| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: September 01 2010 at 13:56 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
It is evidence that people wrote some documents about some events that may or may not have happened, and wrote down some laws and regulations about how people should live. But it is not circumstantial evidence, more a character reference. A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence, a gun that has never been fired is not evidence. |
Lets start from the beginning: A smoking gun is not only circumstantial evidence, if found in the hands of the suspect and the bullets match, it's a determinant evidence, that can be proved contrary with another equal and contrary evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is simply the a fact that normally means nothing, but in certain circumstances MAY imply another thing, for example a man running means nothing, but if found running from a crime scene, it may imply this person has something to hide and added to other circumstantial evidences, may lead to a guilty verdict.
Now, I clearly say that the Old Testament is not a smoking gun, but surely is circumstantial evidence because:
- It's a text not written for fiction purpose
- Some data can be verified
- It's accepted by billions
- It's accepted by three of the major religions
So even when not determinant, it has some proving value, if you want don't call it circumstantial evidence, we at least will call it "Prueba Indiciaria" (Don't know if there's a literal translation for this word in English doctrine, but an "Indiciaria" proof, is an evidence that doesn't prove without doubt, but gives reasons to suspect something is true) |
["Prueba Indiciaria" translates directly as Circumstantial Evidence everywhere I have looked, so whatever subtleties it carries is lost in translation]
You said that the OT can be circumstantial evidence, not a smoking gun. A smoking gun is evidence if balistics prove it fired the fatal bullet, it is circumstantial if a link can be made to the suspect, however if the bullets don't match or if has not been fired then it is not evidence it is just a gun and if there is no link to the suspect it is not circumstantial evidence, it is just the murder weapon.
The OT has the ability to be a gun that has not been fired or a painting of a smoking gun, but not a smoking gun.
- It's a text not written for fiction purpose
- accepted, as an instruction manual for how or what to worship.
- not accepted if it is a chronicle or history book.
- not accepted as a factual account
- Some data can be verified
- accepted, though not very much and not the important bits
- not accepted since everything up to and including Solomon has yet to be verified and cannot be verified.
- It's accepted by billions
- accepted as a statement of fact
- not accepted as evidence of anything
- it is also rejected and/or ignored by billions
- It's accepted by three of the major religions
- accepted as a statement of fact
- not accepted as evidence of anything
- Two of those religions have accepted the unproven historical information as either valid or alegorical but rejected, deprecated, or replaced the spiritual and moralistic content.
- Not accepted by the remaining (two?) major religions.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
I suspect that this is evidence of collusion. None of the "statements" are fully eye-witness accounts (none of the writers were present for many of the events described) and they were written several years after the events portrayed when the writers had been together for long periods discussing and swaping anecdotal stories that they later pieced together in their own gospels. |
Mike, four different texts and several (non accepted by Christianity), which have so incredible coincidences can't be casual, even the Bhavishyat Mahapurana (volume 9 verses 17-32) contains the life of Issa-Masih (Jesus the Messiah) in India. |
And the Qu'ran (aka The Last Testament) refers to Isa son of Mary as a prophet. None of these non-biblical accounts, including the Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic texts were contemporary with the gospels and are not coincidental at all - they were written in the full knowledge of the gospels hundreds of years later so cannot be considered circumstantial.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Of course you can find a conspiracy anywhere, but we don't believe taht in this case is possible, atheists and members of different religions have tried to declare the New Testament false, and still, nobody can.. |
I'm very dismissive of conspiracy and have never tried to declare the NT false (well, with the possible exception of the final book). If there was conspiracy then the four gospels would be a lot closer in accuracy, if they were four independent eye-witness accounts they would be a lot closer in accuracy. I called it collution and that cannot be denied, they lived and preached together, discussing Jesus's life and ministry before writting anything down. They differ, not vastly, but enough to say that the writers didn't quite get their stories straight before committing scribe to parchment and they went through a number of changes before being written down. This puts a question mark over the veracity of the statements and raises doubts over some of the events where they disagree. It is probable that Luke used Matthew's gospel as a primary source, Mark was probably written from Peter's testimony and John (who's account differs the most) was probably written much later than the other three. (note the extensive use of probably here - no one can know for certain, everything about who did what and when is probable or possible and nothing is definite).
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
This is evidence, here and anywhere
Dean wrote:
No, what you have is evidence that people believed in the existence of god, not that he existed. |
If you ever checked a process of approving a miracle, you would be amazed, it seems as if the Church didn't wanted miracles,
Not only they send theor most capable invesigator to discredit the saint or the miracle (with unlimited expenses, but they use scientists, medical doctors physicists, etc, and most of them not even religion.
