Faith and reason

[McCulloch]

Faith is a fruit of reason and rational thoughts.

Question: Does faith come from reason? Do rational thoughts lead one to faith?

Most non-theists and a good number of theists would deny this.

[McCulloch]

No, science and religion CANNOT coexist as entities that drive the same policy in a logical manner.

Oh, I think they do coexist - in fact are one and the same.

God creates 'code' to originate the universe and life. He creates laws to maintain the code, thus, maintaining the universe and life.

Man makes small discoveries in this area and names it 'science'.

Then science is simply the discovery of the creation of this being.

If we look at the traditional revealed religions, that is the religions which are based on some wisdom allegedly given by the god directly to humans, then I have to agree with Cmass.

Science approaches the acquisition of knowledge with the attitude that nothing can be assumed and anything can be questioned and tested. Religion approaches the topic with the attitude that what has been given by the god cannot be questioned, just interpreted and properly understood in light of other evidence. These two approaches are mutually exclusive.

[justifyothers]

No, science and religion CANNOT coexist as entities that drive the same policy in a logical manner.

Oh, I think they do coexist - in fact are one and the same.

God creates 'code' to originate the universe and life. He creates laws to maintain the code, thus, maintaining the universe and life.

Man makes small discoveries in this area and names it 'science'.

Then science is simply the discovery of the creation of this being.

If we look at the traditional revealed religions, that is the religions which are based on some wisdom allegedly given by the god directly to humans, then I have to agree with Cmass.

Science approaches the acquisition of knowledge with the attitude that nothing can be assumed and anything can be questioned and tested. Religion approaches the topic with the attitude that what has been given by the god cannot be questioned, just interpreted and properly understood in light of other evidence. These two approaches are mutually exclusive.

OK - what do you have to agree with if you step outside the arena of traditional religions ?

I don't think anything should be assumed either. AND, I think we should question and test. I'm not sure God would want it any other way. Why would He - if we search for truth, we search for truth. It seems to be a nature He has given to some.

This still doesn't eliminate the possibility that science and religion (term used for belief in God for this topic) do coexist, does it?

[McCulloch]

This still doesn't eliminate the possibility that science and religion (term used for belief in God for this topic) do coexist, does it?

I am willing to admit that science and some forms of religion can coexist. However, science and what many people regard as their religion cannot. Deism, for instance, coexists rather well with science, it seems.

[ST_JB]

The problem with antiquities 18... even the most ardent believers admit it was at least modified. Being that is the case, can you show any evidence this passage
existed before the quotation from Euriiebus in the 4th century?

As for Antiquities 20, it is unproblematic for Josephus using the term 'Christ' without any kind of further explanation. His intended audience was the Roman
gentile population. In Latin, the Christ would have meant 'anointed' or wetted.
For them, that would not have made any sense to his intended audience. Combine that fact, with the fact that Josephus very carefully kept away from the messiah
concept from Judaism, that the phrase' 'Brother of jesus , the one called Christ is exactly how it is phrase in a couple of the Gospels shows that it is very likely this
phrase is a copiers gloss. If you took the 'one called Christ' out of the picture, the
'brother of Jesus' would be a different Jesus that was one of the high priests in the temple (in context).

Since you mentioned Ant. 18 first, lets see you have come up with evidence this passage existed before the 4th century. You have to explain why Origien , who used antiquities 18 as a reference with John the Baptist didn't mention this phrase.
He did make a big deal about antiquities 20.. why not 18?

Josephus was also writing 60 years after the crucifixion. He hardly could be called contemporary to the events in any case. Between the suspect nature of the passages, and the time frame after the supposed event, Josephus is hardly good
evidence of a historical Jesus.

I will deal all your statement as one and the same since we are talking the same material here.

Our information of history does not depend simply on forgotten time, but on the reliability and availability of records. The earliest Christian literature, the letter of Paul gives us ideas of the “form” in which the teachings about Jesus are handed down to every Christian convert those time. The “form” I was talking about is evidently coming in “oral” tradition as “creed”.

Since we cannot reproduce or test for experimentation what transpired in history, all we can do is to reconstruct the evidence we have such as documents and archaeological sites & artifacts. Historical documents depend to the writer’s choice of what to include in his writings. Sad to say many of these documents were destroyed or lost in time.

Subjectively, information passed unto history is filtered by philosophical, religious belief and cultural values of the historians/writers and readers of their subjective interpretations, as well.

It is true that Antiquities 18 is disputed by scholars and most likely comes from an altered source. Some says it was emended by scribes intentionally. Others claim by Christian scribes and others by Eusebius himself. But none of these were 100% certain.

NOTE:

While we have this evidence from Josephus, I am yet to see your counter evidence on Jesus' existence from ancient sources... i.e. Historical writings, secular sources or achaeological artifacts.

Nevertheless, as you requested... I shall substantiate Josephus writings with other secular sources... this time i will present the Roman historian who was regarded as one of the best in his field during his time as a Roman Senator and his postion prior to ascension to the high office.



Now, let us look in another secular source.

In Antiquities 18, there are some important points to remember before we proceed to our next evidence, these are:

1. He was so called Christ
2. Condemend to the cross by Pilate
3. A group of believers named after Christ called Christians
4. This group continue to cause trouble (as alledged)


Now, given these points from the writing of Josephus, let turn our reading to the next ancient documents from one of the acknowledged personality during his time in the Roman Empire. A great historian and orator named TACITUS, A.D. 55 - A.D. 117. He wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars

In his Annals 15.44

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Here, all those points i have mentioned in from the writings of Josephus were also evidently present here in our second evidence.

everyone can search and read from reliable sources in the internet who TACITUS was in his time. His connections to Roman authorities, his greatness in his own field, his status, his intelligence as a person and his credibility as a Roman historian.

We are areading here an evidence directly coming from the critic of the early christian faith. If Christ did not live in flesh, why would he refer to him as the founder who was executed by the roman authorities? The personalities, the places and other historical accounts in the bible shares the same information with this evidences we are reading in here.

Now, I would like to see more than cynical answers to these evidences presented. A written, probably a documents from ancient historians supporting the statement that such Jesus was only a myth. Did not exist and only a made up stories by its forerunners. I have yet to see such documents.

By the way, G.A. Wells, the forerunner of the Christ-myth theory already abandoned his position in favor of Jesus' existence in flesh after indulging a deeper study on the evidences.






______________________
The degree of one's emotion varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts - the less you know the hotter you get." --Bertrand Russell

[Goat]

The problem with antiquities 18... even the most ardent believers admit it was at least modified. Being that is the case, can you show any evidence this passage
existed before the quotation from Euriiebus in the 4th century?

As for Antiquities 20, it is unproblematic for Josephus using the term 'Christ' without any kind of further explanation. His intended audience was the Roman
gentile population. In Latin, the Christ would have meant 'anointed' or wetted.
For them, that would not have made any sense to his intended audience. Combine that fact, with the fact that Josephus very carefully kept away from the messiah
concept from Judaism, that the phrase' 'Brother of jesus , the one called Christ is exactly how it is phrase in a couple of the Gospels shows that it is very likely this
phrase is a copiers gloss. If you took the 'one called Christ' out of the picture, the
'brother of Jesus' would be a different Jesus that was one of the high priests in the temple (in context).

Since you mentioned Ant. 18 first, lets see you have come up with evidence this passage existed before the 4th century. You have to explain why Origien , who used antiquities 18 as a reference with John the Baptist didn't mention this phrase.
He did make a big deal about antiquities 20.. why not 18?

Josephus was also writing 60 years after the crucifixion. He hardly could be called contemporary to the events in any case. Between the suspect nature of the passages, and the time frame after the supposed event, Josephus is hardly good
evidence of a historical Jesus.

I will deal all your statement as one and the same since we are talking the same material here.

Our information of history does not depend simply on forgotten time, but on the reliability and availability of records. The earliest Christian literature, the letter of Paul gives us ideas of the “form” in which the teachings about Jesus are handed down to every Christian convert those time. The “form” I was talking about is evidently coming in “oral” tradition as “creed”.

Since we cannot reproduce or test for experimentation what transpired in history, all we can do is to reconstruct the evidence we have such as documents and archaeological sites & artifacts. Historical documents depend to the writer’s choice of what to include in his writings. Sad to say many of these documents were destroyed or lost in time.

Subjectively, information passed unto history is filtered by philosophical, religious belief and cultural values of the historians/writers and readers of their subjective interpretations, as well.

It is true that Antiquities 18 is disputed by scholars and most likely comes from an altered source. Some says it was emended by scribes intentionally. Others claim by Christian scribes and others by Eusebius himself. But none of these were 100% certain.

