Unfortunately you have made a few logical errors, so I will trust that you appreciate my pointing them out, as much as I appreciate others doing the same fovor for me.
There is no way to know that the many separate accounts, which have been compiled into the Bible, are in fact true. People chose what would go into it. Furthermore, how do we know that it was not intentionally subverted to some other cause, early on? Do you trust the people who may or may not have written the gospels, so much? Why would you give your trust so completely, without much proof? And finally, if more than half of the New Testament is written by some guy Paul, who never met Jesus, yet he was able to convince everyone that he saw visions, etc., then how can you rationally assume that he's not a fraud, and that they all aren't to some degree? Seems like a lot of unlikely assumptions to me. I'll accept if you take it as faith, but please do not pretend that we should take it as fact.
I have this "argument" in every single how-to-recover-from-being-an-atheist-and-reenter-the-fold book that my family has ever given me.
To save typing, I'm going to ignore the Jesus was the Devil part, since neither you nor I think that. Which leaves us with Jesus was either god or insane. Usually the argument goes that Jesus acted so sanely, that it's doubtful that he was insane, so he must be god. Quite a leap. And usually, the person infers that one would have to be stark raving mad to martyr themselves, or attempt a bit of fame, and Jesus wasn't stark raving mad, so he's god. I point out to you all of the people in our day and age who are quite willing to martyr themselves, to further some wacko cult. I point out to you all the people who are willing to say anything and do anything for a little bit of fame. I point out to you people like David Koresh who started out seeming normal, but then imploded later on. I point out to you the simple fact that there are plenty of people who have mental disorders that come and go, and have varying degrees of incapacitance, who you would not refer to as stark raving mad, but who are in reality in need of help.
It boggles the mind how we can see how many people are messed up in this world, and then make an assertion that someone could either be insane or god, merely because they've sacrificed for their fame. I've read C.S. Lewis, and here is my version: C.S. Lewis is either a fanciful writer who has taken poetic license from time to time, or he is an ignorant fool who does not understand humanity as it is.
Et la piece de resistance, the assumption that it is either A xor B, once again, in the culmination that either creationism is correct, or some scientists, who are only people after all, are correct.
Never mind that:
1. We've only followed the scientific method for a hundred years or so in the west, compared to our thousands of years of written history, and thus I would expect us to not know the answers so soon, if ever. In fact, it's been shown time and time again that scientists have been wrong. We accept that, it's a part of the process. What is dangerous is to allow the dogmatic perception that something is known, to infect our view of science. In math we can prove things, but in all else we can only disprove things. And sometimes one doesn't have enough of a view of the puzzle to know that we haven't eliminated all other possibilities to leave us with one truth.
2. The theory of the big bang, is precisely that a theory. You see, us scientists actually mean it when we say that something is a theory. My perspective on the big bang, is that it is something that other people have thought up, to the best of their abilities, and they might be completely wrong, or they might only be partially right.
3. In fact, we know that Newton's laws do not hold up at a subatomic level, and so they are irrelavent to the big bang anyway. Thus it is not in conflict with "the laws of physics". But, I don't blame you. I blame scientists for continuing to call it a law, even though we know it is not. It is merely a framework to explain a certain frame of reference. In my introductory physics course they even admitted that. I would hope that Christian authors at least attend intro physics courses, before preaching to untold millions about said physics.
All I'm asking is for people to admit that they don't know, and that we all only have our theories, at least at this stage of the game.
Then you have missed my point, because you should question everything. I may or may not be insane. I may or may not be an artificial intelligence program on a computer somewhere. You don't know.
My assertion of insanity is uncivil, and for that I apologise. But, is it rational to confuse what is known with what one would like to believe? And what would you call a systematic rejection of rationalism?
Kyle? said:
There is no way to know that the many separate accounts, which have been compiled into the Bible, are in fact true. People chose what would go into it. Furthermore, how do we know that it was not intentionally subverted to some other cause, early on? Do you trust the people who may or may not have written the gospels, so much? Why would you give your trust so completely, without much proof? And finally, if more than half of the New Testament is written by some guy Paul, who never met Jesus, yet he was able to convince everyone that he saw visions, etc., then how can you rationally assume that he's not a fraud, and that they all aren't to some degree? Seems like a lot of unlikely assumptions to me. I'll accept if you take it as faith, but please do not pretend that we should take it as fact.
Kyle? said:
I have this "argument" in every single how-to-recover-from-being-an-atheist-and-reenter-the-fold book that my family has ever given me.
To save typing, I'm going to ignore the Jesus was the Devil part, since neither you nor I think that. Which leaves us with Jesus was either god or insane. Usually the argument goes that Jesus acted so sanely, that it's doubtful that he was insane, so he must be god. Quite a leap. And usually, the person infers that one would have to be stark raving mad to martyr themselves, or attempt a bit of fame, and Jesus wasn't stark raving mad, so he's god. I point out to you all of the people in our day and age who are quite willing to martyr themselves, to further some wacko cult. I point out to you all the people who are willing to say anything and do anything for a little bit of fame. I point out to you people like David Koresh who started out seeming normal, but then imploded later on. I point out to you the simple fact that there are plenty of people who have mental disorders that come and go, and have varying degrees of incapacitance, who you would not refer to as stark raving mad, but who are in reality in need of help.
It boggles the mind how we can see how many people are messed up in this world, and then make an assertion that someone could either be insane or god, merely because they've sacrificed for their fame. I've read C.S. Lewis, and here is my version: C.S. Lewis is either a fanciful writer who has taken poetic license from time to time, or he is an ignorant fool who does not understand humanity as it is.
Kyle? said:
Et la piece de resistance, the assumption that it is either A xor B, once again, in the culmination that either creationism is correct, or some scientists, who are only people after all, are correct.
Never mind that:
1. We've only followed the scientific method for a hundred years or so in the west, compared to our thousands of years of written history, and thus I would expect us to not know the answers so soon, if ever. In fact, it's been shown time and time again that scientists have been wrong. We accept that, it's a part of the process. What is dangerous is to allow the dogmatic perception that something is known, to infect our view of science. In math we can prove things, but in all else we can only disprove things. And sometimes one doesn't have enough of a view of the puzzle to know that we haven't eliminated all other possibilities to leave us with one truth.
2. The theory of the big bang, is precisely that a theory. You see, us scientists actually mean it when we say that something is a theory. My perspective on the big bang, is that it is something that other people have thought up, to the best of their abilities, and they might be completely wrong, or they might only be partially right.
3. In fact, we know that Newton's laws do not hold up at a subatomic level, and so they are irrelavent to the big bang anyway. Thus it is not in conflict with "the laws of physics". But, I don't blame you. I blame scientists for continuing to call it a law, even though we know it is not. It is merely a framework to explain a certain frame of reference. In my introductory physics course they even admitted that. I would hope that Christian authors at least attend intro physics courses, before preaching to untold millions about said physics.
All I'm asking is for people to admit that they don't know, and that we all only have our theories, at least at this stage of the game.
Kyle? said:
Then you have missed my point, because you should question everything. I may or may not be insane. I may or may not be an artificial intelligence program on a computer somewhere. You don't know.
My assertion of insanity is uncivil, and for that I apologise. But, is it rational to confuse what is known with what one would like to believe? And what would you call a systematic rejection of rationalism?
To accept something as faith is to treat it as fact. And yet when you observe something yourself, you must have faith that you have the ability to observe properly, and when you accept what someone else tells you then you have to have faith in their word. So fact is, essentially, faith.