If something is approved afte this trial, it has to be real.
Iván, |
No, that's not quite true. A scientist will not give a conclusive answer if there isn't conclusive evidence - this isn't like a court of law where the verdict is true if everyone agrees that it is. In a court of law scientific evidence is circumstantial, if the scientist cannot give a conclusive answer then it isn't evidence, if the scientist says "I cannot say who fired this gun" it will be thrown out. In the cases of miracles scientists have never said "this was a miracle" because there is no evidence that it was, what he will say is "I cannot say what caused this" - the church will surmise that to be proof of a miracle. The problem with attesting to miracle cures is the scientist has no access to the patient before the miracle, so cannot ascertain whether the initial diagnosis was correct to determine that a cure actually happened. In many cases the time gap between the alleged miracle and the subsequent investigation is simply too long to be conclusive in scientific terms.
Edited by Dean - September 02 2010 at 10:17
|
|
What?
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 14:12 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
That's all very nice, but it doesn't mean that they proved a miracle. It simply means that they proved that they can't think of an alternative explanation. If they positively assert that there can be no other explanation than "miracle", then they are being dishonest - that would be like when an Atheists was claiming to know for a fact that no Gods exist. |
That's your conclusion Mike, not our's.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I know that they can't possibly prove that there are no alternative explanations. |
Yes there is, this wonder or "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment" that SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN, happened in circumstances when the intervention of God was asked.....One of the logical consequences is that it's divine intervenstion.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
- What is your solid argument to discredit proffesional doctors and scientists?
1)doctors and scientists aren't infallible and 2. like I said above, proving that nobody knows an alternative explanation doesn't mean proving that "God did it". |
Yes they aren't infallible (unlike the Pope  ), but the chances of mistake in 5 proffesuional and capable physicians is absolutely remote, and we are not talking about complex science that requires spécial and incredibly specific degrees, we are talking about illness that can't be cured by medical science and have been studied by decades if not by cenruries
-
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
What is your degree?
It's a masters degree in computational science. But my argument does not rely on comparing my credentials to those of the doctors and scientists |
Mike, but you are questioning their knowledge, this specialists, declare that there is no natural or possible explanation for this cases that have been treated or studied for hundres of years, and cassually this persons asked divine intervention.
Not comparing your credentials either, just saying that you can't call a muiraxcle cure BOGUS if you don't have medical knowledge, neither a scientific wonder.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
How many cases have you studied to say withput doubt is bogus?
I'm not saying anything "without doubt". Maybe indeed miracles happened - I don't know. All I am saying is that you don't know either. In order to jump from "we can't think of an alternative explanation" to "God did it" you need faith |
Mike, the exact word you used was BOGUS (bogus :false, not real or not legal) this means sham, fraud, hoax, lie, deluded (All of his are listed as synonyms) and if you haven't studied a single case, you have no authority to claim it was false.
If you had said you don't believe it would be OK, but implying this is a frausd with complete ignorance of what you are talking about, is more than arrogant.
-
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
How much evidence have you had in your hands to claim it's product of ignorance?
The argument from ignorance means that you jump from "we don't know" to "it must have been God". |
Must I undestand you had no evidence at all?
-
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Have ayou at least studied a determined process during all it's stages, to claim it's a product of ignorance?
No, but the article that I read and the info you posted both confirm that the process does not positively confirm miracles, it just confirms the absence of alternative explanations on behalf of these doctors and scientists. |
Mike, the article you read talks about the Benedictine process, that is not used since 1983, so from the start you must admit you don't have an idea about what you are talking about
The problem is that nobody can give an alternative explanation,. you want oone to exist, you say thete must ne another explanation, but the fact is that nobody (not even the experts) have found it.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
At least this time the Protestants reading this might side with me - or convert to Catholicism because of your convincing argument.
|
So...When you don't have arguments you try to divide Christians more than they are to receive some support?
Protestants, Orthodox's and Catholics believe in miracles (They fdopn't need me to convince some miracles are real), I don't know if their processes are so complex as our's, but they have a process to determine if a miracle is legitimate.
Our differences rely not on the fact of Miracles (Protestants will probably say this miracles were performed by God exclusively, and we say that a saint is part of the process), but none of us doubts of miracles.
Our differences are about Dogma and Biblical interpretation, not in the issue if God can perform miracles. So they can believe God performed this, miracles and still believe in other different dogmas.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 01 2010 at 14:55
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 14:42 |
Of course Dean, you want more precision...It's not a smoking gun with the finger prints of the suspect who was found holding it in the scene of crime and bullets that match the ones of the victim after a positive powder absortion test........ ...But the expression smoking gun is used by every lawyer I know as an expression of almost definitive evidence.
What I can tell you with confidence is that in theory of Penal law, we studied the differences between "Pruebas" (Evidences) and "Indicios" (Signs).
To explain it simpler
1.- Prueba Directa (Direct evidence): A smoking gun (Or recently fired), in hands of the suspect with bullets that match the ones found in the victim...This is direct evidence, and even this evidence can be disproved if you find another person that could had fired the gun before, but normally this is very hard evidence
2.- Prueba circunstancial (Circumstancial Evidence): A piece of evidence that can place a person in a place and only link him to a croime in determined circumstances
3.- Indicio (Sign): Is just a fact that could connect a person with a crime.
Circumstancial evidence is already an evidence, and a person can be convicted based exclusively in several circumstancial evidences, but the signs or indicios can't lead to a conviction.
Even when in the practice both are used as synonyms, in doctrine there's a difference.
Dean wrote:
In a court of law scientific evidence is circumstantial, |
Will answer with one word...............DNA
Not circumstantial at all.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 01 2010 at 15:18
|
|
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:09 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ I agree - it's pretty solid evidence, assuming that "you had been near the scene" is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. You would probably be convicted - which never means that you are proven to be guilty, it simply means that a judge or jury found that your guilt can be seen as a fact beyond reasonable doubt.
|
Yeah and that you have to be pretty f&$king stupid to have your prints on the murder weapon too. Very poor analogy textbook. makes for a great 2 hour movie though.
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:10 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Of course Dean, you want more precision...It's not a smoking gun with the finger prints of the suspect who was found holding it in the scene of crime and bullets that match the ones of the victim after a positive powder absortion test...........But the expressuion smoking gun is used by every lawyer I know as an expression of almost defibnitive evidence.
What I can tell you with coinfidence is that in theory of Penal law, we studied the differences between "Pruebas" and "Indicios" (Signs).
To explain it simpler
1.- Prueba Directa (Direct evidence): A smoking gun (Or recently fired), in hands of the suspect with bullets that match the ones found in the victim...This is direct evidence, and even this evidence can be disproved if you find another person that could foire the gun before, but normally this is very hard evidence
2.- Prueba circunstancial (Circumstancial Evidence): A piece of evidence that can place a person in a place and only link him to a croime in determined circumstances
3.- Indicio (Sign): Is just a fact that could connect a person with a crime
Circumstancial evidence is already an ecidence, and a person can be convicted based exclusively in several circumstancial evidences, but th signs or indicios can't lead to a conviction.
Even when in the practice both are used as synonyms, in doctrine there's a difference.
Iván
|
Okay, I understand (seriously, I do). However I cannot make the connection between the OT books and circumstantial evidence - based on your descriptions I cannot even call them signs or indications. Even if I were to believe the historical information (such as the Exodus from Egypt - there is no corroborative evidence for this ever happening and there is no real agreement on when this could have happened) the revelations and miraculous events that happen within the story are without foundation and only hearsay. It is a theology, not a history, written a few centuries before the birth of Jesus, not thousands of years before (when the events were supposed to have happened). As a theology it is only evidence that a religion exists, it is not proof of the beliefs themselves, regardless of how many people believe (wish) it to be so.
|
|
What?
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:11 |
Negoba wrote:
Freak events often shape the course of history. Constantine's nominal conversion to Christianity at his deathbed was one of them. He never was a Christian in any way we'd recognize, but adopted his Roman ideas with new symbols.
|
A lot of people decide to jump ship or climb aboard a spiritual healing program just before they die. It's like they have no insurance policy
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:21 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
In a court of law scientific evidence is circumstantial, |
Will answer with one word...............DNA
Not circumstantial at all.
Iván
|
M'kay, you're the expert here and I have to accept your opinion as being the "legal" one.
As a layman I would say that DNA on its own is not evidence - where it is found is. If DNA is found on the smoking gun, then to me that is the same as a fingerprint and is circumstantial because it places the murder weapon in the hand of the suspect, but it does not prove he pulled the trigger or it was in his hand at the time of the murder. If the smoking gun was found in the hand of the suspect while stood over the victim then that is (as you said) direct evidence and DNA "proof" is not required.
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:22 |
|
Iván, I won't bother to address your points one by one - I would simply have to repeat myself.
So here's the summary:
I don't necessarily disagree with the actual finding of these doctors and scientists, which is "we don't know". What I consider bogus is to draw from that the conclusion that "God did it". This conclusion is the argument from ignorance. Or in your own words:
"One of the logical consequences is that it's divine intervention".
Sorry, but no - this is a nonsensical statement. The only thing that follows from "we don't know" is "we can't draw a conclusion". If you disagree, then I recommend that you read a book about basic logic. You're free to disagree - I just object to you calling it "logical". You try to bolster your case by adding " happened in circumstances when the intervention of God was asked". What about all the cases where prayer didn't help? The effectiveness of prayer has been studied, and even studies funded by religious organizations concluded that it doesn't work. What you're doing is intersecting the cases where scientists can't find an explanation with those who happened to have been prayed for.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:24 |
Dean wrote:
Okay, I understand (seriously, I do). However I cannot make the connection between the OT books and circumstantial evidence - based on your descriptions I cannot even call them signs or indications. Even if I were to believe the historical information (such as the Exodus from Egypt - there is no corroborative evidence for this ever happening and there is no real agreement on when this could have happened) the revelations and miraculous events that happen within the story are without foundation and only hearsay. It is a theology, not a history, written a few centuries before the birth of Jesus, not thousands of years before (when the events were supposed to have happened). As a theology it is only evidence that a religion exists, it is not proof of the beliefs themselves, regardless of how many people believe (wish) it to be so. |
Ok, leave the OT that is mostly allegoric and transmited mainly by oral tradition, even when three important religions accept it.
New Testamente is corroborated evidence (At least 10 sources I know).
And miracles in which the panel of experts declares that a success defies medical or scientific facts.
You can believe it or not, but it's evidence, my point is that the evidence points towards God at least as much as against God. If it was a trial, 12 persons could find it positive, other 12 negative and science will limit to say "I don't understand this"..
But at the end, faith is more important for us
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 01 2010 at 15:26
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:27 |
Chris S wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Freak events often shape the course of history. Constantine's nominal conversion to Christianity at his deathbed was one of them. He never was a Christian in any way we'd recognize, but adopted his Roman ideas with new symbols.
|
A lot of people decide to jump ship or climb aboard a spiritual healing program just before they die. It's like they have no insurance policy |
Jumping ship - sounds like suicide to me. Seriously: Pascal's wager is a really weak argument. Besides, you can use it against religious people, too. What if you're a Christian - and actually Islam is correct? You might want to convert to Islam before you die, since the consequences for Muslims in the Christian afterlife are much more pleasant than those for Christians in the Muslim afterlife. Plus, there's these virgins - may have been fruits (translation errors), but who knows. 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:36 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
...But the expression smoking gun is used by every lawyer I know as an expression of almost definitive evidence.
|
 I missed the word "almost" here on first reading. 
Almost definitive is not definitive - isn't that a smoldering gun?
|
|
What?
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:40 |
^^ Kiwifruit, peaches, pears.........I'll have the lot. Come on, the site of an absolutely stunningly beautiful woman........ ah heaven must have made her on a Sunday
Edited by Chris S - September 01 2010 at 16:00
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 15:46 |
|
There is a book I read about 10 years ago called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, a hardcore agnostic attorney from Chicago who decided to see if he would win or lose defending Christianity in a court room.
A pretty interesting read as I recall.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 16:42 |
Ivan's "faith is more important" statement is the whole collapse of this debate for me. You CANNOT have discussions like this with people who "have faith". Faith is the belief in something which is not supported by evidence or logic. So how on earth can you enter into a debate with somebody whose mind operates that way? You can't. It's a cognitive disorder.
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 17:33 |
Textbook wrote:
Ivan's "faith is more important" statement is the whole collapse of this debate for me. You CANNOT have discussions like this with people who "have faith". Faith is the belief in something which is not supported by evidence or logic. So how on earth can you enter into a debate with somebody whose mind operates that way? You can't. It's a cognitive disorder. |
For once I agree with you. Faith does negate the debate and for those that dismiss it, then debate away, but still it has not scared off some of us especially Ivan in discussing/venting. 
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 17:46 |
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean, It's fascinating to think that we learned to use language in order to communicate, let alone develop complex systems of belief. I know the ''why'' of religion was discussed earlier in the thread, I just think your post above poses more questions about why, how, who, where, when etc. |
Sorry Chris, you're gonna have to be more specific - what post and where in that post did I what I say pose these questions?
Sorry Dean, seems I haven't learned to communicate that well after all! I didn't mean to imply you had asked these questions, but your post made me think about these ideas... I remember a discussion earlier in the thread, something about man having created gods in order to make sense of his environment.
seventhsojourn wrote:
Something you said a few pages ago about outlawing religions, and how they then pass into mythology. I just wondered how you ''make'' someone stop believing... it ties in with Mike's point that Christianity might easily have faded into obscurity... despite the Roman persecutions, why did Christianity endure? How did Christianity develop from being a minor Jewish sect, despite the persecutions? Mike often points to the promise of an ''afterlife'', but this idea wasn't exclusive to Christianity, was it? |
You make people stop believing by offering something more attractive in replacement (and is some cases, more attractive than death by burning). The early christian church did this by adopting the pagan feast-days and merging into the indigenous culture rather than trying to supplant it - this meant that the locals weren't losing anything by adopting the new religion - they could still celebrate Beltaine, Shamhain and Saturnalia and have a big party - it was just called Easter, Harvest Festival and Christmas - and they were given Sunday's off as well - win-win. The other "incentive" that christianity offered that the pagan religions didn't was that they were more "modern" and "progressive" and centered around humanity rather than spirituality and otherworldliness. Essentially, christianity to early medieval people was hip and with-it.
Something as attractive as martyrdom? I'm not sure if you're hinting at Christian ethics/morality in the above paragraph, but if so then we're back to ''hope'' (and ''faith'' and ''charity''). (Yes, I recognise that the early Church fathers probably adapted the philosophy of Plato/Aristotle). Holy (holi)days, even atheists must surely be thankful for those.
To gain insight into how christianity endured the Roman persecutions you have to first ask why the Romans were persecuting them in the first place - this wasn't standard procedure for Roman Empire - they normally assimilated others' religions into their own pantheon of gods, and where they couldn't, such as with the Jewish faith, they granted it special status and allowed them to continue unmolested as long as they paid tax. In the beginning christianity was just a faction of the Jewish religion, they saw it as an internal "problem" of the Jewish nation and of no concern to them. So for the most part they tolerated the early christians (Nero instigated the first round of persecutions but that was because the early christians in Rome were rebellious, not because he disapproved of their religion; Roman persecutions were not continuous and relentless during this period) and continued like that, with only sporadic outbreaks of small-scale localised persecutions, for the next 250 years. This was a crucial time for the new religion as it was when the christianity grew and spread more or less unchecked. It was during this period that christianity separated from the jewish faith and the early church fathers formulated what the religion would actually be and how the church would govern it - they were allowed considerable freedom and latitude within the Roman Empire to do this and it certainly wouldn't have happened under constant persecution.
Yes, they were probably persecuted by other Jews before the Romans. Just wonder about the decline of the pagan religions... I mean, with all of Christianity's strict rules compared to pagan hedonism (fornication, idolatory etc), why bother... and how did Christianity gain such an influential foothold with persecutions and edicts that banned proselytism? If Judaism wasn't outlawed, why did it not grow like Christianity (which was a sect of Judaism?) (I don't necessarily expect you to answer this, just thinking aloud).
The persecutions of the later period were caused by many reasons - the Romans now saw the the more organised and growing church as a threat - they were seen as sectarian, separatist, secretive, atheistic (a polytheistic view of monotheism), non-materialistic and disloyal - the normal Roman procedure with new religions was assimilation, but the jews and later the chistians were having none of that malarkey. None of these features fitted with the democratic and social nature of Roman life so the christians remained "foreign" outsiders. The church endured because it adapted and what didn't defeat it made it stronger, it had seen that the Romans feared what the church represented and they drew strength from that. Ironically that resulted in producing a religion that became more attractive to an emperor who wanted to control a vast population and the persecutions created martyrs, who became saints, and those saints made the religion appealing to those use to a polytheistic religion.
Interesting that the Romans saw them as atheistic because they were monotheistic... do some within Judaism and Islam not see Christianity as polytheistic because of the Holy Trinity?!
No, the afterlife wasn't exclusive to christianity, and it certainly wasn't central to the jewish faith, but it was (apparently) a key part of many religions. Burial rituals, which are common to most civilisations in one form or another and (if the archaeology is correct) to Neanderthals too, suggest that to many religions and cultures burial is more than just mourning the passing of dead, it is preparing them for life after death and their journey to the ancestors - viking ship burials, Celtic burial mounds, Egyptian tombs, etc. etc. all suggest this is the case. Whether that was central to the religion is another matter - burial tombs survive as evidence because they were designed to - no one gets buried in a tent simply because it won't last and no one wants that. We see the Egyptian religions as being cults of the dead because the tombs are all that survive - the day to day, hedonistic, life is for living stuff is long gone. |
How do we get Egyptian and Mesoamerican step pyramids? OK, they're observational vantage points for the constellations and both cultures may be building a ''Stairway to Heaven'', but their belief systems are widely different. Nazca Lines... to be seen by gods in the sky or to do with astronomy? Mound builder cultures... similar beliefs to the Egyptians about primordial mounds (vantage points again). I think the most interesting is actually Stonehenge... begun around 3100 BCE, finished 1600 BCE. Talk about forward planning! How did they organise such an undertaking?
Like I say, just thinking aloud so no need to try to answer all these questions. This stuff above always makes me think of David Icke... treated very shabbily during a certain TV interview a number of years ago, if you remember.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 18:05 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
New Testamente is corroborated evidence (At least 10 sources I know). |
Nope. Those sources are not corroborative if:
- They were written after the books in the NT was written
- Their only source is the NT itself
- They are selective
- They only support the history not the spirituality
For example if there is a documented account of Jesus as a person who had a mother called Mary and/or a brother called James that only suggest he existed as a man (something I don't deny myself btw) it does not corroborate anything else in the NT, especially not his christian divinity or any claims miracles.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
And miracles in which the panel of experts declares that a success defies medical or scientific facts. |
On those panels the medical and scientific experts are not asked whether they think it was a miracle - they are asked to explain it medically or scientifically - if they fail to explain it then it is not confirmation of a miracle at all, just a lack of evidence or medical/scientific understanding.
Just because science cannot explain a recovery it doesn't mean it was a miracle - it just means there was insufficient evidence to give a definitive answer. If a religion wants to call that a miracle then that's fine, but it isn't proof of divine intervention or that a definitive answer cannot be produced with more evidence or through later discovery.
If a panel of experts watched a David Copperfield show and couldn't explain how it was done would that constitute proof that he was wizard with real magical powers and not just an illusionist doing tricks?
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
You can believe it or not, but it's evidence, my point is that the evidence points towards God at least as much as against God. If it was a trial, 12 persons could find it positive, other 12 negative and science will limit to say "I don't understand this".. |
And if there was a hung jury (the more reasonable outcome of your "evidence" surely) then there would be a retrial - hopefully with more and/or better evidence.
At the moment I do not believe the evidence is equal at all.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
But at the end, faith is more important for us
Iván |
That's perfectly fine and perfectly acceptable. Faith is good for religion. It's no good for science.
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 18:29 |
Dean wrote:
That's perfectly fine and perfectly acceptable. Faith is good for religion. It's no good for science. |
I say faith, not faith alone neither blind faith.
We try to find the truth, we search the posibilities, we study he altenatives, and if we can reach two different conclusions, equally possible, we go with the one that complements my faith and persopnal experience.
Until today nobody is able to prove beyond doubt that God exists or doesn't exist, but some atheists shout that God is a fake, a fairytale, a lie, delusion, etc; when they have the absolutely same evidence than us about God's existence...Why can't we rach the opposite conclusion if haven't been proven false?
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 01 2010 at 18:31
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 19:32 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
That's perfectly fine and perfectly acceptable. Faith is good for religion. It's no good for science. |
I say faith, not faith alone neither blind faith.
We try to find the truth, we search the posibilities, we study he altenatives, and if we can reach two different conclusions, equally possible, we go with the one that complements my faith and persopnal experience.
Until today nobody is able to prove beyond doubt that God exists or doesn't exist, but some atheists shout that God is a fake, a fairytale, a lie, delusion, etc; when they have the absolutely same evidence than us about God's existence...Why can't we rach the opposite conclusion if haven't been proven false?
Iván |
The question I would ask is why look for proof or evidence either way? If I had conclusive irrefutable incontrovertible proof there would still be a huge number of people who wouldn't believe me.
You know my personal "beliefs" - I don't call that faith, I don't call it truth, it requires neither belief nor disbelief because it is non-theism rather than atheism.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 20:39 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean, It's fascinating to think that we learned to use language in order to communicate, let alone develop complex systems of belief. I know the ''why'' of religion was discussed earlier in the thread, I just think your post above poses more questions about why, how, who, where, when etc. |
Sorry Chris, you're gonna have to be more specific - what post and where in that post did I what I say pose these questions? |
Sorry Dean, seems I haven't learned to communicate that well after all! I didn't mean to imply you had asked these questions, but your post made me think about these ideas... I remember a discussion earlier in the thread, something about man having created gods in order to make sense of his environment. |
All animals communicate in someway or other, and that communication cannot cross species - a dog can communicate with a wolf because they are the same species, but it cannot communicate with a coyote, a fox or a dingo because they are different species of the canine family. Our verbal language allows us to do two things that non-verbal language cannot do - transfer ideas between ourselves and to question.
Ug: What make Sun cross sky?
Og: *shrug*
Ug: *shrug* make Sun cross sky
Og: *shrug*
Ug: What is *shrug*
Og Not know what is *shrug* it is just *shrug*
Ug: Oh.
<<later>>
Ug: You know *shrug*
Ig: I know *shrug*
Ug: *shrug* make Sun cross sky
Ig: *shrug* good then
Ug: Yes *shrug* good
<<later still>>
Ig: You know *shrug*
Og: Me know *shrug*
Ig: *shrug* need name *shrug* make shoulder ache
Og: Mmm *shrug* need name
Ig: What call *shrug*
Og: Call *shrug* God.
Ig: God make Sun cross sky
Og: !!
Well, who knows - no one for sure because we weren't there and written language hadn't been invented. I find it inconceivable, implausible and unlikely that god would have visited every emergent civilisation during the Paleolithic age and told each tribe a different explanation of stuff and I find it equally inconceivable, implausible and unlikely that god would have visited only one of those tribes and told them stuff and let the remaining tribes across the globe to make up their own explanations. Now I know that religion is all about the impossible and the unexplainable and the ineffable, but to me it is more conceivable, plausible and likely that all the tribes on Earth made up their own explanations of stuff without any help because we frequently underestimate mankind, ourselves and our capabilities, and especially of Paleolithic and prehistoric man (as demonstrated by my little comedy sketch - they were just as likely to have been called Sebastian, Tarquin and Malcolm and had perfect diction, grammar and syntax and were just as intelligent and just as smart as we are)
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Something you said a few pages ago about outlawing religions, and how they then pass into mythology. I just wondered how you ''make'' someone stop believing... it ties in with Mike's point that Christianity might easily have faded into obscurity... despite the Roman persecutions, why did Christianity endure? How did Christianity develop from being a minor Jewish sect, despite the persecutions? Mike often points to the promise of an ''afterlife'', but this idea wasn't exclusive to Christianity, was it? |
You make people stop believing by offering something more attractive in replacement (and is some cases, more attractive than death by burning). The early christian church did this by adopting the pagan feast-days and merging into the indigenous culture rather than trying to supplant it - this meant that the locals weren't losing anything by adopting the new religion - they could still celebrate Beltaine, Shamhain and Saturnalia and have a big party - it was just called Easter, Harvest Festival and Christmas - and they were given Sunday's off as well - win-win. The other "incentive" that christianity offered that the pagan religions didn't was that they were more "modern" and "progressive" and centered around humanity rather than spirituality and otherworldliness. Essentially, christianity to early medieval people was hip and with-it. |
Something as attractive as martyrdom? I'm not sure if you're hinting at Christian ethics/morality in the above paragraph, but if so then we're back to ''hope'' (and ''faith'' and ''charity''). (Yes, I recognise that the early Church fathers probably adapted the philosophy of Plato/Aristotle). Holy (holi)days, even atheists must surely be thankful for those. |
No, because martyrdom didn't work too well for the Romans against the christians so the christians would have been cautious about using it against the pagans - however they did put to death heretics and heathens that much is known. Incidentally, there probably weren't that many christian martyrs during the first 300 years of christianity and only a dozen or so of the 52 Roman Emperors persecuted christians, and most of those none to rigorously. And No I don't think it does get us back to "hope" since life at that time wasn't hopeless, especially around the coast of the Mediterranean. The NT was written in Greek by Greek speakers, few if any could read Hebrew so they read greek literature rather than the OT - early christian adaption and adoption of greek philosophy was inevitable, but they couldn't directly quote it (since it was pagan).
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
To gain insight into how christianity endured the Roman persecutions you have to first ask why the Romans were persecuting them in the first place - this wasn't standard procedure for Roman Empire - they normally assimilated others' religions into their own pantheon of gods, and where they couldn't, such as with the Jewish faith, they granted it special status and allowed them to continue unmolested as long as they paid tax. In the beginning christianity was just a faction of the Jewish religion, they saw it as an internal "problem" of the Jewish nation and of no concern to them. So for the most part they tolerated the early christians (Nero instigated the first round of persecutions but that was because the early christians in Rome were rebellious, not because he disapproved of their religion; Roman persecutions were not continuous and relentless during this period) and continued like that, with only sporadic outbreaks of small-scale localised persecutions, for the next 250 years. This was a crucial time for the new religion as it was when the christianity grew and spread more or less unchecked. It was during this period that christianity separated from the jewish faith and the early church fathers formulated what the religion would actually be and how the church would govern it - they were allowed considerable freedom and latitude within the Roman Empire to do this and it certainly wouldn't have happened under constant persecution. |
Yes, they were probably persecuted by other Jews before the Romans. Just wonder about the decline of the pagan religions... I mean, with all of Christianity's strict rules compared to pagan hedonism (fornication, idolatory etc), why bother... and how did Christianity gain such an influential foothold with persecutions and edicts that banned proselytism? If Judaism wasn't outlawed, why did it not grow like Christianity (which was a sect of Judaism?) (I don't necessarily expect you to answer this, just thinking aloud). |
Jewish persecutions were mainly in the first century and probably put pay to jewish-christianity as a religion. The pagan religions were not hedonistic - that's a misconception derived from christian propaganda. Christianity got a foot hold because the edicts banning preaching and practising of christianity were rarely (if ever) enforced - all persecutions in the latter half of the early christian era were short and localised, leaving plenty of time and space for the religion to grow unhindered. Judaism didn't grow because it was a closed religion - mixed marriages were prohibited and the children of a mixed marriage were not allowed to become jewish. Christianity on the other-hand wanted to grow - conversion was encouraged and the offspring of mixed marriages were automatically christian.
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
The persecutions of the later period were caused by many reasons - the Romans now saw the the more organised and growing church as a threat - they were seen as sectarian, separatist, secretive, atheistic (a polytheistic view of monotheism), non-materialistic and disloyal - the normal Roman procedure with new religions was assimilation, but the jews and later the chistians were having none of that malarkey. None of these features fitted with the democratic and social nature of Roman life so the christians remained "foreign" outsiders. The church endured because it adapted and what didn't defeat it made it stronger, it had seen that the Romans feared what the church represented and they drew strength from that. Ironically that resulted in producing a religion that became more attractive to an emperor who wanted to control a vast population and the persecutions created martyrs, who became saints, and those saints made the religion appealing to those use to a polytheistic religion. |
Interesting that the Romans saw them as atheistic because they were monotheistic... do some within Judaism and Islam not see Christianity as polytheistic because of the Holy Trinity?! |
Possibly not - neither see Jesus as divine and Islam accepts him as a prophet so it is unlikely. They do see it as heretical though.
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
No, the afterlife wasn't exclusive to christianity, and it certainly wasn't central to the jewish faith, but it was (apparently) a key part of many religions. Burial rituals, which are common to most civilisations in one form or another and (if the archaeology is correct) to Neanderthals too, suggest that to many religions and cultures burial is more than just mourning the passing of dead, it is preparing them for life after death and their journey to the ancestors - viking ship burials, Celtic burial mounds, Egyptian tombs, etc. etc. all suggest this is the case. Whether that was central to the religion is another matter - burial tombs survive as evidence because they were designed to - no one gets buried in a tent simply because it won't last and no one wants that. We see the Egyptian religions as being cults of the dead because the tombs are all that survive - the day to day, hedonistic, life is for living stuff is long gone. |
How do we get Egyptian and Mesoamerican step pyramids? OK, they're observational vantage points for the constellations and both cultures may be building a ''Stairway to Heaven'', but their belief systems are widely different. |
Simple coincidence. If you want to build a tall structure out of blocks of stone without using glue or cement then a pyramid is the most stable shape- there are failed and bent pyramids in Egypt that demonstrate that the optimum slope angle that doesn't collapse was found by trial and error.
seventhsojourn wrote:
Nazca Lines... to be seen by gods in the sky or to do with astronomy? |
My guess is neither. The Incas were smart - they built Machu Picchu, the Nazca lines are thought to be processional (like the avenue at Stonehenge) and are not aligned astronomically - that they can only be seen from the sky is possibly coincidental.
seventhsojourn wrote:
Mound builder cultures... similar beliefs to the Egyptians about primordial mounds (vantage points again). I think the most interesting is actually Stonehenge... begun around 3100 BCE, finished 1600 BCE. Talk about forward planning! How did they organise such an undertaking?
|
That's not evidence of forward planning - it just shows continuous use for 1500 years (or even longer) and it was usable at every stage of its construction - what we see today is the result of rebuilding, repair and modification of the structure during all the years of its use, from a simple wood henge, to a small henge made with local stone to the final thing using huge monoliths and trilithons made from rock dragged from Wales - the ring at Avebury is much larger in area but simpler in design and uses rough irregular stones - earlier versions of Stonehenge would have looked similar. I think organising that would be pretty simple - lay on plenty of food and booze and invite people along.
seventhsojourn wrote:
Like I say, just thinking aloud so no need to try to answer all these questions. This stuff above always makes me think of David Icke... treated very shabbily during a certain TV interview a number of years ago, if you remember.
|
Stuff like this use to fascinate me so I've crammed my head with loads of useless information - if I don't share it most of my life would have been a waste of time
Icke got what he deserved if you ask me.
|
|
What?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?