Do u beleave in God

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'm not sure I'm following your point. Pyschology along with Theology do have different standards of proof than some natural sciences such as physics. It doesn't diminish one or elevate the other. Talk to most any medical doctor and he will remind you the science of medicine is really an art.

Erm, no.

In science they have this thing called a double blind study. They use this method in both medicine and, you guessed it, psychcology. Try a double blind study in theology and you'll get nowhere fast. In fact, theology can be held to no scientific standards at all which makes it quite different from psychology or medicine or business or criminology or sport, all of which can.

If you're trying to find fact from fiction, evidence found using the double blind process does elevate science and diminish theology. That's why we no longer perform trapanning rituals to cure mental illness.

If you really are planning to be a psycologist, I would urge you in the strongest terms to look into what constitutes good evidence. It could mean the difference between good practice and quackery.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So you answer to my miracle was a trick buick with all the weight distributed on the passenger side and a flat front tire?

Well, your answer is an unknown entity, claimed to be almighty, which ignores deaths and starvings around the worls, spend His time to save your baby? Doing it, by the way, in a most stupid way; it would be much easier for Almighty just to force your wife to remember there is a baby on the ground. Is it what you're saying?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure I'm following your point. Pyschology along with Theology do have different standards of proof than some natural sciences such as physics. It doesn't diminish one or elevate the other. Talk to most any medical doctor and he will remind you the science of medicine is really an art.

Erm, no.

In science they have this thing called a double blind study. They use this method in both medicine and, you guessed it, psychcology. Try a double blind study in theology and you'll get nowhere fast. In fact, theology can be held to no scientific standards at all which makes it quite different from psychology or medicine or business or criminology or sport, all of which can.

If you're trying to find fact from fiction, evidence found using the double blind process does elevate science and diminish theology. That's why we no longer perform trapanning rituals to cure mental illness.

If you really are planning to be a psycologist, I would urge you in the strongest terms to look into what constitutes good evidence. It could mean the difference between good practice and quackery.

I'm very well of double blind studies. I'm almost finished with my Master's in Counseling. The normal practice of evaluating a patient requires listening and looking for evidence, some obvious and some not so obvious. A pyschologist or therapist does not perform a double blind studyto make a diagnosis. The results of double blind studies have aided in the understanding of pyschology, but to imply it is used on a regular basis with clients is not true.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

The results of double blind studies have aided in the understanding of pyschology, but to imply it is used on a regular basis with clients is not true.

I never said double blind studies were used on a regular basis, merely that they are used. You agree with this so quite obviously, theology and psychology are held to different standards.

My point, and I am aware that it is laboured, is that theology is never held to anything like the same standards of evidence one would hold virtually any other subject. The fact that someone would be willing to settle for a lower standard of evidence in one area (whatever that may be) could be seen as a concern for their standards in other areas. I am sure that this is a bad thing and if I get the chance, I think it is my duty to try to correct it.

[steveorino 7]

Jack, I see your point. I guess my belief is simply, theology, while it can fall under the guise of academic study, it is not a science, and therefore should not fall under the same requirements.

steveOrino

[Mockingbird 0]

I've added some implications (below, in bold) from the historical evidences I provided which you missed in reading them.

Quote

Quote

Some secular sources mentioning Christ's life/death/resurrection:
1) Jewish historian Flavius Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" (A.D. 93) says James, "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ," was executed in A.D. 62. (Secular evidence that Jesus Christ is an actual historical figure. Also evidence that the account in the Bible of James' execuation is accurate. Note: Josephus was a rather hostile witness as a Jewish historian; it's surprising that he bothered to mention Jesus at all)

2) A second Josephus passage was embellished by later Christians, experts think, but even with problematic wording deleted it corroborates Jesus' crucifixion under Pontius Pilate and ongoing belief in him as the messiah and a miracle-worker.

3) Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan from present-day Turkey (around A.D. 111) assailing the "contagious superstition" of the Christians "reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God." Here's what he wrote:
"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
(Secular evidence from Pliny, another hostile witness, that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person whom they believed to be divine.) His mention of the type of food they ate at their gatherings has implications as well. (See the link provided for an explanation.) And their character? Gee, they sound like a really dangerous bunch, huh.

4) Tacitus' "Roman Annals" (A.D. 117 or earlier) said the Emperor Nero blamed Rome's fire of A.D. 64 on people who "got their name from Christ" who was executed under Pilate, and their "pernicious superstition" [probably a reference to the rumor of his resurrection] continued in Judea and Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [His crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition [probably a reference to the resurrection of Christ], thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." (Secular evidence for the existence of Christians, followers of the historical Christ; evidence for the accuracy of the bible's account of his death by Pilate; evidence for these Christians' belief in the resurrection of Jesus.)

5) Suetonius' "Life of Claudius" (around A.D. 120) says that emperor expelled Rome's Jews because they were rioting "at the instigation of Chrestus" in A.D. 49, apparently misunderstanding Jewish disputes over belief in the Christ. (Secular evidence that about 15 years following Christ's ascension, belief in His Messiahship was still causing a stir in Rome. Suetonius is a credible historian, who chronicled the Caesars, beginning with Julius Caesar in the lcentury before Christ.) You can read his works online.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-index.htm]

(See also: http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/)

So out all your evidences we have not one single non christian witness to the events of the gospels.

Yes, the above do provide non-Christian testimony for the events of the gospels, most notably the existence of the historical Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, his death and belief in his resurrection, the existence of his early followers, including the execution of one of them (James) in A.D. 62.

Quote

This is your evidence? Youll have to do better than that. I think it would be wise to stop believing in stories without evidence, particularly stories from people who werent even there at the time.

There is sufficient non-Christian testimony to the account of Christ and his followers, as shown above. There is more, if you will take the time to look it up.

Your major objection to the evidence is that these secular historians were not eye-witnesses. Well, not many historians ARE eye-witnesses of the information they report on. They depend on the oral (especially back then) and written records of those who were. Specifically, you don't find their reports trustworthy because they wrote anywhere from 10 to 100 years after the events they record. Well...

Can you provide the names of any secular historians who lived during the first century in that area? Perhaps if you could supply the names of some, we could look at what they wrote about those times.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Did YOU watch the video? What's the problem?
They do have a big truck running over a man, and then he does stand up with no injuries. So what's are all your insults for? Just because they did not mention Jesus and Lord?

Watch it yourself and you'll see what the problem is with Phil using this video as proof that an intervention of God is not necessary to prevent physical harm to someone who is run over by a truck.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Jack, I see your point. I guess my belief is simply, theology, while it can fall under the guise of academic study, it is not a science, and therefore should not fall under the same requirements.

I don't follow this, Steve. Are you saying that theology is not a science and therefore is not subject to the requirements of science?

I mean, isn't this a given? Since theology has to do with the reality of the supernatural (God), not the natural?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[JackC 0]

Quote

Jack, I see your point. I guess my belief is simply, theology, while it can fall under the guise of academic study, it is not a science, and therefore should not fall under the same requirements.

OK, so what other subject would require a similar level of evidence to theology in order for you to believe it?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Jack, I see your point. I guess my belief is simply, theology, while it can fall under the guise of academic study, it is not a science, and therefore should not fall under the same requirements.

I don't follow this, Steve. Are you saying that theology is not a science and therefore is not subject to the requirements of science?

I mean, isn't this a given? Since theology has to do with the reality of the supernatural (God), not the natural?

Well, it is a given to me, but not everyone here.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jack, I see your point. I guess my belief is simply, theology, while it can fall under the guise of academic study, it is not a science, and therefore should not fall under the same requirements.

I don't follow this, Steve. Are you saying that theology is not a science and therefore is not subject to the requirements of science?

I mean, isn't this a given? Since theology has to do with the reality of the supernatural (God), not the natural?

Well, it is a given to me, but not everyone here.

On the other hand, it deals with something that you contend is real - something that actually exists.Why should standards of evidence be relaxed when you are trying to show that this thing is real?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Jack, I see your point. I guess my belief is simply, theology, while it can fall under the guise of academic study, it is not a science, and therefore should not fall under the same requirements.

I don't follow this, Steve. Are you saying that theology is not a science and therefore is not subject to the requirements of science?

I mean, isn't this a given? Since theology has to do with the reality of the supernatural (God), not the natural?

"reality of the supernatural(God)"

?

Good luck with that oxymoron.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"reality of the supernatural(God)"

Good luck with that oxymoron.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

On the other hand, it deals with something that you contend is real - something that actually exists.Why should standards of evidence be relaxed when you are trying to show that this thing is real?

Not relaxed per say, just different. The standards for practicng medicine are not relaxed when compared to building a bridge, just different.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

The standards for practicng medicine are not relaxed when compared to building a bridge, just different.

Dunno about that. Imagine the outcry if a bridge collapsed 'cos the site director couldn't read the civil engineer's hand writing

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

On the other hand, it deals with something that you contend is real - something that actually exists.Why should standards of evidence be relaxed when you are trying to show that this thing is real?

Not relaxed per say, just different. The standards for practicng medicine are not relaxed when compared to building a bridge, just different.

So what standards is religion held to? Is there any subject you can think of that is held to a similar standard?

[77r 0]

Quote

i was wondering how many of us beleave in God
I love Jesus, but do u
or Budda , or any other God for that matter.
I just know when my time comes ill be happy were im going.
Jesus love u

Jesus loves you but shriveled up the little baby tree that couldn't produce fruit before it's time when he outstretched his hand at lunchtime. Explain that one.

[philh 0]

If theology does not require hard evidence like science does, then we should not have wide confidence that anything it says is true. Our degree of confidence should be related to our degree of evidence , the more evidence we have, the more confident we should be. No evidence should equal no belief. If theists admit their standards of evidence are lower than science then they should admit their degree of confidence should be at least somewhat less than their confidence in scientific statements. To have less evidence but more confidence is utterly absurd.

As with regard to pyschology, are we confusing pyschotherapy with pyschology? Pyschology is the "scientific study of mental processes" and is certainly a scientific subject liek any other subject. It does not require lower standards of evidence than other sciences, although its conclusions may be more tentative. Having said that a lot of pyschology is now over lapping with neuro science. In contrast therapy is a treatment which many have questioned the effectiveness of(depending upon the type of therapy) , therapy of any kind is not pyschology.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Watch it yourself and you'll see what the problem is with Phil using this video as proof that an intervention of God is not necessary to prevent physical harm to someone who is run over by a truck.

I watched the video. It does confirm that God is not necessary to prevent physical harm to someone who is run over by a truck if other, non-God related, conditions are met. So we can guess that those condirions were met in the case of Steve's baby. I see no problem with it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

There is sufficient non-Christian testimony to the account of Christ and his followers, as shown above.

Looks like you didn't understand Phil comments. The point was that with almost all your "evidences" they didn't see it themselves. This makes it hearsay, and therefore invalid evidence.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Jesus loves you but shriveled up the little baby tree that couldn't produce fruit before it's time when he outstretched his hand at lunchtime. Explain that one.

To illustrate a point maybe? You shouldn't advertise what you don't have.

EDITED TO ADD A LESS FLIPPANT ANSWER.

Fig trees in the Spring produce leaves first, then a small fig called a tagsh, later that tagsh becomes what we know as a fig. The tagsh were often eaten by hungry travellers.

The season was time for the fig tree to be with leaves, but not yet time for figs. However, what should have appeared was the tagsh ((young fig). A fig tree w/o tagsh will grow to be a fig tree w/o fruit.

JC often used agricultural illustration as this was an agricultural/pastoral society. At least most of his initial followers were of that economic status. This would parallel a story about remaining with him (in the vine) and producing fruit. Those outside the vine (who do not remain with him) would not bear fruit and be cut off.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

When you say historical Jesus you should clarify what you mean. At very best Josephus confirms that a man called Jesus existed, it says nothing about this dvinity or his resurrection. But you are assuming that the Jesus in Josephus is the Jesus of the gospels. All we know from Josephus is that there was a man called James who was killed for breaking Jewishh law and he had a brother called Jesus. Many scholars believe that the phrase Christ was added by later translations so it might not be the same Jesus Christ. Moreover the fact that Jospehus wasnt alive at the time excludes him as primrary source anyway so even if it is the same Jesus it means nothing more than the Jesus STORY existed at the time in some foorm or another, what form we dont know.

i find it amazing that you think a forged document (the second passage of Josephus) still backs up anything to do with Jesus. That passage is widely considered a forgery, even by Christian scholars. The evidence from Pliny onwards only supports the proposition that there were Christians that does not mean they back up the claims of Christians, big difference.

"Your major objection to the evidence is that these secular historians were not eye-witnesses. Well, not many historians ARE eye-witnesses of the information they report on"
Well our confidence in past historical events depends on named eye witness documents,(amongst other things) if we have none then we have no confidence, we cannot distinguish legend from history. Of course I dont trust oral accounts written up decades after the events. Oral accounts change as they get retold, mostly getting more fantastical. Are you suggesting stories never get embellished?That they never change in the telling?



"Can you provide the names of any secular historians who lived during the first century in that area?"
Its not for me to provide you with your evidence, thats your job. But Ill give you a head start, I can think of two off the top of my head:
Philo was a Jewish historian alive at ther time of Christ and says nothing whatsoever about him.
read about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo
Justus of Tiberius was another Jewish historian alive at the time of Christ, his work do not survive but a document from Photius(a Christian writer) does, in the 9th century he remarked "The Jewish historian (Justus)does not make the smallest mention of the apperence of Christ"

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Jesus loves you but shriveled up the little baby tree that couldn't produce fruit before it's time when he outstretched his hand at lunchtime. Explain that one.

To illustrate a point maybe? You shouldn't advertise what you don't have.

Why is there smoke coming out of my irony-o-meter?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jesus loves you but shriveled up the little baby tree that couldn't produce fruit before it's time when he outstretched his hand at lunchtime. Explain that one.

To illustrate a point maybe? You shouldn't advertise what you don't have.

Why is there smoke coming out of my irony-o-meter?

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Justus of Tiberius was another Jewish historian alive at the time of Christ, his work do not survive but a document from Photius(a Christian writer) does, in the 9th century he remarked "The Jewish historian (Justus)does not make the smallest mention of the apperence of Christ"

No work survived, but you believe the testimony of a man who lived 800 years later regarding to what he wrote? If you are going to accept Photius commentary on Justus of Tiberia, that is 800 years old, you will be hard pressed to rationalize why you will not accept the writings of Christian patriarchs from the 1st & 2nd century.

steveOrino