Argue that it's true

[_huckelberry]

1. Virgin birth's do not occur (for humans at least).
2. People do not come back from the dead three days later.
3. Jesus Christ was likely not even crucified.

Huckelberry observes, It is true that normally virgins do not give birth. People have known this for quite a while. The writers of the Gospels were well of aware of this principal. However the observation that a particular event does not happen in usual circumstances does not demonstrate that it cannot occur in any circumstance. I think that simple observation indicates that proposition one is irrational. Propostition two is irrational for the same reason. Propostion three is an hisorical judgement. After all quite a few people were crucified so it is not only possible but not even not extrodinary. I am aware that there are a couple of books currently popular making the claim Jesus was not crucified. Objectively there is a bit of a possiblity of this but the general drift of real evidence is in the opposite direction. Broad majority of scholars both believing and disbelieving think that the report that Jesus was crucified is a pretty solid bit of historical information.

Goodk, you seem concerned that I have not declaired my belief. I believe that Jesus is Lord and died for our sins. I belive Christianity to be true. But the word true can be ambigous. One can wonder whose version of Christianity is true. Catholic Mormon Seventh day Adventist? Well I think they are all true to a degree. The only completely true version is the one in the mind of God. Oh that's right I do believe in God as a particular reality. I believe that all humans have a spiritual nature that is in some relationship to that real God. As a result it is possible to say that all gods people have spoken about have some image of the real thing. No image even from the Bible is the real thing. The concepts are images created in our mind and are as a result dim and confused compared to the real thing. Because I believe in a real God I can say that God is calling real people in the Bible. The Bible is written by a variety of ordinary humans expressing their awarness of God and Gods call. It is true in that sense. I think the real humans think and understand from their limited imperfect minds so in a variety of way their limitations are in the text. That might appear as historical inexactitude. It might be that old stories are used to talk about ancient times the writers had no historical information about. The historical books start with Judges and from that point in time the ambigous and sometimes chaotic facts of history are the subject where before the principals of storytelling take the place of extensive historical knowledge. The first five books are a ritual story composed of some various bits of history put together to be a spiritual journey all Jews may participate in.

4. If we chuck every concept in which there is potential for abuse human society will have nothing left.

This is merely an example of someone using the second tactic in the list I posted earlier stating the 3 things that people do to defend religion:

1. Argue that it's true
2. Argue that it's useful
3. Attack atheism as if it were a religion or otherwise worthy of contempt

Huckelberry states, I thought Nehors comments were apt. I am unsure what meaning is intended in the observation that believers incline to argue that religion is true and useful. I have noted my disincliation to attack atheism. I have pointed out in this thread some arguments atheists use sometimes which I do not see as very strong. I think the best argument for atheism is the one that observes that God is not visible and the world appears to work without any intervention. It is not a bad argument. On the other hand from my view the observation that the world works means it is well made. As For visibity I do not find God entirely absent even if often low profile.

I thought I would add a note about the accusation of giving aid to fundamentalists. I do not view fundamentalists as all bad nor do I mind giving aid to fundamentalists who share the basics of Christian faith. I do however have no tolerance for the antiscience that sometimes gets mixed into faith. I believe that God gave us brains and curiosity in order to understand the universe we live in. To bury open enquiry under dogma is to my mind to insult God. I believe God wanted Charles Darwin to open doors to understanding for us.

.

[_GoodK]

Huckelberry observes, It is true that normally virgins do not give birth. People have known this for quite a while. The writers of the Gospels were well of aware of this principal. However the observation that a particular event does not happen in usual circumstances does not demonstrate that it cannot occur in any circumstance. I think that simple observation indicates that proposition one is irrational. Propostition two is irrational for the same reason. Propostion three is an hisorical judgement. After all quite a few people were crucified so it is not only possible but not even not extrodinary. I am aware that there are a couple of books currently popular making the claim Jesus was not crucified. Objectively there is a bit of a possiblity of this but the general drift of real evidence is in the opposite direction. Broad majority of scholars both believing and disbelieving think that the report that Jesus was crucified is a pretty solid bit of historical information.

I stronly disagree. Offer some scholary references please...

Goodk, you seem concerned that I have not declaired my belief.

I'd like to understand better how you came to this conclusion. I never expressed any concerns in regards to you. But while we're here, I am concerned that you always speak in the third person. And how you seem to emulate the most pious and most ignorant presidential candidate we currently have with your name.

I thought I would add a note about the accusation of giving aid to fundamentalists. I do not view fundamentalists as all bad nor do I mind giving aid to fundamentalists who share the basics of Christian faith.
.

Exactly the problem. You are on the side of Shirley Phelps more than the side of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
What a sad, pathetic stance to take...

[_ludwigm]

Huckelberry observes, It is true that normally virgins do not give birth. People have known this for quite a while. The writers of the Gospels were well of aware of this principal. However the observation that a particular event does not happen in usual circumstances does not demonstrate that it cannot occur in any circumstance. ...

I stronly disagree. Offer some scholary references please...

This is not scholarly, please get it as hearsay ...

One of my acquaintances, a gynecologist said it. In his - long - praxis, there were three or four virgin patient who was pregnant. He didn't tell anything "after", has they followed by a birth or an abortion. From the circumstances he discovered it was the consequence of - in every case - an .. er .. um .. unskillful petting. (People should know this ... hehe)

Are these circumstances unusual?

[_huckelberry]

I have used the name Huckelberry for about eight years now. It is a reference to Samuel Clemens.

[_ludwigm]

I have used the name Huckelberry for about eight years now. It is a reference to Samuel Clemens.

If it is Samuel Langhorne Clemens (in many cases he is called Langhorn), a.k.a. Mark Twain, then the correct name is Huckleberry .
Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn was my favourites in my youth (long, long, long ago).

[_huckelberry]

ludwigm, Sam had to make the editors happy.

[_wenglund]

One of my last posts at Mormon "apologetics" was about how people defend religion in three ways.

One of those is arguing that it's true. Anyone think it's still possible to argue that religion is literally true?

If you are wondering whether a persuasive case can, or has been made for religion, I would think that the impressive number of adherents and converts to religion would clearly evince in the affirmative.

Granted, the impressive numbers are not proof of religious truth, but rather proof that people have been persuaded that religion is true.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_GoodK]

One of my last posts at Mormon "apologetics" was about how people defend religion in three ways.

One of those is arguing that it's true. Anyone think it's still possible to argue that religion is literally true?

If you are wondering whether a persuasive case can, or has been made for religion, I would think that the impressive number of adherents and converts to religion would clearly evince in the affirmative.

Granted, the impressive numbers are not proof of religious truth, but rather proof that people have been persuaded that religion is true.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, by using the same logic, can we say that Islam is more true than Mormonism?

[_Doctor Steuss]

So, by using the same logic, can we say that Islam is more true than Mormonism?

We'll probably know the answer to that in about 1400 years.

[_JAK]

One of my last posts at Mormon "apologetics" was about how people defend religion in three ways.

One of those is arguing that it's true. Anyone think it's still possible to argue that religion is literally true?

What’s the difference?

JAK