dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (10/03/84)
[] There seems to be a fair amount of activity on the net around the issue of evidence for christianity. If a christian wants to say that the truth of his beliefs rests on an experience he has had, but that those aspects of the experience which guarantee his beliefs as true cannot be communicated by him to others, then that is all well and good. I, along with various others, cannot imagine what sort of an experience he has had, but that does not prove that he didn't have it. At the same time, of course, this christian has given us no grounds to believe that he really has had such an experience. He CLAIMS he has, that is all. Given a world full of believers claiming incompatible "truths", and given lots of evidence for people's capacity to be deluded, we observers can hardly be blamed for doubting the claims of this christian -- though,as I said before, we do not know that his claims are false. If a christian claims that the truth of his beliefs can be derived from evidence that he can present to all of us, then that is another matter entirely, for then we can debate the evidence and the arguments from the evidence. I personally think it would be great if a christian could lay good evidence and arguments for the truth of christianity before me. I personally would be overjoyed. Unfortunately, however, this has never happened to me. I know of no good evidence or arguments for the truth of christianity. So why don't you christians out there figure out whether you derive the truth of your beliefs from personal, incommunicable experiences or from evidence that can be presented to all of us? In the first case, you will grant that we doubters, who have not had a similar experience, have no basis for believing your claims. In the second case, you can present your evidence, and then we can all decide just how good the evidence is. Daryel Akerlind ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker "Your ignorance makes me ill and angry. This savagery must cease."
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/11/84)
Daryel Akerlind asks: > So why don't you christians out there figure out whether you derive the > truth of your beliefs from personal, incommunicable experiences or from > evidence that can be presented to all of us? In the first case, you > will grant that we doubters, who have not had a similar experience, > have no basis for believing your claims. In the second case, you can > present your evidence, and then we can all decide just how good the > evidence is. I think I've been here before, but I'll try to answer anyway. The question is well put, in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, both personal experience and external evidence are important. I wouldn't give a nickel for the evidence for Christianity if Christianity didn't promise wonderful personal experiences. Conversely, though, I wouldn't have given a nickel for Christianity's promises if they hadn't been backed up with some evidence. When, as sometimes happens, I doubt the truth of Christianity (strangely enough, such times seem to correlate highly with those times when following Christ requires that I do something I would rather not), I still recall the evidence presented to me at the beginning, and I still cannot totally dismiss it. Now I must say something about the kind of evidence I am talking about. I cannot make God do tricks for you, along the lines of, "If God would only make the stars line up and spell, in my native language, 'God did this', I would believe." Now when I was first being presented with Christianity, I asked for something much simpler; I said that I would believe if He would make a pencil float in midair after I let go of it, instead of having it fall as gravity is wont to make it do. So if you are going to insist on that kind of evidence, I am sorry to say that you will continue to be disappointed. Similarly, no laboratory experiment is going to prove, or even suggest, that Christianity is true. If the results of some experiment were always the same, I could easily say that it was due to a (perhaps undiscovered) natural law. If the results were not always the same, I could as easily say that the experiment was inconclusive, since the results were inconsistent. Basically, I think that leaves historical evidence. Christianity is based on the teachings of a historical person, one Jesus (or Y'shua or Iesous) of Nazereth, who was born nearly 2000 years ago. It is also based on the life, death, and resurrection of that same Jesus. It is the resurrection, as a real event in real history, which originally convinced me that Christianity had a basis in reality (stubborn person that I am, it took two more years before I was really ready to become a Christian). So, I would pose the following as a debate topic: The historical evidence supports the contention that Jesus of Nazareth was killed by crucifixion and was subsequently raised from the dead. Unfortunately, I am an expert on neither debating techniques nor on history, but I'll give it a try (It shouldn't be necessary to be an expert, anyway; God supposedly wants to be found). I do need to know at what point to start, however. Do I need to prove that Jesus, a carpenter turned wandering preacher, lived at all? Or that he was crucified? Do I need to show the textual reliability of relevant documents (including, but not limited to, the gospels)? (Strange that other documents don't appear to be subjected to the same scrutiny that the Bible is (e.g., I have never heard it disputed that Julius Caesar wrote the works about Gaul attributed to him, which is not to say it hasn't been disputed, only that I haven't heard it), but that is another topic). If the above were accepted, either as given or after presenting acceptable evidence, then the argument, condensed for the sake of brevity, goes something like this: Crucifixion, when done right, and the Romans knew what they were doing, is invariably fatal. A gratuitous spear in the side confirmed that Jesus was really dead. Later, the disciples believed and claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Their own belief is shown by the fact that they were transformed from insignificant fishermen, a tax collector, and whatnot into some of the most influential characters of all time. I therefore think it silly to claim that the disciples stole the body, not even counting the fact that a guard of soldiers was posted to ensure that exactly that did not take place. Now if the enemies of Christianity knew where the body was, they would surely have produced it. They didn't; as far as I know, they never even claimed to. They claimed only that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. (How did the guards -- or anyone else -- know what happened while they were asleep? How did the disciples move a rather large rock without waking them up? And how often did guards sleep during their watch, anyway? (never more than once)). Now, if the disciples couldn't get the body, and their enemies couldn't produce it, and it couldn't walk away on its own accord, what happened to it? Gary Samuelson "When the impossible has been eliminated, bunker!garys whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/11/84)
Samuelson rejects physical evidence as a justification for belief in Christianity, but then claims to have been convinced by historical evidence. I'll comment on his "evidence", and you can make up your own mind about how tight a case he presents. First, in order to BECOME convinced, you must start with the possibility that the bible may not be inerrant. This means that any part of it may be false. > So, I would pose the following as a debate topic: The historical > evidence supports the contention that Jesus of Nazareth was killed > by crucifixion and was subsequently raised from the dead. > ... > Crucifixion, when done right, and the Romans knew what they were > doing, is invariably fatal. A gratuitous spear in the side > confirmed that Jesus was really dead. There are several consistent ways to explain the above claim. 1) JC really didn't die. A) The soldiers involved were incompetent. B) The soldiers were bribed to bring him down before death. Additionally, the spear in the side could have been made up to enhance the story. 2) JC did die. > Later, the disciples believed and claimed that Jesus had risen from > the dead. Their own belief is shown by the fact that they were > transformed from insignificant fishermen, a tax collector, and > whatnot into some of the most influential characters of all time. > I therefore think it silly to claim that the disciples stole the > body, not even counting the fact that a guard of soldiers was posted > to ensure that exactly that did not take place. 1) Hitler was transformed from an insignificant paper-hanger to one of the most influential characters of all time. He claimed many things, but we can't say he really believed all the things he said. Neither must we believe the apostles' claims without better proof. 2) Assuming JC did die: A) The body dissapearing might have been made up. There is no corroborative evidence that the body was placed in a tomb at all. All we have is the agreement of a set of possible co-conspirators (the apostles). B) The body could have been stolen by the apostles or others. Guards can be bribed, tricked, off elsewhere, or active participants. 3) JC may have lived, and been moved by one of the above scenarios. > Now if the enemies of Christianity knew where the body was, they > would surely have produced it. They didn't; as far as I know, they > never even claimed to. They claimed only that the body was stolen > by the disciples while the guards slept. (How did the guards -- or > anyone else -- know what happened while they were asleep? How did > the disciples move a rather large rock without waking them up? > And how often did guards sleep during their watch, anyway? (never > more than once)). As far as you know. Cute attempt, but you can't use ignorance as proof. And who would the "enemies" have shown the body to? Television? They would have had to parade it around many villages, following in the footsteps of the rumormongers. And how could they convince people that the corpse was JC? Fingerprints? Fillings in the teeth? Blood tests? Prove to me that Jimmy Hoffa hasn't been resurrected from the dead. As for the rock, it may be just enhancement of the story, or one of the above explantions may suffice. > Gary Samuelson "When the impossible has been eliminated, > bunker!garys whatever remains, however improbable, must be > the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed until his dying days that certain photographs were proof positive of the existence of fairies. The photographs have since been exposed as fakes by the discovery of the children's book from which they were cut out, and the confession of one of the girls (now 80) who took them. So much for the great defective and your attempt at his methods. The fact is that the evidence for JC's rising from the dead is worth nothing unless you ASSUME the inerrancy of the evidence. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/11/84)
> Do I need to show the textual > reliability of relevant documents (including, but not limited to, > the gospels)? (Strange that other documents don't appear to be > subjected to the same scrutiny that the Bible is (e.g., I have > never heard it disputed that Julius Caesar wrote the works about > Gaul attributed to him, which is not to say it hasn't been disputed, > only that I haven't heard it), but that is another topic). actually as I remember my history, there is wide speculation that Julius Caesar did not write all the accounts from Gaul attributed to him. It was one of the first cases of a ghost writer. Also, nobody ever claimed that Caesar's reports from Gaul represented divine truth--and their historical accuracy has been questioned about certain details. > > Now, if the disciples couldn't get the body, and their enemies > couldn't produce it, and it couldn't walk away on its own accord, > what happened to it? read "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins and find out!! > > Gary Samuelson "When the impossible has been eliminated, > bunker!garys whatever remains, however improbable, must be > the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Final question: will the same claim made for Mohammed be considered valid evidence? Mohammed supposedly ascended into heaven as well. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/12/84)
> As far as I am concerned, both personal experience and external > evidence are important. I wouldn't give a nickel for the evidence > for Christianity if Christianity didn't promise wonderful personal > experiences. Remember what's been said numerous times about expectations, preconceptions, and wishful thinking being the cornerstone of why many people choose to believe? Here we see another example. > Conversely, though, I wouldn't have given a nickel > for Christianity's promises if they hadn't been backed up with some > evidence. Mike Huybensz's followup deals mostly with this, and it is a fascinating article. (Bravo, Mike!) I urge all readers of this newsgroup to look carefully at it. His conclusion: the strongest point in favor of the "evidence" is that if you believe in its inerrancy, it all makes sense. Assume that the stories about Jesus were not apocryphal/made-up/exaggerated/ etc. and then it's all obvious. Mike says it much better than I could. > When, as sometimes happens, I doubt the truth of > Christianity (strangely enough, such times seem to correlate highly > with those times when following Christ requires that I do something > I would rather not), I still recall the evidence presented to me at > the beginning, and I still cannot totally dismiss it. Well ingrained it must be. These times when you'd "rather not" do something that "following Christ requires" seem to be times of great sudden insights on your part. At times like those, one should look objectively at both the evidence that is causing you to doubt and the evidence "presented at the beginning". Is the former faulty evidence? Is the latter unverifiable and self-reinforcing (cyclic) in nature? I'd hope that you would take a good look next time this happens. > Now I must say something about the kind of evidence I am talking > about. I cannot make God do tricks for you, along the lines of, > "If God would only make the stars line up and spell, in my native > language, 'God did this', I would believe." Now when I was first > being presented with Christianity, I asked for something much > simpler; I said that I would believe if He would make a pencil > float in midair after I let go of it, instead of having it fall > as gravity is wont to make it do. So if you are going to insist > on that kind of evidence, I am sorry to say that you will continue > to be disappointed. Fact is, I'm not "insisting" on ANY level of evidence. Just because YOU might be searching for evidence, for a "reason to believe in god" doesn't mean the rest of us are doing the same. Even defiantly demanding evidence from god betrays a presupposition of god's existence, a desire to believe that a god DOES exist. If evidence presents itself, then it merits discussion; but picking up scraps and assuming the end result of your search for evidence, followed by patching it all up with preconception doesn't cut it. And it's purely wishful thinking (projection) to assume that those that don't believe are demanding evidence. If it presents it, then it presents itself. It hasn't. Which would mean that those who believe do so based on presuppositions about the existence of god, including those who are demanding specific evidence. > Basically, I think that leaves historical evidence. Christianity > is based on the teachings of a historical person, one Jesus (or > Y'shua or Iesous) of Nazereth, who was born nearly 2000 years ago. > It is also based on the life, death, and resurrection of that > same Jesus. It is the resurrection, as a real event in real history, > which originally convinced me that Christianity had a basis in reality A "real event"? Again, see Mike Huybensz's followup. > (It shouldn't be necessary > to be an expert, anyway; God supposedly wants to be found). Isn't this just more wishful thinking? -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR *OLD* NET ADDRESS? {ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS YOUR *NEW* NET ADDRESS? {ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!pyuxd!rlr ALL RIGHT, OFF YOU GO! (AS OF 10/14/84) -----
