The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The same tired old arguments from the unbelievers > Comments

The same tired old arguments from the unbelievers : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 31/7/2007

The scientific critics of Christianity conclude that once it is agreed that the miracles cannot happen then Christianity loses all credibility.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 22
  9. 23
  10. 24
  11. All
Contrast Peter's barely coherent article with C.S. Lewis' concise comments on miracles
“It is useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question. If miracles are impossible, then no amount of historical evidence will convince us. If they are possible but immensely improbable, then only mathematically demonstrative evidence will convince us: and since history never provides that degree of evidence for any event, history can never convince us that a miracle occurred. If, on the other hand, miracles are not intrinsically improbable, then the existing evidence will be sufficient to convince us that quite a number of miracles have occurred. The result of our historical enquiries thus depends on the philosophical views which we have been holding before we even began to look at the evidence. This philosophical question must therefore come first.”

It seems Peter's philosophical view of materialism is what is leading his claims about miracles and therefore Biblical narratives, not the evidence.
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 11:53:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...If the writers understood them as ordinary occurrences they would not have related them..."
I like Peter Sellick's approach here. If we want to ascribe extra-ordinary aspects to an otherwise ordinary event we do tend to dress it up with our socially accepted excesses. If I say that I am so hungry I could eat a horse, I don't have a horse in mind; if I find something very funny I don't really burst laughing or literally jump for joy. These are similies socially aceeptable these days, like perhaps walking on water or climbing a mountain in Jesus' time?
Posted by Alfred, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 11:56:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sellick's materialist and deist wordview is simply not the same as Biblical Christianity, no matter how much he might protest that he is indeed a Christian.

To separate the notion of "being Christian" from the actual doctrine which is proscribed in that religion's holy book, and which has actually been preached by the actual institution(s) of the Church for two millennia and more is to be false to experience and to demean history. It is to dismiss belief as an innocent human failing, instead of understanding it as a compelling and deadly meme.

If "the Christian mind" has truly evolved beyond the stage of Biblical literalism, why then, the product of this evolution no longer needs or deserves the title Christian. But I do not believe it has.

Fundamentalist Christianity, accepting unquestioningly the "inerrancy" of the Bible, is alive and well in Western society (particularly America, but on the rise here as well) -- and it is a key obstacle to mature and truthful reasoning on vital social and scientific questions.

A true materialist would be honest with himself instead of clinging to a label which more properly describes a primitive, pre-scientific understanding of the Universe. You're not really a Christian, Sellick, but a humanist in the closet.

Leaving the warm, anti-intellectual, non-confrontational fellowship of one's neigbours in the body of the Kirk can be painful, but it is more honest than the duplicity of calling oneself a Christian when one is a very different beast indeed.

Warm fuzzy memories of an innocent and credulous childhood will not make the sins of the true Church disappear.
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 12:14:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Peter, and interested correspondents for turning up again at battlefields of history where God and the gods have put their ideas to the test.

If Prophet Elijah's God didn't win that day on Mt Carmel in the face of the 400 Prophets of Baal, then we would have a completely different Bible to the one we have today.

Perhaps this would be a 'Bible' whose God had the character of the god Peter describes as 'the supernatural conscious monad', rather like, one speculates, in scientific fashion, the Gods of the Humanisms, whether Secular, or Communist, or New-age, or Postmodernist or Islamic. And, if so, then we wouldn't have the Judaeo-Christian Bible that abounds, both on our bookshelves and in many hearts and minds.

Then there is the Battle of the Gods that took place that day outside Jerusalem. The J-C Bible tells us that Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the Hebrews' (and Gentiles') God. If that story stopped there, then once again the J-C Bible as we have it, just would not exist in its present form.

And we might just then have been left with one or more 'Bibles' such as the 'Humanist Manifestos', or the 'Communist Manifesto', or the 'New Bhagavadita' or 'The Archaeology of Knowledge' or the 'Qur'an'!

Or just maybe, there wouldn't have been any of these, particularly if it can be shown that each of these have relied for their genesis on the Bible of the Old and New Testaments of the Judaeo-Christian tradition!

And we wouldn't be having this rather interesting, unboring exchange!
Posted by BeeTee, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 12:38:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I left my previous with something of a dilemma!

I would say that we face a crisis of 'schizophrenia'? [You might check your Dictionary Definition]

AnthonyMarinac: You outline two positions that you cannot hold together, and yet would say that when J-Cs achieve that, 'they stand on shaky ground'?

TBG: You are surely a super-rationalist, being able to hold all religions as admissible to the battlefield. But, if the J-C Bible's accounts of its God's victories stand at the end as true, then you might just be headed for a variant of schizophrenia, and I would weep for you and with you!

Kalin!: So I take it that you likely have not read John's Gospel!? I can recommend a long reading of it ... just finishing a 4 year read myself, and now have a quite expanded view of 'Who Jesus Is'!

Kalophon: I get your point, but please don't underestimate 'the power of other gods (idols!)', 'who and/or what they are', 'where they come from', and 'how and why they exist'.

Ho Hum: What is your 'Bible' from which came your idea, that 'The Process that is true religion ... is always a present time moment to moment enquiry ... etc'?' May I ask you four questions?:
1. 'Who is your Bible's God'?
2. 'Who are your Bible's Leading Prophets?
3. 'What are your Bible's Missionary Objectives amongst our young?
4. 'Will this Bible still be standing at the end of the Battle ... in both the Western World, founded on the Judaeo-Christian Bible and the Eastern World, founded on the Qur'an?'

Peter Sellick: 'Tired old arguments' maybe, and we all must get tired with the argument, but the promised day of rest will come, and let's trust that when it arrives, we will have fought a well-fought fight ... not without 'truth' or 'virtue' or 'vigour' or 'courage' or 'love' or 'compassion'! For while ever the maxim is true, that 'Ideas have consequences ... whether they are good/godly or bad/evil', then we should not, must not sit idly by! For our sakes, and those of our young.
Posted by BeeTee, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 1:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BeeTee.

Perhaps/maybe after 2000 years and in a totally interconnected world it is time for a new Divine Revelation---especially as the two would be world dominant CULTS are gearing up for the "final showdown".

And what about the majority of the worlds population that doesnt subscribe to the psychotic fantasies generated by the these two grotesque entirely man made cults.
On what basis, do either of these cults pretend to have a claim on the entire human family?

In their genesis they were both the creations of small tribal groups.
Why should they then have some absolute claim on the totality of humanity? They both came to domination through political conquest which had nothing whatsoever to do with Truth. As though you can bring the Divine Conscious Light)to anyone at the point of a sword or the barrel of a gun? They came to world power by the accidents of world history---there is NO GRAND DIVINE PLAN.

The sources of my "bible" are easily discernable via the essays I refer to.

One of my references urls was wrong.
1. http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm The first essay (A Prophetic Criticism) sums up the situation quite succinctly---isnt the criticism patently obvious?

You seem to be looking forward to the "ultimate" battle for "truth".
The fact of the matter is, that if such an ultimate battle ever occurs, there will be NO ONE left standing.
How many billions of corpses do you think it will take for your ultimate "truth" to be left standing.
And of course there are millions of "true believers" in the USA who are actively praying for and expecting this showdown to occur. Talk about mass psychosis---a psychosis which is alive and "well" in the highest corridors of power in the USA government.

You asked for my sources etc---why does it have to be a "bible" and hence conform to your pre-judgements? Why not a Sacred Scripture or a Sutra or a Upanishad.

My sources are:
1. http://www.kneeoflistening.com
2. http://global.adidam.org/books/eleutherios.html
3. http://www.easydeathbook.com
4. http://www.dabase.org/coop+tol.htm
5. http://www.coteda.com
6. http://www.aboutadidam.org

Reference # 6 provides a thorough-going explanation of the significance of my sources.
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 1:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 22
  9. 23
  10. 24
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy