belivers vs athiests

[Davros of Skaro]

Why do Demons and the Holy Spirit effect people's Brain chemistry?Why do people pass on this vulnerability to their offspring?

[+Paranoid Android]

"Supernatural" implies that something is not limited by laws of nature so an antipsychotic or psychiatric medication that causes chemical reactions in the brain is not going to be effective on a demon that is again not limited by that. A demon that already has power to control the person and their mind already could reverse the effects of the medication. And so yes, supernatural causes require supernatural cures because by definition it is a force beyond the laws of nature.

So antipsychotics work every situation?

I've mainly been speaking of mental issues that are treated by people talking through their life experiences rather than chemical imbalances in the brain, but if you want to turn this towards medication then do these medications work all the time? When they don't (and I know they don't work 100% in all people) then who's to say there's no supernatural effect? Again, just to be clear, I'm not advocating that every time drugs don't work, then "oh, it must be demons". Neither am I advocating a self-diagnosis of the same type. God gave us doctors and psychiatrists to help us, why not let them help?

[ChloeB]

So antipsychotics work every situation?

I've mainly been speaking of mental issues that are treated by people talking through their life experiences rather than chemical imbalances in the brain, but if you want to turn this towards medication then do these medications work all the time? When they don't (and I know they don't work 100% in all people) then who's to say there's no supernatural effect? Again, just to be clear, I'm not advocating that every time drugs don't work, then "oh, it must be demons". Neither am I advocating a self-diagnosis of the same type. God gave us doctors and psychiatrists to help us, why not let them help?

I never said they help all the time. What we have been discussing is you said psychiatry care can help demonic possession and I said if psychiatric care helps that it wasn't demonic for all the reasons I've explained. We weren't just talking about mental issues you'd talk out in therapy, but cases of demonic possession present themselves as a psychosis with auditory, visual, tactile halucinations and I think it's pretty rare that medication isn't involved in treating something like that. Just out of curiosity, why do you think God would allow a demon to possess a person? You never really said the circumstances you thought opened a person to demonic possession really. Why I ask is as I understand how it's supposed to be, isn't it usually some type of spiritual lack of faith or dabbling in the occult that makes a person vulnerable? That's not really a doctor or pschiatrists area to get a person back on the correct path to God, that would be more a minister or priest or some sort of spiritual counseling. If meds and psychiatric care didn't work and that did, then no one could really say that it wasn't demons, but there are also other explanations.

[+Paranoid Android]

I never said they help all the time. What we have been discussing is you said psychiatry care can help demonic possession and I said if psychiatric care helps that it wasn't demonic for all the reasons I've explained. We weren't just talking about mental issues you'd talk out in therapy, but cases of demonic possession present themselves as a psychosis with auditory, visual, tactile halucinations and I think it's pretty rare that medication isn't involved in treating something like that. Just out of curiosity, why do you think God would allow a demon to possess a person? You never really said the circumstances you thought opened a person to demonic possession really. Why I ask is as I understand how it's supposed to be, isn't it usually some type of spiritual lack of faith or dabbling in the occult that makes a person vulnerable? That's not really a doctor or pschiatrists area to get a person back on the correct path to God, that would be more a minister or priest or some sort of spiritual counseling. If meds and psychiatric care didn't work and that did, then no one could really say that it wasn't demons, but there are also other explanations.

Just to focus on the text in bold, you are right, I didn't explain the circumstances that I thought would open a person to possession, because I'm not qualified to say. My answer is "I don't know", and it almost definitely differs from person to person. I'm basically just sharing my opinion, I claim no expertise in the situation.

[Mr Walker]

Why do Demons and the Holy Spirit effect people's Brain chemistry?Why do people pass on this vulnerability to their offspring?

Maybe in the same way that it has now been discovered that things like overeating are passed on via 'genetic memory" from parents to children

[Davros of Skaro]

Maybe in the same way that it has now been discovered that things like overeating are passed on via 'genetic memory" from parents to children

[Tiggs]

With apologies for the amazingly long delay. I've been laid up with a medical issue.

I was extrapolating based on your bringing this up in terms of hundreds of years ago demon possession was a common "diagnosis" of mental illness, and you were then contrasting that to the actions of modern psychiatry. If this was not your intention, then I apologise.

My sole intention has, and remains to be, to show that historically Demons were widely associated with possession and mental illness - and that now, not so much, in scientific circles.

As it would seem that changes in brain chemistry are very good at exorcising "Demons", on a remarkably regular basis.

Because Science and progress, and all.

For what it's worth, I do believe that possession can happen, and I believe that such possession can manifest itself as mental illness. But that's not to say that we should say "I think I'm possessed, I should see a priest instead of a psychiatrist". We know that God works through natural means as well as supernatural (well, that's what I believe). The old story about a man on the roof of his house as the flood waters rise, several folk come on boats and helicopters, but the man waves them away saying "my God will save me". Of course the man dies and complains to God, who says that he sent boats and choppers but the man refused God's help. Same thing with mental illness - regardless of its cause, perhaps psychiatrists can help, they are God's instruments working to heal humanity.

Psychiatrists are God's instruments? Which Bible verse does that come from?

Your tacit agreement that Demons exist silently empowers those Christian's who encourage people to seek spiritual solutions.

Because Mark 16:

17 And these attesting signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;

18 They will pick up serpents; and even if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will get well.

I can't point to a gospel passage where the Emperor of Rome is named. I can point to gospel passages where Pontius Pilate is cited as the governor of Judea. Can Harry Potter novels claim anything similar? Does a Muggle-born student at Hogwarts ever talk about Branjelina or any other number of celebrities? Does a Muggle-born student ever talk about Wayne Rooney or anything about English Football? Is there a single reference to the Muggle World that helps us place the events of Harry Potter at a particular time in history? If there is, then we may have something to talk about.

As it happens, I can show you something much more accurate than the 10 year (or so) span of time of Pilate's Governership of Judea.

I can show you the 500th Anniversary celebration of Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's death day, who died on 31st October, 1492 - within CoS:8 - which gives an exact date and time for Y12 (the twelfth year after Harry Potter's birth), from which all else can be calculated.

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/essays/timeline_years.html

We are, of course, now in the Year of our Potter 34.

The apostles. They'd been following Jesus for years. They were familiar with the oral tradition of the Rabbi's (which was, as you know, written down for the first time circa 200 AD, and covers about three hundred years of said tradition).

The Oral Torah was received at Sinai, along with the written Torah. I think you'll find that was a little earlier than 100 BC.

Perhaps one of Jeuss' followers was a graduate from the Rabbinical oral schools and was busy with mnemonics and other remembering devices to remember the oral tradition of Jesus.

The gospels are certainly written by someone familiar with the mechanics of the oral tradition.

Writing it in a way that's easy to remember doesn't mean that it took oral tradition to get there. Just that the writer wanted it to be easy to remember when spoken.

Question: If there was an oral tradition - why does Luke need to write his gospel for Theophilus, who has already received "oral instruction?"

Instead of simply passing on the tradition orally. Being traditional, and all.

But as was common practice among said Jews, they weren't written down but rather oral stories.

Amongst the Rabbi's. Your average man in the street? Not so much.

Paul never met the earthly Jesus so his ministry revolved not so much on the exact words of Jesus but rather the claim that he was divine and rose from the dead. That was Paul's mission, and quoting the earthly teachings of a man he never met took second-place to that.

The same Paul who was "a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees"?

The same Pharisees who were "Oral Tradition" Central?

Alternately - perhaps Paul did believe that passing on any oral information received was of primary concern.

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…”

Really, you highly recommend it? Considering your previous post you said something along the lines of "I literally see no difference between you worshipping Barney and Jesus"? If you've laid hands on people in the name of Barney, they why not come over and try Jesus on for a change? See if you may recommend to others this person named Jesus? Even if you're doing it just to say it's silly, at least the name of Jesus is being spoken of around the world, and that (as a Christian) is good news to me. Maybe someone will try something and God's Holy Spirit just happens to be waiting for that to happen and you've inadvertently led someone to Christ. I'm down with that, my friend

I started with Christ. Back in the days when I was a Christian.

Then I began to experiment. Because Science.

I soon learned that what mattered wasn't whose name the work was done in, but who the person being healed believed had the power to do the healing.

For some people, that's Christ. For some children, that's a big purple dinosaur.

As I said - there's literally no difference to me between the two. I don't believe in either of them, equally.*

0In my view, God DID create the universe. He is the one behind everything. He brought existence to exist, he created the first primordial soup that created the first living thing. He was there, behind the process of evolution from the very beginning in order to bring about humanity as his special people. Just because he didn't literally do it in the way a scientific approach to Genesis would have him do it doesn't mean that it wasn't God.

So - your version of creation is basically Science's, with a "and God willed it to be so. Because reasons." tacked on the end.

Compelling argument for God's primacy, PA.

As an aside, I'm not a Jew, I'm of the view that the Torah is written anonymously, by several authors.

Well, that's certainly one reason why you're not a Jew. Believing that the Torah was passed directly to Moses by God was the eighth article of faith listed by Maimonides:

The eighth fundamental principle is that the Torah came from God. We are to believe that the whole Torah was given us through Moses our Teacher entirely from God. When we call the Torah “God’s Word” we speak metaphorically. We do not know exactly how it reached us, but only that it came through Moses who acted like a secretary taking dictation. He wrote down the events of the time and the commandments, for which reason he is called “Lawgiver.” There is no distinction between a verse of scripture like “The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim” (Gen. 10:6), or “His wife’s name was Mehetabel and his concubine was Timna” (Gen. 36:39, 12), and one like “I am the Lord your God” (Ex. 20:2), or “Hear, O Israel” (Deut. 6:4). All came from God, and all are the Torah of God, perfect, pure, holy and true. Anyone who says Moses wrote some passages on his own is regarded by our sages as an atheist or the worst kind of heretic, because he tries to distinguish essence from accident in Torah. Such a heretic claims that some historical passages or stories are trivial inventions of Moses and not Divine Revelation. But the sages said that if one accepts as Revelation the whole Torah with the exception of even one verse, which Moses himself and not God composed, he is referred to in the verse, “he has shamed the word of the Lord” (Num. 15:31), and is heretical.

Every word of Torah is full of wisdom and wonders for one who understands it. It is beyond human understanding. It is broader than the earth and wider than the sea. Each man must follow David, anointed of the God of Jacob, who prayed: “Open my eyes that I may behold wonders out of your Torah” (Ps. 119:18).

The authoritative commentary on the Torah is also the Word of God. The sukkah we build today, or the lulav, shofar, fringes, phylacteries, etc. we use, replicate exactly those God showed Moses which Moses faithfully described for us. This fundamental principle is taught by the verse: “And Moses said, ‘Thus shall you know that the Lord sent me to do all these things, and that they are not products of my own mind’” (Num. 16:28)

As another aside, if Jesus is the "son of Moloch", then I am most definitely screwed. I've already admitted I take the authors of the New Testament on their word that they are telling the truth. I have also said elsewhere (and now here) that I also trust that God inspired these authors to give true accounts. So that's my faith-based opinion. If it is a poorly placed faith, and Jesus is actually just giving me a honey pot to suck on as they lead me and Charlie to Candy Mountain, then I'm well and truly screwed.

Still. At least you'd have the Torah to fall back on, right?

Matthew 5:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I almost feel mischievous enough in asking you to guess. Almost. I'm pretty sure you know me enough by now to probably guess what my answer is - that I'd take science, accept that my faith in the Bible was wrong, although I would still believe in a creator-God who wants a relationship with his creation. I'd just have to rethink my dogmas, decide whether God just wants me to love him and express that love to others through my life, or whether there's a particular path that he laid out for others to follow through one of the other religions of the world.

But thankfully for the field that is Christianity, I didn't need to choose. I could take both Christianity and Science, and use them both to benefit my life

~ Regards, PA

If you had asked - I'd have said that you'd steadfastly refuse to choose.

* Though if I had to, I'd pick Barney. Because purple speaking dinosaurs that want to be your friend - how cool would that be?

[ask21771]

I'll rephrase the question does current scientific investigation support materialistic views or spiritual views

[Ben Masada]

Why do Demons and the Holy Spirit effect people's Brain chemistry?Why do people pass on this vulnerability to their offspring?

IMHO, faithful believers do not inherit this trait biologically from their ancestors. It comes about through education and learning. I could be proved wrong because I am basing this statement on my experience.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Ben Masada

[Davros of Skaro]

IMHO, faithful believers do not inherit this trait biologically from their ancestors. It comes about through education and learning. I could be proved wrong because I am basing this statement on my experience.

Nature and type of nurture go hand in hand.

[+Paranoid Android]

With apologies for the amazingly long delay. I've been laid up with a medical issue.

G'day Tiggs, no need to apologise, life has to take priority over UM, the internet simply isn't worth it. That said, I apologise in not replying earlier, I've mostly been restricted to my phone so haven't really had the chance to properly address this.

My sole intention has, and remains to be, to show that historically Demons were widely associated with possession and mental illness - and that now, not so much, in scientific circles.

As it would seem that changes in brain chemistry are very good at exorcising "Demons", on a remarkably regular basis.

Because Science and progress, and all.

Fair enough, I agree. Historically, mental illness was often taken as possession. Nowadays, not so much.

Psychiatrists are God's instruments? Which Bible verse does that come from?

We can start with Luke 10 and the parable of the Good Samaritan. On completion of the parable, Jesus asks them which of the three men was the true neighbour to the injured Jew, to which the Pharisees said "the one who healed him and cared for him" (or something similar), Jesus replies "Go and do likewise". Healing those who need to be healed is proof of being a "neighbour", therefore it's entirely natural to say that a psychiatrist who helps someone in need of mental help is completing Jesus' commands.

Your tacit agreement that Demons exist silently empowers those Christian's who encourage people to seek spiritual solutions.

Because Mark 16:

17 And these attesting signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;

18 They will pick up serpents; and even if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will get well.

Only if I go and tell them that they need to see a priest instead of a doctor.

As it happens, I can show you something much more accurate than the 10 year (or so) span of time of Pilate's Governership of Judea.

I can show you the 500th Anniversary celebration of Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's death day, who died on 31st October, 1492 - within CoS:8 - which gives an exact date and time for Y12 (the twelfth year after Harry Potter's birth), from which all else can be calculated.

http://www.hp-lexico...line_years.html

We are, of course, now in the Year of our Potter 34.

Ok, fair enough. You got me on that one.

The Oral Torah was received at Sinai, along with the written Torah. I think you'll find that was a little earlier than 100 BC.

I was referring to the Talmud, the oral traditions of the Rabbi's.

The gospels are certainly written by someone familiar with the mechanics of the oral tradition.

Writing it in a way that's easy to remember doesn't mean that it took oral tradition to get there. Just that the writer wanted it to be easy to remember when spoken.

Question: If there was an oral tradition - why does Luke need to write his gospel for Theophilus, who has already received "oral instruction?"

Instead of simply passing on the tradition orally. Being traditional, and all.

It's arguable that it was written down so early on in the piece because Christianity ended up spreading so quickly that there weren't enough oral teachers to reach them all (supply and demand problems, with the demand too high on available supply of teachers). So the best solution to do that was to write down several copies and transport them via courier to all the different churches. The Jews, having an established school with plenty of scholars didn't need to do that with their body of knowledge, but Christianity was forced to.

Amongst the Rabbi's. Your average man in the street? Not so much.

Which is why I'm positing that some of the disciples took on the role, and were trained in the art of oral tradition.

The same Paul who was "a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees"?

The same Pharisees who were "Oral Tradition" Central?

Alternately - perhaps Paul did believe that passing on any oral information received was of primary concern.

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…”

He passed on what was necessary - the resurrection of Jesus. At least we know that there were sources speaking about Jesus before Paul entered the equation, elsewise he couldn't have passed on what he did pass on. We know the writing of that "I delivered to you as of first importance" creed wasn't Paul's own making, since this is the only time he uses the phrase "according to the scriptures", it's decidedly un-Pauline, when Paul refers to the scriptures he uses a completely different phrase.

I started with Christ. Back in the days when I was a Christian.

Then I began to experiment. Because Science.

I soon learned that what mattered wasn't whose name the work was done in, but who the person being healed believed had the power to do the healing.

For some people, that's Christ. For some children, that's a big purple dinosaur.

As I said - there's literally no difference to me between the two. I don't believe in either of them, equally.*

Ok, if you ever want to do the Jesus thing with someone and then the Barney thing, then I'd support you, as said, even in mockery, if Jesus' name is being spoken, to a Christian this is a good thing

So - your version of creation is basically Science's, with a "and God willed it to be so. Because reasons." tacked on the end.

Compelling argument for God's primacy, PA.

I'm not arguing for God's primacy, simply sharing what I believe. And Theistic Evolution is a rather typical view in modern Christianity. In fact, a couple of months back I drove down to Sydney for a friend's wedding. The previous week I'd been hearing a sermon from my new church, it was a guest speaker, and midway through he went on a massive anti-evolution rant, it made me quite uncomfortable. I spoke to my Christian friends about the issue and every single one of them rolled their eyes at the rant. When I got back north, I had the chance to talk to the real pastor (who was at a conference), he said most people in the congregation do believe as I do also, but that the particular guest simply has a very strong opinion on the subject, that does reflect traditional Presbyterian doctrine, but is not a core doctrine and therefore happy to be debated and disagreed upon.

Well, that's certainly one reason why you're not a Jew. Believing that the Torah was passed directly to Moses by God was the eighth article of faith listed by Maimonides:

The eighth fundamental principle is that the Torah came from God. We are to believe that the whole Torah was given us through Moses our Teacher entirely from God. When we call the Torah “God’s Word” we speak metaphorically. We do not know exactly how it reached us, but only that it came through Moses who acted like a secretary taking dictation. He wrote down the events of the time and the commandments, for which reason he is called “Lawgiver.” There is no distinction between a verse of scripture like “The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim” (Gen. 10:6), or “His wife’s name was Mehetabel and his concubine was Timna” (Gen. 36:39, 12), and one like “I am the Lord your God” (Ex. 20:2), or “Hear, O Israel” (Deut. 6:4). All came from God, and all are the Torah of God, perfect, pure, holy and true. Anyone who says Moses wrote some passages on his own is regarded by our sages as an atheist or the worst kind of heretic, because he tries to distinguish essence from accident in Torah. Such a heretic claims that some historical passages or stories are trivial inventions of Moses and not Divine Revelation. But the sages said that if one accepts as Revelation the whole Torah with the exception of even one verse, which Moses himself and not God composed, he is referred to in the verse, “he has shamed the word of the Lord” (Num. 15:31), and is heretical.

Every word of Torah is full of wisdom and wonders for one who understands it. It is beyond human understanding. It is broader than the earth and wider than the sea. Each man must follow David, anointed of the God of Jacob, who prayed: “Open my eyes that I may behold wonders out of your Torah” (Ps. 119:18).

The authoritative commentary on the Torah is also the Word of God. The sukkah we build today, or the lulav, shofar, fringes, phylacteries, etc. we use, replicate exactly those God showed Moses which Moses faithfully described for us. This fundamental principle is taught by the verse: “And Moses said, ‘Thus shall you know that the Lord sent me to do all these things, and that they are not products of my own mind’” (Num. 16:28)

Still. At least you'd have the Torah to fall back on, right?

Matthew 5:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

True, but I've recently written a reply to DieChecker in another contemporary thread about that matter, and I'm not sure how falling back on the Torah would help without the understanding of Jesus, since, as noted, I'm not a Jew but a Christian.

If you had asked - I'd have said that you'd steadfastly refuse to choose.

* Though if I had to, I'd pick Barney. Because purple speaking dinosaurs that want to be your friend - how cool would that be?

Well you've learned something new about me Edited September 5, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Tiggs]

We can start with Luke 10 and the parable of the Good Samaritan. On completion of the parable, Jesus asks them which of the three men was the true neighbour to the injured Jew, to which the Pharisees said "the one who healed him and cared for him" (or something similar), Jesus replies "Go and do likewise". Healing those who need to be healed is proof of being a "neighbour", therefore it's entirely natural to say that a psychiatrist who helps someone in need of mental help is completing Jesus' commands.

So - in your worldview - are all healers doing God's work, by default?

What about the one's that deliver electric shock therapy?

Are they doing God's work, too?

Only if I go and tell them that they need to see a priest instead of a doctor.

I disagree. Your silence is all that is required.

Again. Your tacit agreement that Demons exist silently empowers those Christian's who encourage people to seek spiritual solutions.

I was referring to the Talmud, the oral traditions of the Rabbi's.

So was I.

It's arguable that it was written down so early on in the piece because Christianity ended up spreading so quickly that there weren't enough oral teachers to reach them all (supply and demand problems, with the demand too high on available supply of teachers). So the best solution to do that was to write down several copies and transport them via courier to all the different churches. The Jews, having an established school with plenty of scholars didn't need to do that with their body of knowledge, but Christianity was forced to.

So which is it? An oral tradition, with no-one to pass it to, or a written tradition?

Which is why I'm positing that some of the disciples took on the role, and were trained in the art of oral tradition.

Do you have an example of any of the disciples using this particular art?

He passed on what was necessary - the resurrection of Jesus. At least we know that there were sources speaking about Jesus before Paul entered the equation, elsewise he couldn't have passed on what he did pass on. We know the writing of that "I delivered to you as of first importance" creed wasn't Paul's own making, since this is the only time he uses the phrase "according to the scriptures", it's decidedly un-Pauline, when Paul refers to the scriptures he uses a completely different phrase.

So are you claiming that the passage in the text was added later?

If so - what happens to your evidence that others were talking of Jesus, before Paul?

I'm not arguing for God's primacy, simply sharing what I believe. And Theistic Evolution is a rather typical view in modern Christianity.

I'm not saying that it isn't. It's certainly one I held, whilst being a Christian.

What it isn't however, is any sort of argument for God's existence. Quite the opposite, in fact.

True, but I've recently written a reply to DieChecker in another contemporary thread about that matter, and I'm not sure how falling back on the Torah would help without the understanding of Jesus, since, as noted, I'm not a Jew but a Christian.

I expect you'll find that the common thread between the two is God.

I know you're fixated on the whole Jesus aspect, but I have it on good authority that God's pretty important, in the grand scale of things.

Well you've learned something new about me

No. I don't believe so.

While you say that you would have to believe in Science, you also make it clear that there's no circumstance under which you believe that you would ever have to choose between the two.

As I said. Steadfastly refusing to choose.

[+Paranoid Android]

So - in your worldview - are all healers doing God's work, by default?

What about the one's that deliver electric shock therapy?

Are they doing God's work, too?

At a time when electro-shock therapy was thought to be beneficial, I suppose they probably thought they were doing God's work. These days, I'd argue not.

I disagree. Your silence is all that is required.

Again. Your tacit agreement that Demons exist silently empowers those Christian's who encourage people to seek spiritual solutions.

Then we'll agree to disagree, then.

So was I.

You were? So the Talmud was received at Sinai, much earlier than 100 BC. I'll have to remember that one.

So which is it? An oral tradition, with no-one to pass it to, or a written tradition?

Both. It was an oral tradition passed on by a select number of teachers, but when Christianity reached critical mass, they had no choice but to write it down, simply to get it out via courier to the churches where a teacher could not reach.

Do you have an example of any of the disciples using this particular art?

From the texts in the Bible itself, no. But the existence of the Rabbinical schools of oral tradition attest to the fact that it was an art amongst the Jews, and the earliest followers of Christ were, of course, Jews. So it's not hard to extrapolate that one or two (or more) of them did have formal training in the form of oral tradition.

So are you claiming that the passage in the text was added later?

If so - what happens to your evidence that others were talking of Jesus, before Paul?

No, I'm claiming that Paul was quoting someone else. The distinctive non-Pauline style suggests an oral creed that had been established before Paul ever wrote about Christ, and so was simply quoting what he was told by other people.

I'm not saying that it isn't. It's certainly one I held, whilst being a Christian.

What it isn't however, is any sort of argument for God's existence. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I didn't claim it was. This discussion began when discussing the non-scientific approach to creation in Genesis, and the theological point it was raising, I wasn't using it to prove God created the universe, though that's what I believe happened.

I expect you'll find that the common thread between the two is God.

I know you're fixated on the whole Jesus aspect, but I have it on good authority that God's pretty important, in the grand scale of things.

And if Jesus were removed from the equation, then I'm left with the Torah, which would make me a Jew. Except I'm not a Jew, so despite the common thread of "God" between the two, I wouldn't be a Jew, anymore than I'd adopt the Qur'an and become a Muslim.

No. I don't believe so.

While you say that you would have to believe in Science, you also make it clear that there's no circumstance under which you believe that you would ever have to choose between the two.

As I said. Steadfastly refusing to choose.

No, I said that when it came to science and creation and God, there was no reason to have to choose between the two. I made no generalisations about the rest.

[Tiggs]

At a time when electro-shock therapy was thought to be beneficial, I suppose they probably thought they were doing God's work. These days, I'd argue not.

So... why would you equate psychiatrist's with being "God's instruments"? Why is any healer divinely appointed?

Then we'll agree to disagree, then.

If you see someone being told they have demons, or being told that their misfortune is due to their sin - and you say nothing - then on your own conscience be it.

You were? So the Talmud was received at Sinai, much earlier than 100 BC. I'll have to remember that one.

As I understand it - the Mishnah - the Oral Torah - was received at Sinai. That was what was written down for the first time in 200 AD.

Over the next few centuries, written observations of the Mishnah - the Gemara - followed. The combination of the two (or just the Gemara alone) are referred to as the Talmud.

Both. It was an oral tradition passed on by a select number of teachers, but when Christianity reached critical mass, they had no choice but to write it down, simply to get it out via courier to the churches where a teacher could not reach.

From the texts in the Bible itself, no. But the existence of the Rabbinical schools of oral tradition attest to the fact that it was an art amongst the Jews, and the earliest followers of Christ were, of course, Jews. So it's not hard to extrapolate that one or two (or more) of them did have formal training in the form of oral tradition.

Formal Rabbinical training.

Which of the disciples - to your knowledge - were Rabbi's?

No, I'm claiming that Paul was quoting someone else. The distinctive non-Pauline style suggests an oral creed that had been established before Paul ever wrote about Christ, and so was simply quoting what he was told by other people.

I'm confused. The word he uses to refer to Scriptures - graphe - is used throughout his letters (and almost always refers to the Old Testament).

And if Jesus were removed from the equation, then I'm left with the Torah, which would make me a Jew. Except I'm not a Jew, so despite the common thread of "God" between the two, I wouldn't be a Jew, anymore than I'd adopt the Qur'an and become a Muslim.

So if Jesus were proved fictional, then you'd lose all faith in God, the father?

No, I said that when it came to science and creation and God, there was no reason to have to choose between the two. I made no generalisations about the rest.

And yet - my gut feel is that you'll always manage to engineer yourself a middle way.

[eight bits]

Tiggs, PA

Only if I go and tell them that they need to see a priest instead of a doctor.

I disagree. Your silence is all that is required.

Again. Your tacit agreement that Demons exist silently empowers those Christian's who encourage people to seek spiritual solutions.

As it happens, I do not believe in demons, and further do not consider it Levi-seriously possible that such a thing exists. However, if PA does beliee in them, then that is his prerogative. It is irrelevant to PA's moral virtue, in my view, that some third party not only shares PA's belief in demons but also believes, against PA, that exorcism is an effective treatment for mental illness.

PA is not responsible for beliefs or action recommendations in which he does not share or espouse. This remains so even if he agrees with the third party about the truth of a proposition implied by "the disputed advice is a good idea," as "exorcism works" implies "demons exist."

Parallel There are members of the forum who believe in efficacious witchcraft, and believe that it is wrong to kill a witch for their practice, contrary to the famous Biblical mandate. It is absurd, in my view, to say that such a member "silently empowers" religious fanatics who share the members' belief in efficacious witchcraft, but also abuse people, sometimes fatally, in modern Africa and the Middle East for suspected witchcraft.

On another point of disagreement, where I find myself unaccustomedly siding with PA, (the quote being from Tiggs)

While you say that you would have to believe in Science, you also make it clear that there's no circumstance under which you believe that you would ever have to choose between the two.

I can't imagine such a situation either, at least for the ontological questions of God. PA may have further commitments that might conflict with science, in which case, those possible conflicts should be pointed out if you know of any. But so far as I can see, there is no natural observation that eliminates the supernatural as a possible interpretation of experience.

[+Paranoid Android]

So... why would you equate psychiatrist's with being "God's instruments"? Why is any healer divinely appointed?

I didn't say they were "divinely appointed". I said that God has given humans the ability to think and reason, to learn medicines that help the sick. This is the case with physical ailments, why not also the case with mental ailments? That's all I'm saying.

If you see someone being told they have demons, or being told that their misfortune is due to their sin - and you say nothing - then on your own conscience be it.

Assuming I saw someone being told they were that way because of sin, or that they have demons, and I don't go and suggest they see a psychiatrist first, then I'd agree with you. However, where have I suggested I'd stay silent and let them believe they had demons?

As I understand it - the Mishnah - the Oral Torah - was received at Sinai. That was what was written down for the first time in 200 AD.

Over the next few centuries, written observations of the Mishnah - the Gemara - followed. The combination of the two (or just the Gemara alone) are referred to as the Talmud.

The Mishnah is the oral tradition of the Rabbi's from 100 BC - 200 AD. It has nothing to do with the Torah, it's a secondary document on its own, and includes the teachings of Rabbi's such as Hillel (110 BC - 10 AD). Though a quick check of the internet did note that it is named "The Oral Torah", but it's a companion to the written Torah, commentaries by Rabbi's on the meaning and application of the Law.

Formal Rabbinical training.

Which of the disciples - to your knowledge - were Rabbi's?

I didn't say Rabbinical training. I said training in the form of oral tradition. The Rabbi's are the ones who do the teaching, it's the job of others who sit back and memorise via oral tradition what those Rabbi's taught.

I'm confused. The word he uses to refer to Scriptures - graphe - is used throughout his letters (and almost always refers to the Old Testament).

I was referring to the phrase, not the word alone. The phrase "According to the scriptures" is decidedly un-Pauline. When Paul refers to the scriptures he states "it is written", quite a different statement. I also went back to my source for this, and noted several other distinctly non-Pauline structures to the creed:

* The creed uses "sins" (plural), whereas Paul normally simply writes "sin" (singular).

* The phrase "he was seen" is absent from the rest of Paul's writings.

* The phrase "the Twelve" only appears in the creed, Paul never refers to the apostles as "the Twelve".

All in all, the evidence points to someone other than Paul being the author of that creed. Since Paul is admitting that he is passing it on from what he heard from others, the obvious answer is that a creed about Jesus' death and resurrection had been circulating for some time before Paul entered the picture.

So if Jesus were proved fictional, then you'd lose all faith in God, the father?

I believe in the triune nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is proven fictional, then the "saviour" is not really my "saviour", but only the saviour to the Jews. I'm not a Jew and don't want to be a Jew, my God is not the God of only one people, but of all people, so I can't see myself accepting Judaism.

And yet - my gut feel is that you'll always manage to engineer yourself a middle way.

Perhaps, there's no way to tell either way unless you did produce 100% proof that Jesus didn't exist, or if he did that he never rose from the dead. Some 2nd or 3rd Century text admitting fraud would probably just about nail it if it came from within Christian writers (perhaps it would only dent my faith if it came from a Jewish or pagan source). Edited September 6, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Tiggs]

Tiggs, PA

As it happens, I do not believe in demons, and further do not consider it Levi-seriously possible that such a thing exists. However, if PA does beliee in them, then that is his prerogative. It is irrelevant to PA's moral virtue, in my view, that some third party not only shares PA's belief in demons but also believes, against PA, that exorcism is an effective treatment for mental illness.

PA is not responsible for beliefs or action recommendations in which he does not share or espouse. This remains so even if he agrees with the third party about the truth of a proposition implied by "the disputed advice is a good idea," as "exorcism works" implies "demons exist."

Parallel There are members of the forum who believe in efficacious witchcraft, and believe that it is wrong to kill a witch for their practice, contrary to the famous Biblical mandate. It is absurd, in my view, to say that such a member "silently empowers" religious fanatics who share the members' belief in efficacious witchcraft, but also abuse people, sometimes fatally, in modern Africa and the Middle East for suspected witchcraft.

I'm not talking about instances which occur in different countries, outside of PA's influence. I'm talking about any instances that are happening in and around his church - and which he has the ability to take action on, but decides to remain silent on.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

I can't imagine such a situation either, at least for the ontological questions of God. PA may have further commitments that might conflict with science, in which case, those possible conflicts should be pointed out if you know of any. But so far as I can see, there is no natural observation that eliminates the supernatural as a possible interpretation of experience.

In general, there isn't.

With specific instances of Religion, however - sometimes there will be failed prophecy, or hopelessly unscientific descriptions of how the Universe works (If the Universe does happen to have sprung from a Lotus Flower, then I'll obviously recant).

However - the wonderful thing about religion - as PA is currently demonstrating - is that it's always possible to retreat to a position such that when any of it's parts can no longer stand up under scrutiny as being factual, they can retrospectively be declared as being allegorical.

Due to them not being factual, and all.

I believe my position was that I expected PA to steadfastly refuse to choose.

I still think that's true.

[Tiggs]

I didn't say they were "divinely appointed". I said that God has given humans the ability to think and reason, to learn medicines that help the sick. This is the case with physical ailments, why not also the case with mental ailments? That's all I'm saying.

So when you said "Same thing with mental illness - regardless of its cause, perhaps psychiatrists can help, they are God's instruments working to heal humanity." - you didn't actually mean that they were divinely appointed or doing God's work.

You just meant that they could help people with mental ailments. Using Science.

Assuming I saw someone being told they were that way because of sin, or that they have demons, and I don't go and suggest they see a psychiatrist first, then I'd agree with you.

Good. Then we're in agreement.

However, where have I suggested I'd stay silent and let them believe they had demons?

Nowhere. Which is pretty much the exact same place that you'd previously suggested that you'd stand up and say something, too.

You'll note my whole "and you say nothing" qualifier, right?

The Mishnah is the oral tradition of the Rabbi's from 100 BC - 200 AD. It has nothing to do with the Torah, it's a secondary document on its own, and includes the teachings of Rabbi's such as Hillel (110 BC - 10 AD). Though a quick check of the internet did note that it is named "The Oral Torah", but it's a companion to the written Torah, commentaries by Rabbi's on the meaning and application of the Law.

Then we disagree on how far back the Oral Torah originates. I believe that if you look deeply enough, you'll find that Judaism says Moses received it on Sinai, along with the written Torah.

I didn't say Rabbinical training. I said training in the form of oral tradition. The Rabbi's are the ones who do the teaching, it's the job of others who sit back and memorise via oral tradition what those Rabbi's taught.

So rote memorisation, then?

How does that aid in the composing of material within a suitable format for said memorisation?

It's a rhetorical question. It doesn't.

You're manufacturing an entirely unattested - and largely unnecessary - oral tradition, in order to create a way that that the Gospels could have sprung forth fully formed from a prior oral source.

As opposed to being written separately and later harmonised. Which is a much simpler solution, not requiring an unattested source - and one which the textual evidence backs up.

I was referring to the phrase, not the word alone. The phrase "According to the scriptures" is decidedly un-Pauline. When Paul refers to the scriptures he states "it is written", quite a different statement. I also went back to my source for this, and noted several other distinctly non-Pauline structures to the creed:

* The creed uses "sins" (plural), whereas Paul normally simply writes "sin" (singular).

* The phrase "he was seen" is absent from the rest of Paul's writings.

* The phrase "the Twelve" only appears in the creed, Paul never refers to the apostles as "the Twelve".

All in all, the evidence points to someone other than Paul being the author of that creed. Since Paul is admitting that he is passing it on from what he heard from others, the obvious answer is that a creed about Jesus' death and resurrection had been circulating for some time before Paul entered the picture.

There are several issues within that particular piece of text,

But all in all - you agree with me, then, that passing any oral tradition on was actually of primary concern for Paul? Since you seem to be saying that those aren't Paul's own words?

And yet - Paul bats a large zero on the whole gospel quoting thing.

I believe in the triune nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is proven fictional, then the "saviour" is not really my "saviour", but only the saviour to the Jews. I'm not a Jew and don't want to be a Jew, my God is not the God of only one people, but of all people, so I can't see myself accepting Judaism.

So "Jesus or Bust", basically.

Interesting.

But what if he's God?

Perhaps, there's no way to tell either way unless you did produce 100% proof that Jesus didn't exist, or if he did that he never rose from the dead. Some 2nd or 3rd Century text admitting fraud would probably just about nail it.

Proving someone's non-existence is almost entirely impossible. With regard to fraud - I can show you several of the early Church Historians talking about how it's totally okay to lie, as long as the end result is that it makes people believe in God - but it would be a pointless exercise.

[+Paranoid Android]

So when you said "Same thing with mental illness - regardless of its cause, perhaps psychiatrists can help, they are God's instruments working to heal humanity." - you didn't actually mean that they were divinely appointed or doing God's work.

You just meant that they could help people with mental ailments. Using Science.

Everyone can be "God's instrument", me, my pastor, my doctor, heck, even you can be God's instrument if God wills it. It doesn't mean we're "divinely appointed" or even knowingly doing the work. In the story of Joseph (I mentioned this story just earlier today, but I can't recall if it was to you or someone else), his brothers threw him in a hole and told his father that Joseph was dead. They were unknowingly "God's instruments" in that Joseph was subsequently shipped to Egypt and looked after the stores during a massive famine.

Good. Then we're in agreement.

Nowhere. Which is pretty much the exact same place that you'd previously suggested that you'd stand up and say something, too.

You'll note my whole "and you say nothing" qualifier, right?

To be honest, I thought my comments had laid the platform for the obviousness that I'd suggest psychiatric care, you know, comments like as quoted earlier - 'that's not to say that we should say "I think I'm possessed, I should see a priest instead of a psychiatrist".' In my mind, I thought that gave the clear impression that I'd suggest psychiatry rather than exorcism. But whatever, I've now made the comment official and we don't have to disagree further on what we both agree on.

Then we disagree on how far back the Oral Torah originates. I believe that if you look deeply enough, you'll find that Judaism says Moses received it on Sinai, along with the written Torah.

Every book or article I've ever read on the subject of the Mishnah notes that the writing covers approximately three hundred years of Rabbinical oral tradition (100 BC - 200 AD) and comprises the teachings of Rabbi's that lived and taught between this era. If it goes back further than this, then so be it (I don't have time right now to research), it doesn't change the fact that it comprises the oral teachings of Rabbi's from the time period mentioned, or the existence of oral schools designed to pass on the material orally from one generation to the next, so the point in my bringing it up still remains the same, I would say.

So rote memorisation, then?

How does that aid in the composing of material within a suitable format for said memorisation?

It's a rhetorical question. It doesn't.

You're manufacturing an entirely unattested - and largely unnecessary - oral tradition, in order to create a way that that the Gospels could have sprung forth fully formed from a prior oral source.

As opposed to being written separately and later harmonised. Which is a much simpler solution, not requiring an unattested source - and one which the textual evidence backs up.

To me, it's the logical course, assuming that the source of these teachings was Jesus. If it were, then there would have been people with training who memorised his teachings, then passed it on. This was the role of the teachers in the 1st Century. But the spread of Christianity was too quick, requiring a new approach than what was done with the oral tradition of the Talmud.

There are several issues within that particular piece of text,

But all in all - you agree with me, then, that passing any oral tradition on was actually of primary concern for Paul? Since you seem to be saying that those aren't Paul's own words?

And yet - Paul bats a large zero on the whole gospel quoting thing.

As I said, Paul's message was the glorious resurrection of Jesus for our sins. It was what he focused on, he only really brought up the creed to attest that these things did indeed take place.

So "Jesus or Bust", basically.

Interesting.

But what if he's God?

What do you mean, "what if he's God"? I believe Jesus IS God, and yes it's pretty much Jesus-or-bust, and if I bust then I still believe in a creator, just not the one I've currently put my faith in.

Proving someone's non-existence is almost entirely impossible. With regard to fraud - I can show you several of the early Church Historians talking about how it's totally okay to lie, as long as the end result is that it makes people believe in God - but it would be a pointless exercise.

True, it's not easy to prove someone's non-existence. However, I'd argue that there is sufficient evidence not to just "think" Jesus existed, but know that he was an actual historical figure, who lived and breathed and walked the earth in the 1st Century AD, and that this figure began a movement that eventually spiralled into the largest movement in the history of our planet. Of course, exact details of this person's life are up for speculation and debate, even doubt in many academic circles. But that he did exist, is about as close to historical fact as one can get when dealing with figures 2000 years old.

Edit: that reminds me, it's your turn in our behind-the-scenes debate, if you're still willing to finish it off, just one more post then we have our Closing Statements.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[eight bits]

Tiggs

I'm not talking about instances which occur in different countries, outside of PA's influence.

Irrelevant. PA's obligations are what they are, rgardless of what aspect of them you choose to speak about. Also factually untenable. PA and I are almost as far apart physically as two people can be, while both are on Earth. Yet, PA influences me just fine. He has a big megaphone.

I'm talking about any instances that are happening in and around his church - and which he has the ability to take action on, but decides to remain silent on.

He has every right to remain on any subject he pleases, it seesm to me.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Not a reasoned argument that PA is responsible for what evidoers do. Besides, all that is actually necessary for evil to cease outright is for bad men to do nothing.

As to the rest, we seem to be in agreement that there is no conflict between science and afirmative answers to the ontological question(s) of God, but that a given believer might have further commitments that are contrary to science. That doesn't seem to be PA's situation.

However - the wonderful thing about religion - as PA is currently demonstrating - is that it's always possible to retreat to a position such that when any of it's parts can no longer stand up under scrutiny as being factual, they can retrospectively be declared as being allegorical.

I do not see what you would have a believer do. If she admits a mistake, not necessarily hers personally, then that is a retreat. If she refuese to admit a mistake, then that is irrational blind faith. Damed if she does, damned if she doesn't. I wouldn't blame her if she refused to play under those rules.

I believe my position was that I expected PA to steadfastly refuse to choose.

I still think that's true.

OK, where no choice really exists, then no choice will really be made. Can't argue with that.

[Tiggs]

Tiggs

Irrelevant. PA's obligations are what they are, rgardless of what aspect of them you choose to speak about. Also factually untenable. PA and I are almost as far apart physically as two people can be, while both are on Earth. Yet, PA influences me just fine. He has a big megaphone.

I'm only interested in what he does with his neighbors - regardless of how factually untenable you may find that.

Good decisions on the local level usually scale to become good decisions on the global level. Take care of the pennies, etc.

He has every right to remain on any subject he pleases, it seesm to me.

It seems to me that there is a difference between a statutory legal right to remain silent and a moral obligation to speak out. See Niemöller, for example.

Not a reasoned argument that PA is responsible for what evidoers do. Besides, all that is actually necessary for evil to cease outright is for bad men to do nothing.

Whereas, I was thinking something more along these lines:

Luke 10:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

I do not see what you would have a believer do. If she admits a mistake, not necessarily hers personally, then that is a retreat. If she refuese to admit a mistake, then that is irrational blind faith. Damed if she does, damned if she doesn't. I wouldn't blame her if she refused to play under those rules.

I'd expect her to declare it as being retrospectively allegorical.

My preference would be for her to come to the realization that there's practically no situation which can falsify her faith - and what that means in regards to assessing the amount of truth contained within said beliefs.

But that almost never happens.

OK, where no choice really exists, then no choice will really be made. Can't argue with that.

There's always a choice. Just not one that PA has to ever make.

[Tiggs]

Everyone can be "God's instrument", me, my pastor, my doctor, heck, even you can be God's instrument if God wills it. It doesn't mean we're "divinely appointed" or even knowingly doing the work. In the story of Joseph (I mentioned this story just earlier today, but I can't recall if it was to you or someone else), his brothers threw him in a hole and told his father that Joseph was dead. They were unknowingly "God's instruments" in that Joseph was subsequently shipped to Egypt and looked after the stores during a massive famine.

So - everyone is essentially God's instrument, given that everyone is alive, and in being alive, is enacting his Grand Design.

When everyone can be described as being something then it loses all significance as a qualifier. It's like me saying that I visited a human doctor the other day, as opposed to all the non-human ones which currently don't exist.

It looks like special pleading on your part to try and invoke God's involvement in the process, as if they had some sort of God-approved special demon banishing powers.

As opposed to the ability to be able to diagnose and write a prescription.

To be honest, I thought my comments had laid the platform for the obviousness that I'd suggest psychiatric care, you know, comments like as quoted earlier - 'that's not to say that we should say "I think I'm possessed, I should see a priest instead of a psychiatrist".' In my mind, I thought that gave the clear impression that I'd suggest psychiatry rather than exorcism. But whatever, I've now made the comment official and we don't have to disagree further on what we both agree on.

What people would say as individuals and what they would say in groups are sometimes two different things. As you've clarified, however, then I'm happy to leave this point in agreement.

Every book or article I've ever read on the subject of the Mishnah notes that the writing covers approximately three hundred years of Rabbinical oral tradition (100 BC - 200 AD) and comprises the teachings of Rabbi's that lived and taught between this era. If it goes back further than this, then so be it (I don't have time right now to research), it doesn't change the fact that it comprises the oral teachings of Rabbi's from the time period mentioned, or the existence of oral schools designed to pass on the material orally from one generation to the next, so the point in my bringing it up still remains the same, I would say.

I'd be confused if you discover that the Oral Torah doesn't go back to Sinai - since it's weight basically derives from it's God-given origin.

That some of the disciples may have spent some of their twelfth year of life occasionally in a synagogue learning some of the basics tenants of said Oral Torah hardly equips them with any of the necessary skills required to create and disseminate such.

To me, it's the logical course, assuming that the source of these teachings was Jesus.

How can the source for the Oral traditions of Jesus possibly be himself, given that for a decent chunk of the Gospel Jesus was incarcerated, being crucified, dead and only briefly re-appearing (in later editions)?

For example: Who recorded Jesus' prayer whilst all of his disciples lay sleeping prior to him being taken into Roman Custody?

If it were, then there would have been people with training who memorised his teachings, then passed it on. This was the role of the teachers in the 1st Century. But the spread of Christianity was too quick, requiring a new approach than what was done with the oral tradition of the Talmud.

So - just to recap:

You have no evidence of any of the disciples passing on said oral tradition.

You have no evidence of any contemporary text mentioning such an oral tradition.

You have no evidence of any contemporary text using that oral tradition.

You appear to have no real evidence of said oral tradition, whatsoever.

As I said, Paul's message was the glorious resurrection of Jesus for our sins. It was what he focused on, he only really brought up the creed to attest that these things did indeed take place.

So why wasn't he quoting from the authoritative Oral tradition in order to further justify said claims, if it existed?

What do you mean, "what if he's God"? I believe Jesus IS God, and yes it's pretty much Jesus-or-bust, and if I bust then I still believe in a creator, just not the one I've currently put my faith in.

I meant - what if the Jewish God is God?

Would you deny him just because you'd be upset that Jesus wasn't who you thought he was?

True, it's not easy to prove someone's non-existence. However, I'd argue that there is sufficient evidence not to just "think" Jesus existed, but know that he was an actual historical figure, who lived and breathed and walked the earth in the 1st Century AD, and that this figure began a movement that eventually spiralled into the largest movement in the history of our planet. Of course, exact details of this person's life are up for speculation and debate, even doubt in many academic circles. But that he did exist, is about as close to historical fact as one can get when dealing with figures 2000 years old.

Using that burden of proof - then Mercury and Hercules are also as close to historical fact as one can get, too.

Not buying that, either.

Edit: that reminds me, it's your turn in our behind-the-scenes debate, if you're still willing to finish it off, just one more post then we have our Closing Statements.

It's on my to-do list. Then again, so is inventing time-travel. I'm a little time-crushed at the moment with various RL issues.

[eight bits]

Tiggs

It seems to me that there is a difference between a statutory legal right to remain silent and a moral obligation to speak out. See Niemöller, for example.

There is a difference, but my stated belief is that he has both. In any case, it might be worth pointing out that PA's actual stance is not necessarily silence. My understanding is that, if asked, he would advise seeing a health professional rather than an exorcist. From his post just above my previous post:

In my mind, I thought that gave the clear impression that I'd suggest psychiatry rather than exorcism.

That was my understanding of what he wrote. And he publicized his opinion here, on this, a big internet megaphone, for all the world to see. "All the world" includes his neighbors. I don't see what more could be required of him.

I always enjoy reading Luke, but I didn't catch where Jesus tasked PA to speak out unbidden against every evil in the world, beyond what he's already done here. It also sounds like Jesus' idea of "neighbor" is more like mine than some others that have been presented here.

I'd expect her to declare it as being retrospectively allegorical.

OK, she learns new (for her) facts, revises her opinions to comport, and realizes that this material is allegorical, now that she knows that this is not factual. What's wrong with that?

What would you have her do instead? Offer no opinions about literature until she knows enough to perform faultlessly without backtracking? This is a bit onerous, don't you think?

My preference would be for her to come to the realization that there's practically no situation which can falsify her faith - and what that means in regards to assessing the amount of truth contained within said beliefs.

It means that Karl Popper would classify questions about the correctness of her faith to lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry. If the beliefs have only supernatural content, then Karl Popper's view, even if it were accepted as normative (which Bayesians, who are well represented in the scientific community, do not, to name one scholarly community that rejects Popperism) is uninformative about how much truth is contained within the beliefs.

(BTW, I notice elsewhere that you mentioned you had some health issues. I hope that those are all satisfactorially resolved. Also, a belated welcome back.)

[Tiggs]

Tiggs

There is a difference, but my stated belief is that he has both. In any case, it might be worth pointing out that PA's actual stance is not necessarily silence. My understanding is that, if asked, he would advise seeing a health professional rather than an exorcist. From his post just above my previous post:

And I don't have any issue with the way that he said he would handle his individual one-on-one transactions. It's within the context of a group setting at Church that my issues have arisen - given that such groups sometimes act in a way that no single individual within it would particularly condone.

That was my understanding of what he wrote. And he publicized his opinion here, on this, a big internet megaphone, for all the world to see. "All the world" includes his neighbors. I don't see what more could be required of him.

My neighbors don't have a clue what my UM login is, or that I even use UM. Since PA is obviously using a nom de plume, I have no particular reason to suspect that he is any different in regard to his desire for online privacy.

Besides. Actual actions count louder than words.

I always enjoy reading Luke, but I didn't catch where Jesus tasked PA to speak out unbidden against every evil in the world, beyond what he's already done here. It also sounds like Jesus' idea of "neighbor" is more like mine than some others that have been presented here.

I believed I was angling at the "Love your neighbor as yourself" aspect of the teaching.

In so much as that if someone should see something bad happen to their neighbor, that they should try and prevent it happening, if it is within their capacity to do so.

Either way - PA and I are in broad general agreement as to his position - and his neighborly responsibilities.

OK, she learns new (for her) facts, revises her opinions to comport, and realizes that this material is allegorical, now that she knows that this is not factual. What's wrong with that?

What would you have her do instead? Offer no opinions about literature until she knows enough to perform faultlessly without backtracking? This is a bit onerous, don't you think?

I don't believe I'm saying that.

What I believe I'm saying is that when one of the unique selling points of someone's religion turns out to be less reality-based and more allegorical than they previously thought then ideally I'd like them to reconsider its entire reality-based proposition in the light of that happening.

But I rarely see that happen. What I usually see is people suddenly convince themselves that said USP is obviously allegorical, and has been obviously allegorical since it's inception and was formerly misinterpreted up until now.

It means that Karl Popper would classify questions about the correctness of her faith to lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry. If the beliefs have only supernatural content, then Karl Popper's view, even if it were accepted as normative (which Bayesians, who are well represented in the scientific community, do not, to name one scholarly community that rejects Popperism) is uninformative about how much truth is contained within the beliefs.

I've not seen any particular suggestion that Religious Faith under Bayesian analysis fares particularly well. Quite the opposite, as it happens.

In general - I'm not aware of any form of scientific analysis which bears any good news for Religious Faith, and it's level of reality-based correctness.

(BTW, I notice elsewhere that you mentioned you had some health issues. I hope that those are all satisfactorially resolved. Also, a belated welcome back.)

My thanks. The health issues are still ongoing, but hopefully improving.

[Ben Masada]

Nature and type of nurture go hand in hand.

That's true. I even believe that nurture does affect nature.