Dear Cat

nice of you to share your early life experience there.

On a more sober note now.. you mention 'sensory and physical evidence'
which would alone convince you of God.

Let me raise a scenario.

You know someone for many years. You know their family. One of the family was born blind. They have matured, blind from birth.
they are 30 yrs old.
One day, the blind family member CAN SEE! and you ask him "HUH? how did this happen?" and he tells you "This bloke Jesus healed me!"

"WHAT-THE?" you say? - You can't understand it, you didn't see it, yet there, before you is the man himself and his 'report'.

You might recall from your Bible knowledge about this incident in John 9 What was it that the Pharisees asked him and then told him?

"How did this happen?" and
"Don't say Jesus did it, we KNOW he is a sinner"

RESPONSE: "Whether he is a sinner or not I don't know, but one thing I know, once I was blind, but now I can see"

I could share with you about my own person experience of that dramatic healing power, but I honestly believe that no matter how close it comes to your own life, there is ultimately an attitude problem which must be overcome. (I'm not saying that to annoy you)

If it happened to your blind sister..would you believe? Does it 'have' to happen to you personally?

RICH MAN(in hell) and LAZARUS

7"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Do you see yourself in that parable?

Boazy: << Picking on me in the Kaysar thread about picking on Puss' spelling. >>

Actually Boazy, my point in that thread was that it's as funny to see you pretending to be indignant about the "TRUTH" (as you put it), as it was to see you pointing out someone else's spelling mistakes. You know, because you've so frequently been caught out stretching the truth and telling outright porkies, and that your spelling ability is at a similar level to my 11-year old.

People in glass houses and all that...

There are some principles that are only observeable to humans that indicate there is an higher intelligence than man himself. Though man at rare meditative times gains a glimpse of these principles, at other times he lives for the moment absorbed in his basic body needs. God designed man to bear his image.

1. Conscience - the knowledge of a better way in relationships and personal responsibility. This is the primary message of God to man. A man who lives without conscience or conviction fails to reach his /her best potential.

2. Enlightenment - the fact man can learn wisdom and change attitudes and behaviours by his own self discipline indicate we have insight in higher principles for life.

3. Planning - Creativity - man can design and plan both abstract and spatial constructions that resemble principles of design in our universe.

4. Spiritual - (a) Man can use any concept to give physical pleasure eg instrumental music, art that reflects feelings. creative technology eg movies etc, etc.
(b) Man can express abstract concepts in symbolic forms eg writing, mathmatics etc. These are not present in supposed ancestral species. Indicating man has contact with the spiritual as well as the physical.
5. Mans primary being is spiritual, we ask questions on how and why we exist. Our existence here is spiritual unless we have knowledge of the body of each other posting here we are entering into a spiritual world. A world of ideas, motives, attitudes that form behaviour etc in all this the nature of the god / God we believe in is revealed. God is spirit not a being to be sighted by the natural eye, or reduced to chemical analysis but to be perceived by the eyes of reason - that there is purpose and design in human existence that is beyond economics and sport etc

One day, when I have absolutely nothing to do for a few hours, I'll put together a comprehensive list of Boaz-isms. This one will most definitely appear.

>>I quite agree... personal opinions of scholars..or..that game we all seem to love to play "My scholar can beat up your scholar" is rather futile.<<

I almost lost another keyboard to a random coffee incident when I read this.

This from Boaz, the man who enjoys nothing more than to quote this scholar's interpretation of that verse from the Qur'an, confounding the interpretation of yet another scholar whose views he dislikes. And who, when challenged on his interpretation of fact vs metaphor in the Bible, loves nothing more than to recruit a scholar or two.. however dubious.

(Remember the myth about "the founder of Harvard University? That little exchange will make the anthology, for sure)

One of the realities that you have yet to face Boaz is that these texts have absolutely no stand-alone credibility. Everything - but everything - has been interpreted.

Even the events that you take as "gospel" have been filtered through the eyes, mind and stylus of the writer. He didn't see the events, so they are not "reported" as fact. They are stories. Tales told in order to make a point.

You make a big deal over the blind man and about Lazarus.

>>On a more sober note now.. you mention 'sensory and physical evidence'<<

Whatever else they are, those stories are not about 'sensory and physical evidence'. They are not even reported speech. They are metaphors, at best. At "worst", they are deliberately made up to fool the gullible, but let's be charitable.

There is of course no shred of direct evidence that these miracles were performed. So the game is, and always will be a matter of "My scholar can beat up your scholar".

Which, as you correctly point out (hence the close call with the coffee), is utterly futile.

Don't you hate it when we agree on something?

Dear Evo,

The link is my own OLO. "Faith"; ithe link deals with the etymology of the Word and shows for instance that its current usage didn't become part of the English language until the fourteen century [OED Unabridge]. To Moses it meant "steadfaithness" [Catholic Enclopaedia].

My point is the word is used too loosely. And to say today, "one today has 'Faith' in Jesus", is using the the word "faith" in a slightly different manner than would be known to an Attic-Greek [Judea], Aramaic Diasporic Jew [Jesus] in the first century of the current era.

Evo, please re-check the link, even the concept of "Faith" is factionalisedand transmutes over the centuries. Herein, Faith as used by our OLO theist friends has a very different meaning to Moses', and a somewhat different meaning to Jesus'. Jesus' meaning refers to truth & obedience. In later century centuries, we have turo-charged the concept, to claim, we have "conviction" in the One asking for said trust and obedience.

Look at the site and their are five questions that challenge theismz; e.g., How do you explain the existence of God? [A different question to does God exist? If one adopts the a priori position one should explain it, don;t you think?

Evo based-on your previous potss, I am suprised you are a religionist. That is your right. But please consider the questions, I ask, on the [my] other post. Faith as we use the term today is about six hundred years old. Even words and concepts are ininfluence by the progress of societies and sicio-etymological reinforcement.

Csteel,

Peter Sellick is a Christian, I feel. A fourteen century Christian. Peter appears to believe in the priesthood over the laity and to angainst the Enlightenment. There is a stromg element of fifth century dogma in his articles. Yet very little about first century history in context with Jesus aganst comparative religiosity of the first century and before, Wells' Alexandrian "God Factory".

Evo & CSteel,

The claims of thesits need be confirmed against other disciplines, as other disciplines each other among themselves.

Kind regards.

Dear Oliver,

I have read all of your responses on the "five question' site.

They are all valid, extremely well argued - and made for an interesting thread. Gave me much food for thought - (and now an inclination to do further research).

Olly, I used the terms "Alpha and Omega," simply as an expression. (The 'Beginning' and 'The end.')
Meaning that God is outside the concepts of time and space - He invented them. Everything starts and ends with Him.

Anyway, I think that I've exhausted this subject. Again, Thanks for an interesting discussion.