tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7733255388538663016..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Reply to Scott on ChristianityVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50665161992796176372009-04-05T19:33:00.000-07:002009-04-05T19:33:00.000-07:00MatthewKindly supply me a sample of the long-ago C...Matthew<BR/><BR/>Kindly supply me a sample of the long-ago Church-apologists' voluminous documention of the supposed infirmity of the hoax idea. After all, I typed several paragraphs of points that you could try to answer, however decrepit you believe they are. <BR/><BR/>It's you who have to supply proof of it not being suspicious that a hierarchical Rome-based religion preaching pacificism arose out of super-militant, Roman-hating Israel. After all, cui bono? It sure wasn't the Jews, who still suffer from one of Rome's many inventions, Anti-Semitism. It sure was the Roman Empire, from a religion that so conveniently preached 'Render unto Caesar'. <BR/><BR/>While you're at it, prove the martyrs' tales aren't hoaxes too.Interstellar Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542387713928118211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27177068786975478002009-04-04T13:10:00.000-07:002009-04-04T13:10:00.000-07:00Walter,My own response, as a cowardly anonymous, i...Walter,<BR/><BR/>My own response, as a cowardly anonymous, is that there is ample reasoning to get someone to deism or a basic theism a priori. And the moment either is attained, the case for the possibility of miracles (or the idea that the deity would have chosen a way to communicate) is increased greatly.<BR/><BR/>I'm not really laying out a huge case for Christianity here, but I'll at least say this. Getting to said basic deism/theism, or even a good skepticism of naturalism, at the very least imparts a reason to take religion and searching for God seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70339688501167277552009-04-04T12:56:00.000-07:002009-04-04T12:56:00.000-07:00Anon:Sorry, Steve. As Victor has said, what went o...Anon:<BR/>Sorry, Steve. As Victor has said, what went on with the jews and Christ gives great reason and justification to invest faith. If it's not good enough for you because you'd like a personal miracle, that's your call. Though there are more than enough miracles and coincidences of nature and natural science to land you in deism/basic theism to begin with.<BR/><BR/>Walter:<BR/>I do not see that there is enough evidence to justify a belief in biblical miracles. Seems to call for a fideistic leap of faith.<BR/><BR/>I have my own doubts about metaphysical naturalism, but this only leads to to somewhere between agnosticism and Deism. Nowhere near Trinitarian Christianity.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19268308535442109302009-04-04T12:52:00.000-07:002009-04-04T12:52:00.000-07:00Considering the holocaust, eugenics, abortion, and...Considering the holocaust, eugenics, abortion, and scores of other contemplated evils, the argument that there aren't 'demons' at work in the world (Demons manifesting primarily as mental foulness in the NT) is a stretch to say the least.<BR/><BR/>Of course, in an age where science is making rapid advances in allowing soldiers to regrow lost limbs, I also think miracles are in abundance. To say nothing of computer simulations, nuclear weapons, and more. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36654520248927973682009-04-04T11:48:00.000-07:002009-04-04T11:48:00.000-07:00There is no god to perform these miracles.Just as ...There is no god to perform these miracles.<BR/><BR/>Just as there are no Golden Plates to be examined. These Golden Plates of Joseph Smith disappeared, just as surely as Lazarus disappeared....<BR/><BR/>But I'm sure Mormon commentators scoff at the demands of sceptics to see these Golden Plates, just like Christian commentators scoff at the demands of sceptics to see evidence of miracles.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The miracle stories are frauds and lies as <A HREF="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" REL="nofollow">Miracles and the Book of Mormon </A> shows.<BR/><BR/>And, of course, if Christianity were true, then we would expect demons to be working miracles today in the way that the New Testament claims demons infested the Holy Land.<BR/><BR/>But no such demonic activity is detected.<BR/><BR/>And early Christians, such as the writers of 1 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, Paul's letters never attributed Jesus miracles to sorcery.<BR/><BR/>In fact, they never mention them.<BR/><BR/>Just like no Christian outside the Gospels ever mentions having seen or heard of Arimathea, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Judas, Thomas, Andrew, Martha, the other Mary etc etc.<BR/><BR/>Until they appear in the anonymous Gospels and then in works that even Christians claim are fakes....Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41612080509621108302009-04-04T11:41:00.000-07:002009-04-04T11:41:00.000-07:00I'm under the impression that "physical structure"...I'm under the impression that "physical structure" thinking is quite the miracle.normajeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612628618334389249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74975860366112605192009-04-04T11:32:00.000-07:002009-04-04T11:32:00.000-07:00So by Carr's logic, God has to not only perform cl...So by Carr's logic, God has to not only perform clear and obvious miracles, but has to perform them to every person in every age, and likely more than once in those cases. Despite the fact that even early skeptics who accepted Christ's resurrection and miracles insisted they were works of a magician or, quite possibly, demons.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Steve. As Victor has said, what went on with the jews and Christ gives great reason and justification to invest faith. If it's not good enough for you because you'd like a personal miracle, that's your call. Though there are more than enough miracles and coincidences of nature and natural science to land you in deism/basic theism to begin with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83687963644902638092009-04-04T11:03:00.000-07:002009-04-04T11:03:00.000-07:00ROB GThese miracles were primarily for the faith o...ROB G<BR/>These miracles were primarily for the faith of the immediate witnesses, not for the masses....<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>ROB G<BR/>Likewise, since the Christian God desires a relationship based on faith (i.e., trust)....<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I see.<BR/><BR/><BR/>SO if some people spend 3 years with Jesus, they get miracles demonstrated to them, because God wants a relationship based on trust.<BR/><BR/>Hence the alleged miracles for the benefit of people who could see Jesus.<BR/><BR/>And all the other people have to trust that this happened.<BR/><BR/>And none of this has anything at all in common with frauds where the cult leader claims he can do amazing things, but refuses to demonstrate his alleged powers to the masses, but assures them that verified miracles have occurred.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90466138789113423702009-04-04T10:02:00.000-07:002009-04-04T10:02:00.000-07:00"There’s a theological reason that won’t satisfy t..."There’s a theological reason that won’t satisfy the unbeliever: Miracles are only necessary to establish the revelation of Christ and His Church at first (i.e., Acts 2), thus announcing to the world that they should reflect on and receive the Gospel."<BR/><BR/>Right. If memory serves, St. Augustine in the 5th century comments on the relative lack of miracles and healings in his day, and posits this as a possible explanation.<BR/><BR/>Being an Eastern Orthodox, I do not hold to the view that all miracles have ceased. I do believe, however, that they are much rarer than in the early Church for the reason mentioned above, as well as because of the lack of faith of modern man, occasioned by secularism and man's resultant faith in his own works. See Dale Allison's book 'The Luminous Dusk' for more on this.<BR/><BR/>"Miracles like walking on water, or telling people they can get free money by looking in the mouth of a fish?"<BR/><BR/>These miracles were primarily for the faith of the immediate witnesses, not for the masses. As I've argued before (and never got a response to, by the way), the skeptic's demand of a demonstrable, universally attested miracle is an exercise in hubris which God is in no wise obligated to respond to. It is like saying that you'll give Tibetan Buddhism a go, but only if the Dalai Lama comes to your house and explains it personally. Now he could, of course, come to your house and explain it, but why should he, given the nature of your demand?<BR/><BR/>Likewise, since the Christian God desires a relationship based on faith (i.e., trust), a universally attestable and scientifically demonstrable miracle would eliminate the need for faith; it would, in fact, be coercive. As someone put it once, if the moon rose tonight and on it the words 'Jesus is God' were inscribed, what need would there be for trust anymore? (Of course, there would still be some intractable atheists who'd dismiss even this, undoubtedly blaming it on the Vatican or the Discovery Institute).Rob Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49127062636204378662009-04-04T09:17:00.000-07:002009-04-04T09:17:00.000-07:00'God doesn't perform miracles to show off.'Miracle...'God doesn't perform miracles to show off.'<BR/><BR/>Miracles like walking on water, or telling people they can get free money by looking in the mouth of a fish? <BR/><BR/>Or making a whole town like Arimathea totally disappear from any public record, along with Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Joanna, Salome, Judas, Thomas, Andrew, the other Mary, Simon of Cyrene, his sons to the extent that even Christians of the first century never report them having anything to do with the public church?<BR/><BR/>That really is showing off!Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14272550869717014882009-04-04T04:32:00.000-07:002009-04-04T04:32:00.000-07:00Hi Interstellar Bill,unfortunately, your "It's all...Hi Interstellar Bill,<BR/>unfortunately, your "It's all a hoax"-argument is so old, it died of infirmity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91231940384014396642009-04-04T01:06:00.000-07:002009-04-04T01:06:00.000-07:00There's a much better explanation for Christianity...There's a much better explanation for Christianity than NT being true, namely that it's all a hoax. This is detailed in the 2005 book 'Caesar's Messiah' by Joseph Atwill. He shows the close relationship between the Gospels and Josephus' Histories. <BR/>After all, it's quite implausible that the highly rebellious first century Jews, fanatically Roman-loathing, would ever write anything complementary about Romans, let alone 'Render unto Casear' or 'Turn the other cheek'. Only Romans would pass this off as coming from a Jew. That's how we ended up with the ROMAN catholic church. <BR/>A real Son of God would have been noticed by the entire world at the time, from India to Britain, eliciting millions of pilgrims to visit that world-crossroads, Judea (which was not any sealed-off Shangrila). He certainly would have shown up in Philo's history.<BR/><BR/>Somehow I don't expect Christians to have an open mind on this one, so ask yourself why there was never any such 1st-century place as Nazareth, or Bethany, or Magdalane. Why is Christ's appearance never mentioned by those eye-witnesses?<BR/><BR/>As for Luke knowing so much geography, just check the travel schedule attributed to Paul's putative itinerary and you'll see it often shows the speed of a modern cruise ship - another miracle?Interstellar Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542387713928118211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33236911422433886242009-04-03T21:15:00.000-07:002009-04-03T21:15:00.000-07:00"Maybe God doesn't want to give us demonstrative k..."Maybe God doesn't want to give us demonstrative knowledge of his existence."<BR/><BR/>"For now we see through a glass, darkly..." 1Cor 13:12<BR/><BR/>"God doesn't perform miracles to show off."<BR/><BR/>There’s a theological reason that won’t satisfy the unbeliever: Miracles are only necessary to establish the revelation of Christ and His Church at first (i.e., Acts 2), thus announcing to the world that they should reflect on and receive the Gospel. If miracles were always going on, they would be as just another part of the natural world, People would think of them as ordinary and they would make little impression on people.Travis Crollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12868406912271416535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47372144384437335232009-04-03T19:11:00.000-07:002009-04-03T19:11:00.000-07:00Victor,Whereas I think you do well to critique Sco...Victor,<BR/>Whereas I think you do well to critique Scott's misunderstanding of the AFR and the AFC, I think your arguments against his final two points are not very strong (although I think you were making a joke with the last one about God not wanting to show off).<BR/><BR/>Scott says, "Out of all religions, Just because Christianity has the most plausible description of God's nature doesn't mean such a description must be accurate or is plausible when compared to agnosticism. If you say we must use faith to "plug the holes" in God's nature, then why plug them with a God who judges our choices based on incomplete information? Why plug them with a God who eternally exiles us from his presence without a chance to learn from such an exile? Why plug them with a God who found the smell of burnt offerings "pleasing" or demanded the violent death of a himself as a man, before he would forgive us of our own nature, which he himself supposedly created?"<BR/><BR/>His argument is partially rhetorical, but makes a clear point. The God of the philosophers does not bring us automatically to the God found in Jesus Christ. There are theological reasons for this move, but those are best left to those distinguishing the nature of God after coming to believe he exists. I've met plenty who have moved from an atheist to a deist position and just get stuck there...what suggestions would you have at this point?<BR/><BR/>Your response also comes close to betraying your initial post. In it you were arguing for some pointers toward "mere" Christianity being true when you say that those theological positions aren't universal. Although his first two critiques about hell, evidence for Himself and potentiality of post-death salvation are still debated (even in the most conservative sectors of evangelicalism), there is no doubt that his latter concerns (the God who is pleased by burnt offerings, sacrificed himself on the cross as forgiveness for fallen man), are perfectly in line with "mere" Christianity.<BR/><BR/>I don't think these critiques can be argued apart from revealed theology, but that opens up an entirely different field of theological study that comments on a blog will never even begin to dip into with any amount of clarity.<BR/><BR/>In response to Scott's final critique, you respond by saying, "Maybe God doesn't want to give us demonstrative knowledge of his existence."<BR/><BR/>This may be true, but it definitely would go against "mere" Christianity, which argues that God has been clearly revealed (Romans 1) as a moral lawgiver to which we must all be held accountable.<BR/><BR/>His arguments against Hume are easily countered by reference to the pages and pages of ink spilled by atheists and theists which have shown this argument to be faulty at various points...but I like where Scott goes next with his question about, "why does God still only appear to perform miracles in what could be mistaken for statistical chance, even when our ability to detect them increases?"<BR/><BR/>Of course there are plenty of theological presuppositions about God that go into both the question and a response which would need to be discussed, but ultimately it's a very good question. As someone who firmly believes that God desires some amount of "hiddenness" and that hiddenness is a requirement for free will, seeking and pursual of God, etc. (ala Moser's fine work on the subject), I'm not disturbed too much by the question...yet it is still a very good question that deserves a better response than that God doesn't want to show off, haha! Or maybe that is what you meant when you said he may not want to be demonstrably known.<BR/><BR/>Even this question comes back to how we view God as judge, how he treats those who received less knowledge or revelation, what possibilities there are for post-death salvation, etc. These questions aren't new (anyone read Origen and the Cappadocians on the subject?...good grief). The Christian understanding of the questions can be a barrier to belief for some, and as such needs to be something that we take up more carefully in the future, and something that we spend more time educated the laity concerning.Kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26649065533878199282009-04-03T18:15:00.000-07:002009-04-03T18:15:00.000-07:00Not to mention that the very way Hume defined 'mir...Not to mention that the very way Hume defined 'miracle' was (in the view of many) careless. Not every act of God has to come in the form of an inexplicable and seemingly magic trick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com