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/12/84)
Mike Huybensz write: > Samuelson rejects physical evidence as a justification for belief in > Christianity... Is this misquote deliberate? What I said was that those who say they won't believe unless a suitable (to them) laboratory experiment was devised were going to be disappointed (on second thought, they probably would be more disappointed if such an experiment could be devised). > ...but then claims to have been convinced by historical evidence. > I'll comment on his "evidence", and you can make up your own mind about > how tight a case he presents. Why do so many netters put the word evidence in quotes? Already you are non-verbally asserting that what I suggest is evidence is none at all. Not bad evidence, or incomplete evidence, or inconclusive evidence, but no evidence at all. > First, in order to BECOME convinced, you must start with the possibility that > the bible may not be inerrant. This means that any part of it may be false. Well, I asked if I needed to choose a different starting point. If you want to talk about the reliability of the text, or the authorship of the various books, or the consistency of the bible, say so. > > So, I would pose the following as a debate topic: The historical > > evidence supports the contention that Jesus of Nazareth was killed > > by crucifixion and was subsequently raised from the dead. > There are several consistent ways to explain the above claim. > 1) JC really didn't die. > A) The soldiers involved were incompetent. > B) The soldiers were bribed to bring him down before death. > Additionally, the spear in the side could have been made up to enhance > the story. > 2) JC did die. Consistent explanations do not constitute evidence. Are you willing to assert that one of your scenarios correctly depicts what in fact did happen, so that I could ask for your evidence? I'm sure you can invent scenarios faster than I can refute them, but so what? > > Later, the disciples believed and claimed that Jesus had risen from > > the dead. Their own belief is shown by the fact that they were > > transformed from insignificant fishermen, a tax collector, and > > whatnot into some of the most influential characters of all time. > > I therefore think it silly to claim that the disciples stole the > > body, not even counting the fact that a guard of soldiers was posted > > to ensure that exactly that did not take place. > > 1) Hitler was transformed from an insignificant paper-hanger to one of the > most influential characters of all time. He claimed many things, but we > can't say he really believed all the things he said. Neither must we > believe the apostles' claims without better proof. Why do you think that Hitler didn't believe all the things he said? I think he was quite sincere in his belief that the Aryans were a superior race, and that the Jews should be exterminated. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? More to the point, do you have reason to believe that the early disciples did not believe that the resurrection took place? > 2) Assuming JC did die: > A) The body disappearing might have been made up. There is no corroborative > evidence that the body was placed in a tomb at all. All we have is the > agreement of a set of possible co-conspirators (the apostles). > B) The body could have been stolen by the apostles or others. Guards can be > bribed, tricked, off elsewhere, or active participants. > 3) JC may have lived, and been moved by one of the above scenarios. Interesting. Three possibilities are listed: JC didn't die, he did die, and he lived. How do the first and the last differ? > > Now if the enemies of Christianity knew where the body was, they > > would surely have produced it. They didn't; as far as I know, they > > never even claimed to. They claimed only that the body was stolen > > by the disciples while the guards slept. (How did the guards -- or > > anyone else -- know what happened while they were asleep? How did > > the disciples move a rather large rock without waking them up? > > And how often did guards sleep during their watch, anyway? (never > > more than once)). > > As far as you know. Cute attempt, but you can't use ignorance as proof. I try never to say "never." If I had said, "the enemies of Jesus never claimed to know where his body was," would you have let that comment stand, or would you have asked how I knew they had not made that claim? As it is, I was being honest enough to admit that something might have happened that I didn't know about. > And who would the "enemies" have shown the body to? Television? They would > have had to parade it around many villages, following in the footsteps of the > rumormongers. It would have been adequate to show it around Jerusalem. After the crucifixion, some of the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to put a guard around the tomb, because they had heard of his predictions that he would rise from the dead after three days. Oh, yeah, they didn't have television in those days. So what? News still spread pretty fast; the report of the resurrection wasn't too hampered by the lack of electronic media; neither would the contrary report. And, as I pointed out, the contrary report was not that his body was still in its tomb, it was that the body had been stolen by the disciples. By the way, have you ever thought about what convinced the people living in the first century? Why do you suppose they were so easily persuaded by such an outlandish tale? (I told you I am not an expert on debate; please don't take the above as rhetorical questions.) In particular, do you think that people were significantly more gullible then than now? (I expect that one of the reasons you suggest will be that they wanted to believe. Fine, but consider that wishful thinking cuts two ways; if you say someone believes simply because they wish to, someone else doesn't believe simply because they do not wish to.) > And how could they convince people that the corpse was JC? By the nail prints in his wrists and ankles, and the spear wound in his side, and by eyewitnesses who could recognize his features. He was fairly well known in Jerusalem. > Prove to me that Jimmy Hoffa hasn't been resurrected from the dead. Why? Are you asserting that he has? If so, what evidence do you have? (Now those questions are rhetorical.) Now prove to me that Jesus Christ hasn't been resurrected from the dead (if you do, I'll cease to claim the name Christian). > As for the rock, it may be just > enhancement of the story, or one of the above explantions may suffice. "Maybe this" and "maybe that;" I wish you would just come out and say what you think really happened and present the evidence for whatever you believe. > > Gary Samuelson "When the impossible has been eliminated, > > bunker!garys whatever remains, however improbable, must be > > the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > > Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed until his dying days that certain photographs > were proof positive of the existence of fairies. Does that make the statement quoted above less valid? Never mind; I won't quote Doyle anymore. > The fact is that the evidence for JC's rising from the dead is worth nothing > unless you ASSUME the inerrancy of the evidence. I surmise that your position is that the Bible as a whole and the gospels in particular are fiction, like modern fantasy writing. If this is indeed your belief, what evidence do you base this belief on? Who did it? When? Why? How did it become so widely accepted? All you have said boils down to this: You aren't convinced. All right, but if you haven't come to a conclusion about what really happened, then I suggest that you haven't dealt with the issue. You have decided that no resurrection took place; that the Bible is largely a fabrication; and that Christianity in general is a fraud; but on what grounds? Gary Samuelson
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (10/13/84)
It is the resurrection, as a real event in real history, which originally convinced me that Christianity had a basis in reality And there is the bone of contention. "Real event in history"... Can you produce tangible proof that these events are more than fiction? Going one step further, can you prove that the beliefs in one god, fallen man, salvation and eternal life are true? Proving that the bible renders a few historical events faithfuly is not really sufficient. The bible contains both historical matter, and material that was interpretive even in the time its component books were written. You may be able to prove that one passage has historical validity... but in no way does that validate the beliefs of the people it describes or their interpretation of events, some of which even happened many years before the author's time. So, I would pose the following as a debate topic: The historical evidence supports the contention that Jesus of Nazareth was killed by crucifixion and was subsequently raised from the dead. Debate is the right word... I think that's as far as it will get. (Strange that other documents don't appear to be subjected to the same scrutiny that the Bible is (e.g., I have never heard it disputed that Julius Caesar wrote the works about Gaul attributed to him, which is not to say it hasn't been disputed, only that I haven't heard it), but that is another topic). Not at all strange considering the content of the bible and the history attached to it. This one book reputedly describes; the creation of man, the universe, man's fall, the reasons behind man's behavior, THE pattern of behavior acceptable to a god-being, man's wholesale damnation to eternal punishment, forgivness and salvation... wouldn't you want to know more about it? A bit more meaty than Proust. It has been subjected to scrutiny because people want to know the truth about themselves. If the above were accepted, either as given or after presenting acceptable evidence, then the argument, condensed for the sake of brevity, goes something like this: Crucifixion, when done right, and the Romans knew what they were doing, is invariably fatal. A gratuitous spear in the side confirmed that Jesus was really dead........ Produce the living body of Jesus. Now produce the cross, the witnesses and the men that crucified him. Now produce the dead body complete with nail holes and spear puncture. Further produce the tomb, the soldiers and finally the living breathing body of the same Jesus. That would be evidence. So far there has been presented no more evidence than has the National Enquirer. I'm sorry that's unkind... but you see the point. - John
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/14/84)
Regarding historical evidence for Christianity, my other articles have shown great evidence for its non-authenticity. If, therefore, one is to decide based on historical evidence one would surely have to aban- don Christianity and "Jesus" image (both contradictory to the histori- cal figure and a counterfeit of same) or deal with those issues - which, given the documents, is an impossibility.
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/14/84)
One of the reasons such discussions drag on interminably with no real progress is that the participants do not insist on validitiy of the sources. As I have shown in other articles, the legitimate ancient writings of the Bible do NOT (!!!) support ANYTHING historical about "Jesus" nor about Christianity. They are totally unrelated except by the counterfeiting of the "Jesus image" from the historical figure. Until that is dealt with, the rest is an exercise in ignorance and futility.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/16/84)
[Mike Huybensz] > > The fact is that the evidence for JC's rising from the dead is worth nothing > > unless you ASSUME the inerrancy of the evidence. [Dan Pellegrino] > This statement by Mike Huybensz... > can apply to just about anything, especially historical events > that preceded the technology that has enabled us to verify certain types of > evidence. Applying the argument that Mike uses in his article (#3647), which > is summarized by his closing statement, quoted above, I wonder if he believes > anything that we take for granted as history. Was there really an American > Revolution or was it really a grand hoax? How about Christopher Columbus - > was there really such a fellow? According to Mike, the written accounts of > these people and events could have been written by "co-conspirators". (Really, > not according to Mike, but according to Mike's reasoning.) Any physical > evidence, using Mike's rationale, could have been planted. > > There is much spiritual evidence that many with hardened hearts and veiled > faces cannot receive. (I've taken the liberty of inserting my name instead of the erroneous one.) Yes, a conspiracy theory can be constructed to explain any set of events, history, or personal experiences. Even if no conspiracy has actually taken place. So conspiracy explanations should be used parsimoniously, and only when certain criteria make them rationally feasible. First, some conspiracies do actually take place. I've witnessed and been invited to join in one against an individual comparable to an obnoxious net user. And you could consider lies by an individual to be a degenerate case of a conspiracy. For the purpose of this argument, it is not important to distinguish between lies of an individual repreated by many and a conspiracy of several liars. Next, a conspiracy is unlikely if there are too many independant sources of evidence. According the the bible, JC had a close inner circle of a few more than a dozen. All information in the New Testament is attributed to them, and there is no outside corroboration to speak of. Note that this is not the case for the revolutionary war. Many thousands on both sides participated, and left documentary evidence. A conspiracy may be suspected if there is substantial supression of information, and selection or rewriting of what to present as history. There is abundant documentation of supression of "heretical" writings and designation of "orthodox" writings in Christianity. Not so for the revolutionary war. A conspiracy may be suspected if analogous and contradictary claims exist. For example, where are the golden tablets of the Mormons? How can you explain Mormonism and Christianity and all those other religions if not by one or more conspiracies? Finally, people don't conspire just for jollies. Usually, there is some motive of the conspirators. In the case of the Bible, it's obvious that JC and friends made their living on the preaching circuit. And not a low class living: there are numerous passages in the bible describing respectful treatment (annointing feet, gifts, being invited to rich men's homes, etc.) Not to mention the fans and the groupies. Mary Magdelene supposedly reformed from whoredome: I think that means she became the bedmate of JC and/or some of the apostles. There's no reason to assume they were all as pure and ascetic as the Roman Catholic tradition claims. Now who would profit (and in what way) by conspiring to fake the revolutionary war? And what would you suggest really happened? In conclusion, there are good reasons to prefer conspiracy theories when they meet certain criteria and simplify assumptions (such as eliminating the need for the supernatural.) -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/16/84)
> What I said was that those who say > they won't believe unless a suitable (to them) laboratory experiment > was devised were going to be disappointed (on second thought, they > probably would be more disappointed if such an experiment could be > devised). [SAMUELSON] The final presumptive parenthetical remark notwithstanding, I could make the same argument about your failure to believe in Ubizmo. But what is the real reason you don't believe in Ubizmo? Because my evidence has been shoddy. I show you a book (the Book of Ubizmo) that I "claim" (sarcastically) was written many years ago describing historical events "proving" the story of Ubizmo. Yet you don't believe. Why do you doubt the words of the good people (i.e., me) who wrote the book? What does the Bible have over the Book of Ubizmo? That it really was written years ago? That many people already believe its contents? That some of its historical data has been shown to be accurate? Does any of this show any reason for believing divine origin of the book? Yes, I could set up an experiment that would indeed make you believe in Ubizmo, Gary. Give me a time machine, and a means for spending the last two thousand years to indoctrinate your ancestors and their fellow members of society, and lo, when I return to the present day, it will be Ubizmo that you believe in. > Why do so many netters put the word evidence in quotes? Already you are > non-verbally asserting that what I suggest is evidence is none at all. > Not bad evidence, or incomplete evidence, or inconclusive evidence, > but no evidence at all. I didn't think it was putting it between the lines to quote the word evidence. What you say is exactly true, it is not evidence at all. >>>So, I would pose the following as a debate topic: The historical >>>evidence supports the contention that Jesus of Nazareth was killed >>>by crucifixion and was subsequently raised from the dead. [SAMUELSON] >>There are several consistent ways to explain the above claim. >>1) JC really didn't die. >> A) The soldiers involved were incompetent. >> B) The soldiers were bribed to bring him down before death. >> Additionally, the spear in the side could have been made up to enhance >> the story. >>2) JC did die. [HUYBENSZ] > Consistent explanations do not constitute evidence. [SAMUELSON] Yet the entire basis of religious belief is a "consistent explanation". And one that is based on numerous unwarranted assumptions. > Are you willing > to assert that one of your scenarios correctly depicts what in fact > did happen, so that I could ask for your evidence? I'm sure you > can invent scenarios faster than I can refute them, but so what? Yours is but one such scenario: the scenario of the resurrection. And those making the extraordinary claims (has there ever been evidence of ANYONE ever being resurrected?) must provide extraordinary evidence. Unless one is just willing to accept one particular scenario (albeit an extraordinary one) at face value. > More to the point, do you have reason to believe that the early > disciples did not believe that the resurrection took place? What is your reason for accepting their statements at face value without hard evidence? > By the way, have you ever thought about what convinced the people > living in the first century? Why do you suppose they were so > easily persuaded by such an outlandish tale? (I told you I am > not an expert on debate; please don't take the above as rhetorical > questions.) In particular, do you think that people were significantly > more gullible then than now? > (I expect that one of the reasons you suggest will be that they > wanted to believe. Fine, but consider that wishful thinking cuts > two ways; if you say someone believes simply because they wish > to, someone else doesn't believe simply because they do not wish > to.) Just as you do not wish to believe in Ubizmo based on your wishful thinking. Correct? Or is there another reason why you don't believe in Ubizmo? > "Maybe this" and "maybe that;" I wish you would just come out and > say what you think really happened and present the evidence for > whatever you believe. Apparently only Christians can do that, since only they seem to know the truth. But when asked to "say what they think really happened AND PRESENT THE EVIDENCE FOR WHATEVER THEY BELIEVE", what we hear is much less plausible than what those like Mike Huybensz have suggested. >>The fact is that the evidence for JC's rising from the dead is worth nothing >>unless you ASSUME the inerrancy of the evidence. [HUYBENSZ] > I surmise that your position is that the Bible as a whole and the gospels > in particular are fiction, like modern fantasy writing. If this is > indeed your belief, what evidence do you base this belief on? Who did > it? When? Why? How did it become so widely accepted? [SAMUELSON] My analogy is not with fantasy, but rather with television commercials. Who did it? Possibly those you credit with writing the Gospels; the actual names are irrelevant. When? Possibly at the time of Jesus and the apostles or shortly thereafter. Why? They knew this guy, Josh, who said some nice things and influenced a few people, and they thought it would be a great idea if everyone knew about Josh, because the things he said were nice. So they made up a few stories to make the advertising more palatable and more intriguing to the gullible masses. And, poof! A movement based on playing the game of telephone with the life of this guy Josh. I think I just answered the "How?". > All you have said boils down to this: You aren't convinced. All right, > but if you haven't come to a conclusion about what really happened, then > I suggest that you haven't dealt with the issue. You have decided that > no resurrection took place; that the Bible is largely a fabrication; > and that Christianity in general is a fraud; but on what grounds? All you have said boils down to this: You ARE convinced. All right, but if you've come to a conclusion about what really happened, then I suggest that you haven't dealt with the issue. You have decided that a resurrection took place; that the Bible is totally true; and that Christianity in general is based on the word of god; but on what grounds? -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr ----------------------------------------------(after 10/14) pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/17/84)
Am I to understand that Rich believes that even asking for a test of God's existence and power presupposes His existence? What utter rubbish! How can you ever prove something doesn't exist, except to first assume that it does, and show that this causes some problem? You certainly can't come to any valid conclusion by assuming that something doesn't exist, and then concluding that any test of its existence would be worthless. Isn't the commonest way to find out if someone is in a room to call out to them? If they answer, then.... If not, well, PERHAPS they aren't there. Perhaps. Charley Wingate
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/17/84)
Until you have dealt with the issues I have raised in earlier articles, the discussion of evidence for Christianity is completely invalid.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/19/84)
[Yiri] >One of the reasons such discussions drag on interminably with no real >progress is that the participants do not insist on validitiy of the >sources. As I have shown in other articles, the legitimate ancient >writings of the Bible do NOT (!!!) support ANYTHING historical about >"Jesus" nor about Christianity. They are totally unrelated except by >the counterfeiting of the "Jesus image" from the historical figure. >Until that is dealt with, the rest is an exercise in ignorance and >futility. Well, unfortunately ignorance is what we have. To paraphrase Screwtape: Attempts to find a historical Jesus (or Y'shua) in the Christian writings are futile. The documents do not contain biography or history, and so, to get biography or history out of them, one aspect of the writings must be distorted out of shape, another minimized. I myself think that all this debate on the historical Jesus is worthless, since we have no historical evidence. What we have are Greek texts, the earliest of which comes at least 150 years after the fact. Now, when someone produces a Hebrew Gospel, I might be able to evaluate Yiri's claim; until then, I must count it as yet another Historical Jesus attempt, and view it with suspicion. Charley Wingate
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/21/84)
I think you make an excellent point regarding the futility of trying to use the greek copies redacted by Christians to prove Christian doctrines and teachings. It is a classic example of circular reason- ing. Certainly I've tried to make the point several times but there are none so ignorant as those who WILL NOT learn. On the other hand, there are many Jewish writings (not all of which are N'tzarim as Jeff ASSUMED I meant) which, when taken together, provides a fairly rich and broad perspective of Jewish life and Judaism of that general era. This would be the 'Jewish fabric' to which I made reference. When the 'New Testament' is filtered through the process I outlined of accepting those things which more likely were taken from Jewish fabric and rejecting those things which have greater resemblance to the 'Roman fabric' of the time as being Roman redactions of the period from their original writing in the first century (roughly) through the time of our earliest extant manuscripts in the 4th century; when that is done, a much more historical picture emerges, and one which is diametrically different from the Christian 'Jesus' version. I think we would probably agree (?) that the reason Christians have to fall back on quoting their own redactions to support their position is because that is the reason the Christians PUT them there in the first place - Christian teachings were the conjurations of the Romans and they HAD to PUT support for them in those manuscripts if they were going to fashion a religion which the Roman populous and government would 'buy' AND STILL HAVE APPARENT (counterfeitted) BASIS IN THE JEWISH MESSIAH CONCEPT. When that is all the argument they have, then that is all the argument they can use - which is so vividly demonstrated for us by Jeff Gillette.
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/27/84)
. > Was there really an American >Revolution or was it really a grand hoax? How about Christopher Columbus - >was there really such a fellow? According to Gary, the written accounts of >these people and events could have been written by "co-conspirators". (Really, >not according to Gary, but according to Gary's reasoning.) Any physical >evidence, using Gary's rationale, could have been planted. >[Dan Pellegrino] I think the point that is being made is that people have independent corroboration of these events, but no "independent" investigation of some of the stories about Jesus has turned up hard evidence. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap