david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/14/85)
Reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: reply to David Harwood, concerning miracles Message-ID: <465@cybvax0.UUCP> In article <281@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > > Of course I'm aware that you intended to draw a different conclusion from > > the story of JC being tempted. My purpose in presenting the Jesus as > > charletain hypothesis is to show that a simple explanation suffices to > > explain the purpose of that "teaching" passage. > > The story of the Gospels is not told by Jesus, but by their > authors who are early disciples, and they also say that Jesus did work > miracles among some of the people. Obviously, you prefer to deny the > account of the miracles, while accepting their "rationalization" of a > "charlatan". Why should they bother to contradict themselves? And why > should you draw any simple conclusion from an apparent contradiction, > especially when you are unfamiliar with the scriptures, unless you are > simply prejudiced? The disciples were probably fully aware of JC's fraudulence. They worked together as a religious cabal, with JC as leader and the apostles as shills. In the prophet biz, you have to talk up your main man. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do you honestly believe this? It is one thing for early Christians to give up their lives for a delusion, something else for them to give up their lives for a fraud, when they could have easily disavowed their profession. I have no doubt about the religious sincerity of the apostles, regardless of whether they were mistaken about some things. Do you honestly believe this, or are you angry with my reply, or with your own inability to reply without making accusations? You should believe me, at least, when I say that I have no motivation to decieve you; I simply feel that I should reply to your accusations (which are hardly "agnostic" as you say; I was "atheist" for most of my life, and I was far more temperate than you in imputing the intentions of others.) If you impute the intentions of others then you cannot listen to them fairly. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > But the real point of the passage is that the rule or kingdom > of God is by spiritual power, rather than by what is material. Simply > consider the quality of the three temptations and the replies. As Jesus > said, "Do you not understand; the kingdom of heaven is within you." > The "heaven" which is over all others, by which the universe is humanly > effected, is between the ears, much as God is said to rest upon the > Ark between the cherubim (or, perhaps, the body of Christ is said to > have lain in the tomb between the two angels, before he was risen.) Well of course. If they said gawd ruled in some material way we could see, their audiences would have laughed and said "No, the Romans do." This is an example of the god of the cracks school of religion. God's not nearly as busy as he used to be now that we have materialistic explanations for winds and planetary movements and such. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This view that God's governance is spiritually influential did not originate with the early Christians at all, but according to ancient Jewish tradition. As a matter of fact, the most important but least humanly predictable objective phenomena are the consequence of human psychology. If you would really like to know what Jewish religious tradition says about the "winds and planetary movements and such," interpreting these things scripturally as an kind of astrological parable of the creation and governance by God, then you should read "The Guide for the Perplexed," by Moses Maimonides, generally considered to be the greatest Jewish sage of all time, excepting Moses. Read carefully, until you get to the climax at Book III, chapter 7, his last word concerning the Chariot of Ezekiel. There he makes certain flash-like allusions to the governance by God of the "winds and planetary movements" (or celestial spheres). You can let us know what your opinion of this work. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > If you are looking for "miracles" out there somewhere, you are > like the one who is looking for the living among the dead, though the > one is said to be dead, and the others said to be living. But if you do not > understand the simplest figures of the scriptures, then why should you > make wild accusations about "charlatans" and "fraudulent miracle-workers"? Consider the parable of the bind men and the elephant. You say the elephant is like a wall because you examine 2000 years of interpretation by believers who didn't question their assumptions. I've felt the wall, and may not know its wrinkles as well as you do, but I have also felt the snake-like trunk of interpretation without supernatural assumptions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please believe me when I say that I have read almost none of the "2000 years of interpretation" and that I do question assumptions. As I've written about before, I am a new-comer to Christianity, who knew essentially nothing about it. Only after my conversion, did I begin to understand the scriptures, without the influence of any other person. Subsequently, over the next few years I discovered some interesting "theological" writings by others, which were essentially in agreement with what I already had begun to understand. The only work, beside the Bible, that I read before my conversion was not at all theological -- Tolstoi's autobiographical My Confession, about his reconversion to radical Christianity (of a somewhat Jewish aspect) as an older man. The only "theological" works which I've read afterwards, which