04 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill"Have you not been forewarned by Christ already? I have."
======================================
You tell me the differences between Nostradamus and the Bible. Now I'll tell you the similarities between them:
They all have prophecies. Some true, some false. If you have imagination enough, everyone of them can be interpreted as true. But if you critically scrutinize them, you'll see that the prophecies are ve find plenty in what "people" do. But I would not find such rationalization honest.
I have not. You hear some talking from the blue, I don't.
"This not a problem to me, what "people" do."
This is not about you and me. It's about the christian beliefs in general. You are a part of christianity, aren't you? See, there.
I lump every foretelling together. Same phenomenon. Samo samo. If it works for some religious people, it should work for every one religiously. Nostradamus, bible, astrology, animals intestines, preachers... It's against science, but within religion. Fine with me.
We have a different view what prophecies are. Let's accept our differences.
04 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnas"Hearsay" is information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event of which the first person had no experience.
You think it is the exact word of Jesus mouth.
I say it is hearsay, nothing more.
We disagree, and that's fine with me.
By definition, the disciples' accounts are not hearsay.
05 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnas===================================
"Have you not been forewarned by Christ already? I have."
I have not. You hear some talking from the blue, I don't.
"This not a problem to me, what "people" do."
This is not about you and me. It's about the christian beliefs in general. You are a part of christianity, aren't you? See, there.
I lump every foretelling together. Same phenomenon. Samo th me.
We have a different view what prophecies are. Let's accept our differences.
Have you not been forewarned by Christ already? I have."
I have not. You hear some talking from the blue, I don't.
====================================
The Bible's writing covers about 1600 years. I don't consider the prophecies concerning Christ's second coming to be "out of the blue." I consider that they are part of a long line of prophetic utterances, many of which have been proven to be accurate, some of which may yet prove to be accurate.
At any rate Christ's words to me are certainly not "out of the blue".
==================================
"This not a problem to me, what "people" do."
This is not about you and me. It's about the christian beliefs in general. You are a part of christianity, aren't you? See, there.
=======================================
I don't consider myself part of any "anity" whether Christianity or otherwise. Yes, I am a follower of Jesus.
And Jesus' teachings are meant to be taken subjectively such that they effect a change in one's life. So they are about me by my choice to allow Him to exhort my life.
If they are not about you, it may be because you intend to refuse to allow God's word to effect a change in your life.
=======================================
I lump every foretelling together. Same phenomenon. Samo samo. If it works for some religious people, it should work for every one religiously. Nostradamus, bible, astrology, animals intestines, preachers... It's against science, but within religion. Fine with me.
=======================================
You say it is the same. But I bet you spend more time trying to debunk the Bible than you do on astrology, animal intestines, etc.
I bet you devote more energy to debating Christians. Which astrology website do you go to in order to debate astrologers ?
Which Discussion Forum do you attend in order to voice your posts in opposition to reading animal intestines ?
I wager that you spend a disproportional amount of time arguing with Christians. Yet you probably boast to them that these beliefs are all the same.
[/b]====================================
We have a different view what prophecies are. Let's accept our differences.
==========================================[/b]
I always accepted our differences. Accepting that you differ doesn't stop me from showing you your errors and the weaknesses of your arguments.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell, you have a point letting Iran have nukes, but the Bible clearly states that we are not to tempt Him. Note that I said God would not allow the world to be destroyed by nukes. I didn't say that nukes couldn't be used, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki can attest.
Gods ways are mysterious. God allowed nazis to almost kill all jews during WW2, didn't he? Would you really think he would spare us if some crackhead put the finger on the red button? Bush had the finger there, and he thought sriously of using nukes on Iran, at the same time he thought he was sent by god. I wouldn't for sure rely on that.
If we rely on that, then why not let Iran have their nukes, god's protecting us anyway, right?
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by BadwaterWhat's with all of this academia script?...LOL....'quaint platitudes'? LOL
Of this I am not convinced. God will not get in the way should humankind destroy itself. You have words that you interpret to be otherwise, but no concrete evidence that God would not allow the world to be destroyed. Your quaint platitudes are not enough - and they are not evidence in any shape or form.
On the contrary, the Old Testament provides a pleth ...[text shortened]... hing as humankind continues to engage in its evil assault upon any form of life that it chooses.
The Old Testament has fulfilled its purpose already. The return of Jesus is covered in the New Testament.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasWikipedia says this:
"Hearsay" is information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event of which the first person had no experience.
By definition, the disciples' accounts are not hearsay.
"Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule."
If hearsay is clear cut evidence than I can use hearsay evidence, stating the truth, that "My teacher said that evolution is a scientific truth, and creationsism is bogus. So therefore it must be so.
However a creationist can use the same hearsay evidence by stating "My priest said that ..." and we cannot get anywhere.
The statement "From Jesus mouth ... therefore it must be the truth." when the words didn't come from Jesus himself, but from Matthew (in this case), furthermore written 50 years after, furthermore translated to English, Swahili, Hinid, and Swedish. How much of the word of Jesus is still there? And what is the truth value left? I say, not much, we cannot know for sure. Hence hearsay.
05 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasLet me ask, do you disregard the words of Socrates with the same unsophisticated ease? Would you say of Socrates, "The words didn't come from Socrates, but from Plato; furthermore, it was translated from the original Greek, so we cannot know for sure what truth value is left; we must ignore Socrates because anything he has said is nothing more than hearsay."
Wikipedia says this:
"Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such at is the truth value left? I say, not much, we cannot know for sure. Hence hearsay.
And to think, they have whole philosophy courses dedicated to understanding the words and ideas attributed to Socrates! Please tell me that you disregard the words of Socrates with equal aplomb...
(By the way, Plato's dialogues were written in 380 B.C. The earliest copy we have was written in 900 A.D. That is a span of 1300 years between the original and the earliest copy. There are a total of 7 copies. There are not enough copies to recreate the original. By contrast, the earliest books of the New Testament were written 40-60 A.D. The earliest copy we have was written in 130 A.D. That is a span of 100 years between the original and the earliest copy. There are a total of 14,000 copies of the New Testament. Fancy that.)
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasI don't have any opinion about that. Should I?
Let me ask, do you disregard the words of Socrates with the same unsophisticated ease? Would you say of Socrates, "The words didn't come from Socrates, but from Plato; furthermore, it was translated from the original Greek, so we cannot know for sure what truth value is left; we must ignore Socrates because anything he has said is nothing more than hear ...[text shortened]... d the earliest copy. There are a total of 14,000 copies of the New Testament. Fancy that.)
Do you equate the words of Socrates with the word of Jesus? Does the fate of the world depends of the truth value of Socrates?
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasPlato, Xenophon and Aristophanes each gave the public a different Socrates. The authentic Socrates cannot be reconstituted from their writings. Readers are free to use these sources to dream up their own personal Socrates ...
Let me ask, do you disregard the words of Socrates with the same unsophisticated ease? Would you say of Socrates, "The words didn't come from Socrates, but from Plato; furthermore, it was translated from the original Greek, so we cannot know for sure what truth value is left; we must ignore Socrates because anything he has said is nothing more than hear ed to Socrates! Please tell me that you disregard the words of Socrates with equal aplomb...
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasAre you aware that Socrates is known only through the classical accounts of his students? At least there are non-biblical accounts of Jesus Christ having existed, but Socrates was known only through the writings of his students. Nevertheless, nobody disregards the words of Socrates as mere hearsay. Why, then, should we disregard the words of Jesus Christ as mere hearsay?
I don't have any opinion about that. Should I?
Do you equate the words of Socrates with the word of Jesus? Does the fate of the world depends of the truth value of Socrates?
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYet somehow he managed to help establish Western philosophy while remaining an enigmatic figure.
Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes each gave the public a different Socrates. The authentic Socrates cannot be reconstituted from their writings. Readers are free to use these sources to dream up their own personal Socrates ...
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat was Socrates' contribution to Western philosophy, other than serving as a launchpad for Plato's career?
Yet somehow he managed to help establish Western philosophy while remaining an enigmatic figure.
Aristotle arguably contributed the most of any Greek: what was Socrates' influence on him?
I'd sincerely like to know.
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou'd be better off consulting bbarr.
What was Socrates' contribution to Western philosophy, other than serving as a launchpad for Plato's career?
Aristotle arguably contributed the most of any Greek: what was Socrates' influence on him?
I'd sincerely like to know.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasIt seems to me that Plato did it, by means of attributing at his early philosphical works his personal beliefs to his "father's image", ie to Socrates; Socrates the Human was a strong philosopher warrior who could fight for his moral beliefs as hard as he could fight for the favor of his city, Athens. This is fine with me -what means "enigmatic figure"?
Yet somehow he managed to help establish Western philosophy while remaining an enigmatic figure.
😵