0
   

God & The Burden of Proof

 
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 01:42 pm
Once again you prove my case and point. Thanks Chumly. Smile
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 01:46 pm
Setanta wrote:
You betcha . . .


Dog bless you, Sister Eppie . . .


Ahem . . .


now thats not a very nice thing to wish for the sis is it?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:08 pm
Quote:
have no reason to believe that the putative Jesus ever existed--nor any to deny that he ever existed. I do think it improbable, as for someone so controversial, and arousing such emotion a century after he allegedly lived and died, it is a bit much to think that he aroused insufficient remark in his own lifetime not to have had at least a mention in someone else's contemporary account.


Although it is disputed among some (isn't everything?) there is account of Jesus from Antiquities of the Jews from Flavius Josephus translated by William Whiston:

Quote:
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus


Quote:
Therefore, if one suggests, as others have done here, that the nasty old god of the old testament and his laws no longer apply because of the "new covenant," one is restricted to that scriptural canon to know what the will of the putative god would be. Therefore, one is left with no objection to homosexuality, because there is no mention of it in that particular scriptural canon.



Quote:
1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


Effeminate:
soft, soft to the touch

2) metaph. in a bad sense

a) effeminate

1) of a catamite

2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

4) of a male prostitute
Abuser of oneself with man kind

one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1137008967-9383.html#9
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:29 pm
hephzibah wrote:
Once again you prove my case and point. Thanks Chumly. Smile
And what exactly is your so-called "case and point"?
Where is the proof you allude to?
Where are the other examples that you refer to?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:37 pm
Bwaaaaaaaaaaa hahaha!

Chumly, I gotta hand it to you. You really are sharpening your debating skills! Bravo my friend!
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:44 pm
nice dodge.
You christians must rule at dodgeball.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:46 pm
It's all good fun, and it's good for the old brain, it's always a pleasure chatting with you.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:48 pm
Not dodging at all dok. I've already stated clearly, more than once, I no longer wish to discuss this issue with him.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:49 pm
Chumly wrote:
It's all good fun, and it's good for the old brain, it's always a pleasure chatting with you.


Finally, something we agree on! YES! The feelings are mutual. Smile
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:56 pm
heph accused me of being prejudiced, and what all else I am not quite sure.

No evidence has been presented for this case, nor for any of other of his vaguely inferred claims.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:57 pm
hephy accused me of being prejudiced, and what all else I am not quite sure. No evidence has been presented for this case, nor for any other of his vaguely inferred claims. It's all rather wonderful in an odd way, and I am not displeased.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 10:00 pm
That's pretty pathetic, Revel. There are volumes written on the probability of interpolation in Josephus--and thousands of pages online, so i'll let your search that for yourself. But it is really pathetic for two other reasons, the first from the Wikipedia source you reference, which you disingenuously failed to quote:

Wikipedia wrote:
The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and its authenticity has been the subject of debate since the 17th century. The other passage concerns James the brother of Jesus; its authenticity is also disputed.


The second reason it is pathetic ought to be obvious. The Antiquities of the Jews was published in 93 CE--this is more than 60 years after the putative Jesus would have died, based upon the calendrical caculation in the papacy of Gregory, which established the dates of his life as 4 BCE--28 or 29 CE--as Flavius Josephus lived from 37 to 100 CE, he therefore does not constitute a contemporary. There are two biographies of Charlemagne from his own era--one by Anselm, who was raised and educated in his court at Aachen, being born when Charlemagne was in his forties--but he can reasonably be considered a contemporary biographer. The other was a German monk known as Nottker the Stammerer--who was born after Charlemagne had died, and whose account is not recorded until his own death, nearly a century after Charlemagne--meaning he is not contemporary, at best he is to be considered "near-contemporary." You usually do better than that.

A good deal of the post to which you refer concerns itself with the objections to any portion of what is called the new testament other than the four gospel scriptural canon, because of the influence and impositions of Saul of Tarsus and others--the point i was making to Miss Eppie, is that given their corruption of the original Jewish cult, one can only rely on the four gospel canon for an approximate notion of what the putative Jesus might have said.

Quoting epistles to the Corinthians therefore does not count--it does not constitute a portion of the four gospel canon. That was very sloppy work on your part--i'm surprised.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 10:04 pm
Chumly,

I'm not going down this road with you. I'm not going to debate about you as a person or your views. I don't think it's right. Honestly speaking, I do realize I shouldn't have said that I think you are prejudice. My personal thoughts about your view or the way you present them are really irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I'm feeling a little angry today, and unfortunately I think you caught the brunt of it. Please accept my apologies.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 10:26 pm
No worries mate, it's just a website.

