What would you do if Jesus was here?

[CurtSibling]

So you are thinking religion = tools for keeping the ignorant masses under control. Of course, so are the media, the law, and the army. In fact, if you really want to be specific, then just almost anything can be used to consolidate the power of the ruling class.

Thanks for stating the completely obvious there.
But religion is the first and most effective, and perhaps genetically imbued factor.

No-one is contesting that many other powerful means are used to control in the modern
eras, but this thread focuses on religions and religious icons. And besides, you cannot
deny that religion has been used in conjuction with law/kings/media to gain control...

Try thinking in more down-to-earth terms.

You are the one supporting religion here, take your own advice.

Or, if you like, try praying.

Only if you try thinking.

...

 

[bathsheba666]

Given his views on moneylenders, he'd find himself pretty quickly on the no-fly list.

So it might be hard to meet him.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I would probably try to co-opt him into my own global revolutionary movement. Also, he might be of use in bringing the Muslims over to the way of co-operation.

 

[Gilder]

I'd probably have a beer with him.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'd probably have a beer with him.

he prefers wine, of his own make. Which apparently is the best.

 

[Archbob]

Actually,the parting of the Red Sea is hardly a mystery anymore. The Red Sea has very drastic tides. Those tides were even more drastic 3000 years ago. The tides were so drastic that from a low tide of a mere foot or two, 4 hours later the water would be high enough to trap chariots. It's quite apparent that Moses arrived at low tide (or near that and completed the crossing), and by the time his pursuers arrived, the tide was rising and they were trapped in or before the sea.

Not sure about the water to wine. When I thought that even was about survival, I figured he used his own blood to supply nutrients to the water (iron, protein, etc) so that others would survive another day or two. But now that I know it happened at a party... I dunno.

From the description in the biblical account, Moses parted the red see in the center and walked right through the seabed and all the king men were drowned in the sea. Its not just a different of some feet of water. The water into wine, along with his feeding of the 5000, and several other miraculous happenings, I doubt will be ever explained by any science. And according to the account, he held his staff out of the sea and the waters parted immediately, which doesn't sound like a sound. Whether you believe the accounts as they are written or whether you try to find some scientific explanation that may attempt to explain it is your choice.

Like I said, it all comes done to whether you choose to believe or not. Not some pretense of some emperical method of proof. Because its called faith. If God come down to times square in all his glory, you wouldn't need much faith to believe in him.


And yeah, wine is 100x better than beer.

 

[Defiant47]

If God come down to times square in all his glory, you wouldn't need much faith to believe in him.

But you would still need it. And I wouldn't believe in him.

 

[Archbob]

But you would still need it. And I wouldn't believe in him.

Well, no you wouldn't, if he showed me he could call down pillars or fire and smite anything in his path and he was invulnerable to all attacks, I wouldn't much more "proof".

 

[Defiant47]

Well, no you wouldn't, if he showed me he could call down pillars or fire and smite anything in his path and he was invulnerable to all attacks, I wouldn't much more "proof".

That wouldn't be a display of omnipotence.

By your logic, if I were to go back in prehistoric times with a gun and some technologies, I would be God.

Humans, as non-omnipotent beings, cannot observe omnipotence. We have bounds on our knowledge and on how much power we can actually comprehend through observation.

 

[Archbob]

That wouldn't be a display of omnipotence.

By your logic, if I were to go back in prehistoric times with a gun and some technologies, I would be God.

Humans, as non-omnipotent beings, cannot observe omnipotence. We have bounds on our knowledge and on how much power we can actually comprehend through observation.

Thats just it, we have to make decisions based on my own knowledge. If I saw someone part the red sea instantly just by waving his stick at it, I would believe he either is:

1) Divine
2) Has divine help

Sure, you can try to dig up some far-flung scientific explanation for it but my observation(and I do believe a majority of the general public would agree with me) that he either is divine or has divine help.
Sure

 

[azzaman333]

Thats just it, we have to make decisions based on my own knowledge. If I saw someone part the red sea instantly just by waving his stick at it, I would believe he either is:

1) Divine
2) Has divine help

Sure, you can try to dig up some far-flung scientific explanation for it but my observation(and I do believe a majority of the general public would agree with me) that he either is divine or has divine help.
Sure

3) A con artist.

 

[Defiant47]

Thats just it, we have to make decisions based on my own knowledge. If I saw someone part the red sea instantly just by waving his stick at it, I would believe he either is:

1) Divine
2) Has divine help

Sure, you can try to dig up some far-flung scientific explanation for it but my observation(and I do believe a majority of the general public would agree with me) that he either is divine or has divine help.
Sure

First: What is divinity? We need to establish that before we can go further on this particular part of the point.

Second: Since a scientific explanation is certainly plausible (especially when you take into account that many things could be considered divine without their respective and existent scientific explanations), divinity is no longer certain, nor is it assured.

Third: The opinion of the general public is irrelevant.

 

[Archbob]

First: What is divinity? We need to establish that before we can go further on this particular part of the point.

Second: Since a scientific explanation is certainly plausible (especially when you take into account that many things could be considered divine without their respective and existent scientific explanations), divinity is no longer certain, nor is it assured.

Third: The opinion of the general public is irrelevant.

Obviously, divinity is never certain or assured, otherwise there wouldn't be any argument. I assume something is divine based on the "more likely than not" criteria and not on the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" criteria.

Your explanation of turning water into wine or healing the sick is extremely shaky at best.

You can't explain how he was able to raise lazerus from the dead or how he was resurrected after three days himself.

Sure, I guess you could put together some half-assed conjecture about how it was possible that these things could happen. But to most people reading them, they are just unlikely conjectures.


The general public is not irrelevant. If the majority of people believe a person is really sent from God or is divine, then there's your start for a new religion.
What the general public believes is quite relevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[GenMarshall]

@Taillesskangaru - Sorry if I intrude, but to convince Curt that religion is good and not a bad thing is near impossible.

 

[Defiant47]

Obviously, divinity is never certain or assured, otherwise there wouldn't be any argument. I assume something is divine based on the "more likely than not" criteria and not on the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" criteria.

On the contrary, since divinity is something that's can drastically affect our lives, we would need to be absolutely sure. The fact that a divine presence is actively involved in our lives is quite a claim, and as such, requires quite a bit of proof.

Your explanation of turning water into wine or healing the sick is extremely shaky at best.

You can't explain how he was able to raise lazerus from the dead or how he was resurrected after three days himself.

Sure, I guess you could put together some half-assed conjecture about how it was possible that these things could happen. But to most people reading them, they are just unlikely conjectures.

I can't explain how David Blaine can do the card trick where he lays them on the table and manages to hit the right card with the knife either. Do you suggest that there is something divine going on here?

What about when people invented the television set? Suppose they then brought it to other people and showed it. Those other people would have no way of explaining how the TV works. Should the creators of the TV set have been hailed as gods at that time?

You cannot assert that someone that does something you don't understand is divine. A large disparity in technological advancement can make just about anyone seem divine. Or just magician-like ingenuity.

The general public is not irrelevant. If the majority of people believe a person is really sent from God or is divine, then there's your start for a new religion.

Yes, it does indeed start a new religion, but that doesn't mean it is right or logical. People have held various illogical beliefs for millenia.

What the general public believes is quite relevant in the grand scheme of things.

Agreed, in the "grand scheme of things", it is relevant. However, in matters of logic, the opinion of the public is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Xyan]

If he has access to the knowledge of the other philosophies throughout the world instead of the ancient myopic view of the region he was from, I'm pretty sure he'll share a different story with the world.

 

[Archbob]

On the contrary, since divinity is something that's can drastically affect our lives, we would need to be absolutely sure. The fact that a divine presence is actively involved in our lives is quite a claim, and as such, requires quite a bit of proof.

All you have is an eyewitness account and writing(the bible) of Jesus's Miracles.

You can choose to believe or not to believe it. Its completely a question of faith, no hard empirical proof.

It comes down to:

Do you believe he was divine or not?

Not some X's and Y's of how it might be scientifically explained. Any scientific claim you make on the situation will be hypothetical conjecture , much like faith itself.

I believe in the bible so therefore, to me, he is divine. Since I can't prove or disprove it, you can't be 100% sure.

You don't believe it, thats fine with me too.

Faith is a choice, not something you use X's and Y's to prove. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called faith.

 

[Defiant47]

All you have is an eyewitness account and writing(the bible) of Jesus's Miracles.

You can choose to believe or not to believe it. Its completely a question of faith, no hard empirical proof.

Whoa, took a topic switch there! I thought we were talking about a modern-day Jesus performing unexplained miracles and we'd be witnessing with our own eyes. I guess now we're talking about Christianity itself. (topic switch accepted)

It comes down to:

Do you believe he was divine or not?

An important question: do you believe in heaven and hell? This is assuming that heaven means some sort of pleasant afterlife and hell means either total death or eternal torture (please specify). (please don't forget to answer this question)

Not some X's and Y's of how it might be scientifically explained. Any scientific claim you make on the situation will be hypothetical conjecture , much like faith itself.

Agreed. Another explanation would be about as unlikely as the Bible's explanation itself.

I believe in the bible so therefore, to me, he is divine. Since I can't prove or disprove it, you can't be 100% sure.

Excerpt removed "you can't be 100% sure".
Response pending your answer to the above question.

You don't believe it, thats fine with me too.

Faith is a choice, not something you use X's and Y's to prove. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called faith.

Faith is an illogical choice. Faith is synonymous with willful ignorance and stupidity, regardless of how harsh that sounds.

 

[Archbob]

Yes, I do believe in heaven and hell.

Faith is not any more illogical than trying to prove everything 100%. Because there are so many things that will never be able to be proven, or can't be proven by science.

If it were a modern day Jesus and he did do miracles in front of my eyes, of course I'd believe in him. If he could heal the sick, feed 5000 people with 7 loaves of bread and 2 fish, resurrect the dead, and make the blind see again by praying and snapping his fingers, it be pretty stupid to not believe he was divine.

You can try all you want to prove a scientific explanation for it, common sense would dictate that he does have divine powers.

The different behind our reasoning is that you start out by assuming there is no such thing as divine powers while I start out assuming that there is.

 

[Defiant47]

Yes, I do believe in heaven and hell.

Faith is not any more illogical than trying to prove everything 100%. Because there are so many things that will never be able to be proven, or can't be proven by science.

If it were a modern day Jesus and he did do miracles in front of my eyes, of course I'd believe in him. If he could heal the sick, feed 5000 people with 7 loaves of bread and 2 fish, resurrect the dead, and make the blind see again by praying and snapping his fingers, it be pretty stupid to not believe he was divine.

You can try all you want to prove a scientific explanation for it, common sense would dictate that he does have divine powers.

OK then. Then you agree that the difference between believing and not believing is pretty much infinite. Heaven vs. hell is an infinite difference. This decision is the most important decision that anyone could ever make.

What do you do when you have to make an important decision vs. when you have to make an unimportant decision? Logically, an important decision will require much more consideration. You need to be more sure about your important decision than your unimportant decision.

For example: if someone asked you if your hat were in your bedroom, you'd probably search around where you think it might be, and then give an answer. If you're wrong, it's not such a big deal. However, if someone pointed a gun to your face and asked you if your hat were in the bedroom, and told you that if you answered wrong, you would die... then you'd probably make an extensive search of every inch of the bedroom. If you're wrong, much more is at stake, and you need to be more sure about your answer. This is logical: as the importance of a decision increases, your necessary certainty about your answer also increases accordingly.

Now let's take your religion. In this case, the importance of the decision is infinite. Your eternal life is at stake. The necessary certainty of your answer is logically 100% then. No less is acceptable: are you willing to take a 1% chance you're wrong when it's eternal happiness vs. eternal torture on the line? Absolutely not. Basically, our margin for error is 0%.

Now let's look at how certain we actually are. Let's see, we have a 2000-year-old book that was written a hundred or so years after the events took place during a time of superstitious beliefs and impressionable people, and has been retranslated and reinterpreted a multitude of times. I would say that this has a significantly less than 100% chance of being correct. Logically, we can't take the risk that we'd be wrong and believe this.

Let's look at alternatives. What about Islam's book and teachings? Unfortunately, that has an accordingly low chance of being correct, and we can't take any chance that we're wrong.

Now let's suppose that a being suddenly appears on Earth and starts performing miracles that we can't explain. He claims to be God and demands that everyone believe in him as such, with penalties and rewards just like heaven and hell. There's a good chance that this being is divine. However, what if it's some sort of alien trying to exploit us? It's certainly plausible that there is intelligent extra-terrestrial life in the universe (or our galaxy). And if that is so, it could be that their planet and evolution cycle happened in such a way that they're far ahead of us technologically. It is likewise likely that they could have malicious intent. Thus, we aren't 100% sure anymore that this being is actually God.

In fact, as we go on, we notice that we can't be 100% sure about anything! For example, I can't be 100% (with a 0% margin of error) sure that this table exists. Since the physical mind is just a series of chemical reactions and what have you, it could be that I'm just a brain in a pod somewhere, being given the impulses to feel these sensations and this environment.

The only thing that I may be able to be 100% sure of is my own existence, although I won't address that.

Thus, we can never be sure enough about anything being God to actually believe it. We can theorize that a god might exist, but if the stakes are eternal life and torture, then we are never going to get any margin of error to let us take a risk, take a chance, however minuscule, that a specific God exists and to believe in it.



Exercising faith is an extremely illogical thing to do. Exercising faith on matters of religion pertaining to your immortal soul is the absolute most stupid thing anyone could ever do. Faith means that despite a logical argument to the contrary, you believe something. Faith requires that you ignore logic. There is an abundance of things wrong with this.

First and foremost, how does it make sense to ignore proof (or non-existence of sufficient proof), logic, and reason, when it comes to making the most important decision possible? Would you not want to use the absolute best decision-making tools you have in order to make a decision this important?

Second, how do you decide when and where to exercise faith? Why do you exercise faith when it comes to the Bible and the Christian teachings, but you don't exercise faith when it comes to me asking you for $10,000 and promising increased happiness (of equal worth) for you once you send me the money? Despite proof/non-proof and reasoning to the contrary, you decide to believe the Bible anyways, and chalk it up on "faith". This situation is exactly the same: despite common sense and logic telling you that you won't magically feel happier, why don't you decide to believe me anyways and chalk it up on "faith"? It makes no sense.

The list goes on...

Bear in mind that faith is not synonymous with a calculated risk. When a friend asks me to lend him $100 (with no interest), I'm not exercising "faith" that he'll pay me back. I'm making a calculated risk that the risk is low enough such that I should go with it and most likely end up with the benefit of a closer friendship. If he's not trustworthy, or if past events have told me that he won't really appreciate the offer, then I don't have sufficient reason to lend him the money.

Everything in life is done through calculated risks, and faith should absolutely never be exercised. More importantly, faith should most definitely not be exercised when it comes to the most important decision possible: pertaining to one's own immortal soul.