I recall as being interesting to me, were Augustine's commentary on John, the Anchor Bible translation and commentary of John, by the Catholic Raymond Brown, essays and "The Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimonides (which startled me, and made me realize that Christianity and Judaism are like a lock and key, if you wish), the Journal of George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends (whom I cannot praise enough, even though some are my personal friends), and An Apology, the only truly "theological" work of the Quakers, by Robert Barclay, written 300 years ago. My point is that I knew nothing about others' opinions, neither was I greatly influenced by them, except that I found consolation in them, as well as the Bible. Any of us may be mistaken, as I may be (certainly tha allusions I've made are very probably not traditional), but there is no reason for you to be too sure about yourself, or about what you would characterize as traditional "snake-like trunk of interpretation." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > (You, who can't even spell "charlatan" correctly, -- has someone > said that you are a "hack" since you don't know what you are spelling, > nevermind talking about? No, you may know something about programming > machines. Just maybe, then, the Gospel authors also know something you > don't understand; and simply because they choose to write about this in a > way which you may distort does not mean they are "fraudulent" at all. > After all, why should someone who merely speaks English expect to understand > your "obscure" Lisp code?) (You, who can't even avoid using blatant fallacies of argument -- has someone said that you are a "hack" because you don't know that you're using ad-hominem attacks, the use of emotionally toned words, making a statement in which "all" is implied but "some" is true, and argument by imperfect analogy all in the same paragraph? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm sorry I took advantage of your spelling, and indirectly referred to you as a "hack". However, my argument was not strictly "ad hominem", in the sense that I was intending to refute your opinions by personally discrediting your intelligence. I admit that I knew that it was incidently slighting of you; nevertheless, I have great respect for your intelligence if not for your opinions. (I know you know "some" things, also that I am making an analogy which fails in some respects (but succeeds in others).) As you understand, I am taking advantage of your slip, to make a point, not to simply belittle you. (In the first place, my motivation for replying to you was annoyance about your very glib accusations about "fraud" and "charlatan", so you can expect emotional response as well.) But the argument itself was not strictly ad hominem. It amounts to observing that while you may know some things, it is unfair for you to characterize others as religious "charlatans" because they fail to do what you expect, when it is you who fails to understand their religious language, just as it unfair for me or others to characterize you as a programming "hack" because we expect correct English spelling, when we fail to appreciate what is really the language of your business. The point is that our expectations may be irrelevant because of our ignorance. But you simply insist that somebody do what you want, and make accusations if they do not, when it is more reasonable to try to consider what are the their claims first, which may have nothing to do your expectations of them. The simple fact is that Jesus never claimed to do anything on demand. This does not mean there were not miracles for some; simply not for you. (Just as you will never walk on the moon, for example, which of course does not mean that others have not, or that the whole story is a conspiracy of self-serving charlatans. Even if this story would be suspect among aborigines somewhere, that does not mean it is fraudulent, or even false.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just maybe, then, the authors of other sacred texts know something YOU don't understand. Or perhaps I do. Hitler probably knew things we don't understand. Does that mean we have to believe everything he said unskeptically?) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What I don't understand is overwhelming; I admit I am not so familiar with works besides the Bible, although I've been interested to read the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao de Ching, and Shobogenzo, to give examples of Indian, Chinese, and Japanese (zazen) writings; and I could not easily appreciate many things. Nevertheless, I believe the Biblical revelation of the one, true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, even if this revelation is somewhat obscured by a great cloud of words. I can believe you understand many things, but I am not afraid to say what I believe. What does Hitler have to do with this? He was an atheist, by his own account. Are you being outrageously insulting, likening your skepticism about my views to that about Hitler's? I apologize for making a slighting reference to you about being a "hack". Nevertheless, my analogy is not so imperfect as you insist. In any case, I don't deserve to have you make any comparison like this at all. May the Lord make you ashamed of this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The important thing at the time when JC or his disciples might be called > > upon to work a miracle would be to have a ready excuse for not working > > a miracle right then (assuming, of course, that they were not divine.) > > There are abundant claims in the Bible of JC casually working miracles. > > People would expect to see him work a miracle for them. If JC was a > > real miracle-worker, he wouldn't need an excuse. > > What nonsense. Jesus was already dead for years when this passage > was written. How do you know the parables were not used before they were written, perhaps even while JC was alive? You're guessing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This passage is ~narrative~ of the private life of Jesus, not a ~parable~ spoken by Jesus. Of course, it may be a ~parable~ by the author about Christ. The oldest source Mark does not give the details of the story; Matthew and Luke are interpretative expansions of Mark, which do give details about this "event"; there is believed to be a source of Jesus' parables, written before Mark, which is lost, but the narratives are believed to have been written for communities later, post 65-70, beginning with Mark, for securing the faith, when the present world did not end, as expected, with the return of Christ. Altogether, there is prima facie evidence that this story was written later, after the time of Mark, although there may very well have been a prior account used by Matthew and Luke. (However, it seems possible that Luke is dependent on Matthew, which was written for a Jewish community, so the origin may lie in an early independent Jewish source; however, I "guess" this is not so, since it is not included by Mark, as such. My point is that Matthew and Luke tend to be derivative of Mark, and even more fully interpretative by parable. To show that this may be a later narrative ~parable~, consider that it is not found, as such, in the first extant sources, Mark or the even earlier writings of Paul, neither in the more obviously figurative, but latest account of John. And there is another such example of ~narrative~, which is more controversial, which also does not occur in Mark, or in Paul, or later in John, but which occurs in Matthew and Luke: the story of the Virgin Birth. Is this ~narrative~ or a ~narrative~ parable by the very "Jewish" account of Matthew? After all, the point of the story is that ~Christ~ was not born by human desire, but begotten of God; this is made emphatic by the virginity of Mary; also a Jewish community would especially appreciate that the Messiah was to be born of God by Israel, said to be the beloved Virgin of God. Therefore, it seems to me that the detailed account of the temptations is also a ~narrative~ parable written by Matthew for a Jewish community which could appreciate these things. I should say that this discussion is somewhat beside my original point, which was not when the story originated, but why should Matthew, believed to have been written post 80 AD have included a story for the reasons you say, so to rationalize his failure to do miracles, when Matthew is believed by experts to have been written many years after Jesus' death; and, besides this, they have no obvious self-serving reason to talk about his failure at all, especially after he was dead, which would hurt their purpose. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The Gospel writers, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts(Luke), > are writing "theological" parables of the life of Christ, not histories, > although there are certainly some factual "tent-stakes". Besides this, > outside these writings, there is hardly an important mention of "miracles" > as if they were external events: the only prospective miracle, which is > mentioned again and again, is the unexpected (so-called second) "coming > of Christ," on the "Day of the Lord," when the "dead" shall be resurrected > and judged. > As for the Gospel accounts of the miracles, in my opinion, all > of them should be understood as fulfillment of prophetic figures for > the kingdom of God: they are parables by the first Christians, themselves > containing parables by Jesus, of the spiritual power of God revealed in > the life of Christ: whether "feeding" the hungry people with the five > loaves of bread and few fish (5 books of the Torah, the old teaching, and > the "fish" of the new teaching; in one place, 7 loaves representing the > 7 churches), or calming the storm about their boat on the Sea of Galilee > (something like the providence at the Sea of Reeds), or changing the > ordinary water into "new wine" when the old wine had lost force to bind > (marry) mankind to one another and to God, or healing the spiritually > crippled or imprisoned or blind, as prophesied by Isaiah, or even > resurrecting the "dead". > These are all written to show the spiritual power of God, shown > in the life of Christ and in those called to be Christians. Are these the > miracles and signs you would like to see in order to be convinced? I very > much doubt it. Are you saying the miracles did not all actually occur? Is that what you mean by "hardly an important mention of 'miracles' as if they were external events"? If they are just parables, then why shouldn't we consider the resurrection and god itself as just more parables? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here, I want to be clear that I am giving my own opinion, not the traditional opinion. At the outset, I would say that I don't know what actually 2000 years ago, anymore than do you. I do say that the accounts of the miracles, except for the 'resurrection', are not what did secure my faith; also, they are not so emphasized by the accounts of Paul, which you must remember, are the very earliest extant accounts, and are, in my opinion, closer to what Christianity is all about, in somewhat plainer words than parables. Paul emphasizes the resurrection again and again; this is the greatest miracle: by the grace of God, we are saved in our sins by the resurrection of the spirit of Christ in our hearts. My belief, as I have said before, is that this 'resurrection' of Christ is initiated by a 'supernatural' act of God in our consciousness. What is this act? If you understand the answer to this, you will understand the transition between Judaism and Christianity. Before the time of Christ, the prophets were said to be called by God, except for Moses, by an "angel", in a dream or vision. I would say that we might call this "Angel of the Lord" a a conscious, but subjective perception, indicating unmistakeably the presence of God. Anyway, the reason the apostles and others believed that Jesus was the Christ, or annoited of God, "raised up to Heaven", to be at the "right hand of the Power (or Arm) of God", was because this "signature" or sign of God's presence and power, became associated by God in their minds with Christ: Jesus was transfigured in their hearts as the Christ, with the Name of the Lord, so to speak, as a seal of approval. With this true miracle, the spirit of Christ is eternally resurrected among the living in every generation. (As a very inadequate analogy, it is like a system "interrupt" by God, which "calls" for us to become like Christ, we have read about, and just thought about. One becomes a Christian, only after one really listens to the Gospel, and is in a state ~for~ repentance. Then there may be the grace of God. I don't wish to offend anyone by this account.) Otherwise, you have asked about the objective status of the Gospel 'miracles'; as I see it, they are included always with a spiritual point, whether or not they objectively occurred as described. I do believe that there were miracles of healing, by the power of God, but especially as forseen by Isaiah -- the 'blind' see, the 'deaf' hear, the 'crippled' walk, the 'imprisoned' are set free -- many of the miracles are of this sort, as if the 'dead' were resurrected by the presence of Christ. Of course, I don't know for sure whether these healings occurred during or after Jesus' death, since they were written later. But I believe they also occurred during his life, but by the power of God. I will remind you of the ultimate petition of Catholic Mass (just before we go to receive bread and wine): Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed. I believe this because I have experienced it myself. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It's not exceptional for one vague pronouncement to be used to teach > > several different points. As a matter of fact, that's common in most of > > the world's religions. > > You confuse "vague" with "ambiguous"; the Gospels are written by > perhaps the greatest literary geniuses of all time -- there is nothing > "vague" about them; rather they are deliberately ambiguous, in the sense > that they have an a real meaning which is not the same as their external > one, but one which is understood somewhat after one has become a Christian. > There are also "obscure" matters in Paul. But nearly everything written in > the Gospels has a clear point to make about the spiritual kingdom of God, > revealed through Christ. Even the Gospel according to Mark, the oldest > of them, is not literal at all, and explicitly refers to the "secrets" of > their parables which may be understood only by the disciples; this can only > be expected: according to very ancient Jewish tradition, predating the life > of Jesus, some things are not to be discussed unambiguously with ordinary > people for various reasons; therefore Jesus himself did use parables in > his teaching; as his disciples, the Gospel writers did the same also. > The Gospels, as I've said before, are parables told by Jesus about the > kingdom of God, within parables told by the first Christians about the > life of Christ. 2000 years of constant reinterpretation testify to the vagueness of the Gospels. Some interpretations may view them as ambiguous, with geniuses for authors, but like criticisms of art, the results are subjective and vary with the phases of the moon. That's why there is so little agreement among the thousands of Christian sects about specific meanings of passages of the bible. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I agree that they are vague in the minds of the readers, just as are the Jewish scriptures, which are somewhat intentionally "cloudy" about some matters. But they were not vague in the authors' minds: who were somewhat intentionally ambiguous. I agree that Christian sects disagree among themselves; more liberal ones tend to agree with my views, which are perhaps radical. Frankly, I tend to believe that a far truer understanding of 'Christianity' will come from the Jews themselves, as Paul expressly declares, since they best appreciate their own tradition and use of religious figures of speech. This is my lock and key hypothesis: Christianity is true, in a puzzling sort of way, which most Christians perhaps do not understand, but Jewish prophetic tradition is the "key" to a truer understanding of what it means. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Here we have an ideal conspiracy theory interpretation of skeptics. > > Skeptics are like Satan, they really know who and what JC really is, > > and their testing is only malicious and evil and so should be disregarded. > > And any way, that's all beneath JC's dignity. I can't be expected to > > believe such paranoid claptrap. > > As you say yourself, "such paranoid claptrap." I simply observed > that you make an accusation against Jesus, demanding to see a "miracle", > as you materially understand this. And I observed that you omitted Satan > from consideration, in your speculations about the "motivations" of ancient > others. All this other stuff about "conspiracy", who "knows who and what", > "malicious and evil" is in your mind, and has absolutely nothing to do > with what I said: I said what I meant. My quote above is how the biblical parable of JC and Satan can be used as a simple conspiracy theory explanation for (McCarthy-like) silencing of skeptics. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First we have Hitler, now McCarthy. Listen to me: you are defending yourself when no one thinks any of these things about you, or others who are skeptical. The only thing I said about you was that you accused Jesus (implicitly the Gospel authors),for no very justified reason, of being "fraudulent" and "charlatan". Furthermore, at the beginning of your latest reply above, you refer to the apostles as a "fraudulent", "religious cabal", and "shills". You are the one with "conspiracy theories" everywhere. Methinks thou do protest too much. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Let me give you a friendly word of advice: I will say what I > want. You should watch out for yourself: you have already proved to go > far afield with "speculations" about what is already clear, including > motivations for the passage at hand, as well as my own words, which you > manage to completely distort. Tsk tsk. Rudeness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is indeed "a friendly word of advice", about dealing with me: watch out for yourself, and listen. I will do the same. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > As for sticking to the point, you recall that in your original > comment you made simply one point, an accusing speculation about a passage, > about which I made a different point which you deleted, a speculation which > was made ignoring the context, including the presence of Satan, and the > symbolic places where it occurred, the time in his life, the facts that > Jesus did not write anything, and that he was dead 40 years when this was > written. > Besides this, you do not consider what is said in the rest of > the Gospel about signs and miracles, which is germane, if you really want > to know what you are talking about. For example, why do the Gospels appear > to contradict themselves, even intentionally, about the importance of > these things? As I have already explained: it is so to make a distinction > between what is spiritual and what is not. Your interpretations in terms of "spiritual" things are as irrelevant to me as stories based on fairy aristocracies. Forgive me if I don't bother to address them, as they're not my strong point. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So what you're saying is that you aren't going to listen: this is not your strong point obviously. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > First, the Gospels say that > even Jesus could not work miracles among those who had no faith, and he > was amazed by their lack of faith. Why do they portray the "failure" > of his power at all, long after his death, if they want to decieve someone? Isn't that funny. Fraudulent psychics and their ilk follow this same practice today. All of a sudden their "powers" won't work in front of professional magicians and other skeptics. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You miss the point -- supporters of "fraudulent psychics" do not portray their failures after they are dead, for no good reason. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Second, the Gospels explicitly have Jesus say that he himself has no > power, but rather that God does these things. Why do they appear to deny > his own divine power, if they want to decieve? Why do they even have him > misquote the Jewish scriptures at one point? Would God do this? Third, > Jesus is said to tell his accusers that there shall be no signs for this > evil generation (what is your complaint). Why then do the Gospels present > all these miracles? Aha! Yet another conspiracy theory! If you doubt, you can't tell, and if you're convinced you'll be convinced! Wow! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your reason for exclamations about more "conspiracy theories" is not at all clear to me. Again, you miss the point: why do the Gospel present this paradox at all? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > It seems that the Gospels are determined to confuse matters, but > actually they confuse those like you who are so materially literal. There > is no contradiction when you consider, as I have pointed out already, that > the Gospels are talking about spiritual realities. First, there are > signs only for those desire faith, and these are spiritual (or psycholog- > ical if you prefer), although they certainly have objective consequences. > Second, God is the one who did these things, not Jesus a human being; but > he did them, dignifying Christ, but according to His will. Finally, addressing Yet another convenient cop-out: JC could say "I really would like to work a miracle for you right now, but God isn't willing just now. Sorry." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ He never apologized for this, as you say. You certainly have no claims on God, otherwise you would be God. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > your complaint, according to the tradition, God heals those who are troubled > and seek Him; He does not help others who are arrogant and do not desire > Him. Also according to the tradition, He simply will not be tested. There Aha! The same conspiracy theory again! If you doubt, you can't tell, and if you're convinced you'll be convinced! Wow! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Are you arrogant? You sure are if what I say is true. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > is no possible expectation of proof as you would like, since you are testing > God, and have no sincere desire for faith, so far: you prefer to be agnostic. > Of course, there are indeed miracles, but these are only certainly known among > those who desire faith, who are made to understand the spiritual power of God > over what is hidden within the "heavens" of our hearts. Until around age 12, I was a sincere believer, yet received no proof from god. (I made the transition to agnostic by 16.) Do you challenge my testimony? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No, but I was always skeptical, an atheist until age 31, who found Christ when I needed him. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > But your point is: you propose that Jesus prove himself to you, > > and everyone, by a supernatural act. In this sense, you are his accuser. > > Also, you wish to disregard the testimony of others, because you prefer > > your own more 'rational' viewpoint. (And we all do this sometimes, but > > it is wrong to dismiss the views of those who have no pretty obvious reason > > to deceive anyone; the earliest followers had no such obvious motivation, > > but sought to be faithful, yet they were in agreement that God had made > > known to them that Jesus was the Christ.) > > The choice is not JC or nothing: it is JC, Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, > Moses, Krishna, etc. or nothing. They all have testimony in their favor > by believers who have "no obvious reason to deceive anyone". Until I have > some reasonable way to select one as being real, I think it is foolish to > believe in any of their claims about gods or the supernatural. I invite > any of them to convince me. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I never said they intended to decieve. Neither did I say that there > was no truth in them. You are the one with groundless accusations about > "charlatans" and "fraudulent miracle-workers", which flatly contradicts > what you've quoted. Surely, you really believe all these witnesses are > also frauds as well, but you prefer to muddle about. I wrote the above to illustrate your fallacy of special pleading. No muddling about there. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On the contrary, I probably have more respect for their religions do you; I am not in the business of converting others who are already full of good will. They don't need my help. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The only thing I would say about these others is: first, unlike > Christianity, they are not widely accepted throughout the world in every > culture. This is because of missionaries, but also because the simple Gospel > message of charitable love is compellingly universal, and untainted by > either violence or escape from reality: it is about good will in the real > world; second, if we are to survive as a human race, we shall someday have > to live as Jesus did, securing justice and peace with steadfast charitableness > and truth. There is the "beatitude": "Happy shall be the gentle; for they > shall inherit the earth." But this is from a Psalm, where it essentially > says that the wicked shall have someday destroyed themselves. Finally, if > this is so, and if there is God, then from the point of view of racial > survival, Christianity is morally axiomatic; and not only this, if there > is God, then surely Jesus was His Son who revealed the way of life. What appalling parochialism. The religions of empire builders have always spread with the empires. Christianity just happens to be the religion of the Western Imperialists who have dominated the world for the past 4 centuries. Islam became widely accepted in all the cultures the Moorish conquored, displacing Christianity in some. And Christianity is not the only major religion with charitable love. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am a Christian, quoting Jewish scripture. As far as I'm concerned, Imperialism is the enemy of Christianity, by definition; Christ was crucified by the Empire, with a little help from its religious supporters. While other religions all have love, for that reason they are true; but only the Gospel, nevermind Imperialist Christianity, is distilled like the dew of the Earth. As it is said, God is love. I'm amused to hear about "parochialism" from a self-professed "agnostic" -- such hypocrisy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > As I say, there are miracles all the time, but not as you imagine, > and not for you, unless you will someday want to get down on your knees. I say there's some marvellous land for you in the everglades: give me your money first. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Is that all you think about $$$$$$$$$$ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I've never made a secret of not knowing the answers: I have openly billed > > myself as an agnostic. You claim you know something about god: if you > > think you know why any hypothetical god would or wouldn't prove anything > > to me, feel free to tell us all. Or let that deity show us. > > I've already speculated about these things at length in other > replies; as for you, are you prepared to get on your knees before God, > or would you rather not? He will simply give you what you would sincerely > desire. I've done it, and not gotten any results. Before I discovered agnosticism. If I was foolish enough to try again, and didn't get results again, you'd simply claim (as if you had any way of knowing) that I didn't really believe. So why don't you then believe in Buddha? Get down in your lotus position and contemplate until you achieve enlightenment! Not there yet? You're not sincere enough! Too bound up in maya. Aw, you skeptics are all alike, profound in your ignorance. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Try again.