As an aside some of the people on this site are truly very capable indeed and it's a real pleasure and challenge to learn from them and/or be challenged by them. One fellow in particular indulged a premise or two I quickly thew together for fun. With economy of language he dissected my admittedly inconcise ramblings. I have been thinking on how to respond for several days now…………albeit I may never have an apropos response
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 10:42 pm
Oh yeah... just for future reference... I'm a she... Razz hehehe
0 Replies
 
sakhi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:43 pm
Setanta wrote:
sakhi wrote:


I dont know about legislation..but there;s one major difference between Hinduism and Christianity/Islam. (let me clarify here that I believe in neither of them).. Hinduism does not claim to be the ONLY way to God and does not term others as infidels. Hinduism issues no final and binding statements. There are no "conversions" to Hinduism and no baptism...

You may accuse the religion of being pretty vague and open to too many interpretations but Voltaire said "Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous".


If this is the case, why do Hindus assault Muslims in India, why do they attack mosques?

...
As Prince said once, those people dont believe in Hinduism - they believe in Jerkism Wink...
I'm ashamed of being a Hindu at all those times whenever these Hindutva nationalists attack somebody in the name of Hinduism. Both Hindus and Muslims in India can be pretty mindless.

I like to run as far as possible from Hindutva nationalists.And, Steve, you are quite right. if you noticed, there was a thread in which even I (i hate arguments),,,even I got into an argument with the person you are reffering to.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 05:19 am
Setanta wrote:
That's pretty pathetic, Revel. There are volumes written on the probability of interpolation in Josephus--and thousands of pages online, so i'll let your search that for yourself. But it is really pathetic for two other reasons, the first from the Wikipedia source you reference, which you disingenuously failed to quote:

Wikipedia wrote:
The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and its authenticity has been the subject of debate since the 17th century. The other passage concerns James the brother of Jesus; its authenticity is also disputed.


The second reason it is pathetic ought to be obvious. The Antiquities of the Jews was published in 93 CE--this is more than 60 years after the putative Jesus would have died, based upon the calendrical caculation in the papacy of Gregory, which established the dates of his life as 4 BCE--28 or 29 CE--as Flavius Josephus lived from 37 to 100 CE, he therefore does not constitute a contemporary. There are two biographies of Charlemagne from his own era--one by Anselm, who was raised and educated in his court at Aachen, being born when Charlemagne was in his forties--but he can reasonably be considered a contemporary biographer. The other was a German monk known as Nottker the Stammerer--who was born after Charlemagne had died, and whose account is not recorded until his own death, nearly a century after Charlemagne--meaning he is not contemporary, at best he is to be considered "near-contemporary." You usually do better than that.

A good deal of the post to which you refer concerns itself with the objections to any portion of what is called the new testament other than the four gospel scriptural canon, because of the influence and impositions of Saul of Tarsus and others--the point i was making to Miss Eppie, is that given their corruption of the original Jewish cult, one can only rely on the four gospel canon for an approximate notion of what the putative Jesus might have said.

Quoting epistles to the Corinthians therefore does not count--it does not constitute a portion of the four gospel canon. That was very sloppy work on your part--i'm surprised.


I said the Josephus part about Jesus was in dispute at the outset. As for the other about it being too late, point taken. Nevertheless, what if someone wrote about something they heard about from their parents which happened just before they were born. Would that be discredited because they were not live witnesses? After all it was, according to your calculations and I have no reason to doubt it, a mere eight years after Jesus died that Josephus was born so he was bound to know people who were contemporaries of Jesus.

I realize people object to Paul's portions of the Bible. Personally I believe if you reject one part of the Bible it leaves the rest suspect. For a time I went through a period of questioning Paul, until I studied Paul's epistle's a little deeper and understood his mission was different than Jesus mission.

Jesus said that the gospel was to go to the Jews first then to all the world. (Or words to that effect) Paul's was to bring the Gentiles to the gospel and that is what he mainly did, consolidated the Jews, Gentiles, Greek...into one in Christ Jesus. (Or words to that effect--too early to be getting exact quotes which more than likely you are going to reject anyway, no offense intended.)
0 Replies
 
Implicator
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 06:37 am
Re: God & The Burden of Proof
Chumly wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Although providing proof may not be that simple in certain circumstances, it makes complete sense to leave the burden of proof with the individual putting forth an assertion.


I did not say it did not make sense to place the burden of proof on the individual making the assertion. But the recipient of the assertion may suspend their requirements. The reasons for this might be: for the sake of argument, if it is understood to already be agreed, or if it is common knowledge.


Here is what you said:

Quote:
As far as the common position that the burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion, it is nowhere near that simple, nor should it always be the case.


You indicated that it should not "always be the case" that the "burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion." Yet in this post you claim you didn't say that at all. What am I missing here?


Chumly wrote:
Implicator wrote:
I challenge you right now to give me reason (without question begging) as to why it will get light in the *daytime tomorrow (*by "daytime" I assume those hours of the day that it typically gets light).


I accept the challenge, I up the ante & bet you 100 million dollars. I will prove it tomorrow morning.


The challenge was to prove that it will get light in the daytime (that was your wording), not that it did. To prove that something will happen in the not-yet-experienced future carries quite a burden, as you are basically claiming to know the future. Can you do it?


Chumly wrote:
Implicator wrote:
You realize this is an assertion you are making, right? Can you back it up?


As mentioned I cannot prove a negative but I can say I am not aware of any evidence or anyone putting forth verifiable evidence, plus I just asked god for some evidence and he did not comply.


Does the burden belong with the one making the assertion? If so, then have at it. And your "besides" is beside the point, entirely irrelevant as to whether there is such evidence out there.


Chumly wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Yet those who believe in the Christian god probably would not agree with you that he is ill-defined.


They may well not agree with me that the Christian god is ill-defined, but millions of people over thousands of years have murdered each other over the definition of a Christian god.


Indeed they have, yet that is not even anecdotal evidence of an "ill" definition.

I
I have not had time to respond properly , but I surely will in the next few days, sophistry notwithstanding. I will say however, before I respond more fully, that some of your points/questions while not without merit, are phrased in such a fashion as to preclude the relative and prioritize the absolute, and given the context of this thread and my opening remarks, that's a high expectation, not that I won't try:

"I know it's a bit rambly but I was having fun"


Thanks, Chumly ... I look forward to your response.

I
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 03:16 pm
I am starting, not so much to regret my late night rambling, as to wonder what I was thinking, however I have not entirely given up hope of reclaiming some small measure of congruency Smile

If you can shed a sliver of light on how I might shore up my positions, and best respond, it would be educational for me!
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 01:31 am
Setanta wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
Setanta, I respect your point of view, even if we may not always agree. So, can you please help me understand what you mean by this?


And . . .

hephzibah wrote:
Actually let me clarify that...

It is not so much that I don't understand what you mean as I would like to understand where you are coming from on this. However, if this is a topic that needs to be dropped I am also willing to do that. I must head out to work now. I will catch up with you all later.



First, thank you for your kind remark.

I have no reason to believe that the putative Jesus ever existed--nor any to deny that he ever existed. I do think it improbable, as for someone so controversial, and arousing such emotion a century after he allegedly lived and died, it is a bit much to think that he aroused insufficient remark in his own lifetime not to have had at least a mention in someone else's contemporary account. I think, rather, that the putative Jesus is an avatar, an embodiment of the mystico-spiritualistic Jewish cult known to history as the Essenes. It is, of course, possible that this alleged Jesus is a badly corrupted account of the life of a single Essene, who was not, in fact, politically controversial, and was not crucified by the Romans.

Because, in fact, very specific tenets of the most popular cult in Rome in the era of Saul of Tarsus--that cult was the cult of Mithras--entail an allegation of a virgin birth, from a mother impregnated by god, and a painful death followed by a resurrection, and celebrated by adherents in a "cannibalistic" ritual in which the symbolic body and blood of "the son of god" were consumed. These are tenets without precedent or referrent in Jewish scripture and mysticism. Therefore, whenever one looks at any account other than the four orthodox gospels of the new scriptural canon, one cannot with any certainty assert what may have been an original teaching of this individual (if such individual ever existed), and what is a subsequent interpolation, Pauline or otherwise. One can only refer to the four gospel scrpitural canon for what is only a vague idea of what the teaching of this individual may have been. Given contradictions between these accounts, they are themselves of dubious value. Finally, individuals such as Origen and Eusebius winnowed the existing accounts or gospels to these four gospels, and edited and "corrected" them--this we know because they recorded as much in their own writings.

Therefore, if one suggests, as others have done here, that the nasty old god of the old testament and his laws no longer apply because of the "new covenant," one is restricted to that scriptural canon to know what the will of the putative god would be. Therefore, one is left with no objection to homosexuality, because there is no mention of it in that particular scriptural canon.


Setanta,

I've got to admit, this response was a bit out of my league... After having thought about this awhile I decided I would like to know more about this perspective you have and where it came from. Is there a link to something on the internet that would give me more information about this?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:33:00