, I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. You're a smart gal and I've learnt quite a bit from this dialogue, and I hope that atleast in some small way you've learnt from me. Thank you so much, and I sincerely wish you all the best and God's blessings upon you.

Edited February 27, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[nighthiker]

Who is Jesus? Isn't it amazing how one Jewish man transformed the world for generation to come? Have you wondered how this one man transformed the world? Something truly amazing must have happened during that time to get them to believe in Jesus and have the Way spread like wildfire. Was the resurrection the talk of the town? Was it the eyewitness accounts for all the miracles being performed? Maybe it was just supernatural work of God. What say you?

A question for the non believer.

Amen Christ lead me to this site, I have no car so it is a struggle to get involved at my home church 35 minutes away, pray for me that Christ reforms my ways, and provides me the means soon, to rebuild my life, with work, transportation and recovery from pain and healing my heart of 7 deaths in 3 years of close friends, it set me on a course of booze, woman and no fiath, doing a 40 day jpurney in christ and today is day 7 of 40, pray that christ purifys my snow as pure as it is falling snow tonight here in maine and I made this prayer in the snow tonight fallling from heaven to ask he, christ purifies my souls as fresh as the fallling snow on my soul tonight at 2am in the morning, amen