NOTE:

While we have this evidence from Josephus, I am yet to see your counter evidence on Jesus' existence from ancient sources... i.e. Historical writings, secular sources or achaeological artifacts.

Nevertheless, as you requested... I shall substantiate Josephus writings with other secular sources... this time i will present the Roman historian who was regarded as one of the best in his field during his time as a Roman Senator and his postion prior to ascension to the high office.



Now, let us look in another secular source.

In Antiquities 18, there are some important points to remember before we proceed to our next evidence, these are:

1. He was so called Christ
2. Condemend to the cross by Pilate
3. A group of believers named after Christ called Christians
4. This group continue to cause trouble (as alledged)


Now, given these points from the writing of Josephus, let turn our reading to the next ancient documents from one of the acknowledged personality during his time in the Roman Empire. A great historian and orator named TACITUS, A.D. 55 - A.D. 117. He wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars

Now, I noticed you ignored the potential for forgery, nor gave me any evidence it
WASN'T a later add on. You just hand waved the objections away, and then
skipped to another one. Let's look at 'TACITUS' now.

In his Annals 15.44

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Here, all those points i have mentioned in from the writings of Josephus were also evidently present here in our second evidence.

everyone can search and read from reliable sources in the internet who TACITUS was in his time. His connections to Roman authorities, his greatness in his own field, his status, his intelligence as a person and his credibility as a Roman historian.

We are areading here an evidence directly coming from the critic of the early christian faith. If Christ did not live in flesh, why would he refer to him as the founder who was executed by the roman authorities? The personalities, the places and other historical accounts in the bible shares the same information with this evidences we are reading in here.

Now, I would like to see more than cynical answers to these evidences presented. A written, probably a documents from ancient historians supporting the statement that such Jesus was only a myth. Did not exist and only a made up stories by its forerunners. I have yet to see such documents.

By the way, G.A. Wells, the forerunner of the Christ-myth theory already abandoned his position in favor of Jesus' existence in flesh after indulging a deeper study on the evidences.

Yawn.. He has not convinced me one bit.. And let's look at tacticlus

Where did he get his information? It is not known. However, by the time of the
writing of this, it is now 115 C.E. Tell me, where did Tacitus get his information.
IT is very reasonable that by this time , he either received the information from
Pilny , who got it from the torture of Christian slaves, or from other Christian sources. Since we do not know where he got his information, we can not call it an independant source for a historical Jesus.

We do know where Pilny the younger got his information.. and that is through the torture of slaves. We can call HIS information independant information about the existence of early Christians, but not of Jesus the man.

An historical Jesus might have existed, but the evidence you provided so far is hardly independant evidence of the existence of a man. It is evidence for the existence of Christians , but not of Jesus.

[ST_JB]

Now, I noticed you ignored the potential for forgery, nor gave me any evidence it
WASN'T a later add on. You just hand waved the objections away, and then
skipped to another one. Let's look at 'TACITUS' now.

And i have noticed as well how empty your oppositions are.

You have not shown to us how and why such writings of Josephus was considered tainted. All you can offer is your cynical statement which means nothing in debating.

Now try again to substantiate your claim. All I was reading is a statements coming from the 21st century "doubting" person who can'e even fill his own arguments with substantiation.

Yawn.. He has not convinced me one bit.. And let's look at tacticlus

Where did he get his information? It is not known. However, by the time of the
writing of this, it is now 115 C.E. Tell me, where did Tacitus get his information.
IT is very reasonable that by this time , he either received the information from
Pilny , who got it from the torture of Christian slaves, or from other Christian sources. Since we do not know where he got his information, we can not call it an independant source for a historical Jesus.

We do know where Pilny the younger got his information.. and that is through the torture of slaves. We can call HIS information independant information about the existence of early Christians, but not of Jesus the man.

An historical Jesus might have existed, the evidence you provided so far is hardly independant evidence of the existence of a man. It is evidence for the existence of Christians , but not of Jesus.

Kindly try to substantiate first your opposition. You are crying for the evidence presented here while you, on the other hand has nothing to quote in here from ancient credible historians, documents or anything verifiable. Your own words alone as opposition to scholarly acceptable documents from the ancient writings of historians will not stand against it.

I was pretty much disappointed to read your post.








_____________________________
The degree of one's emotion varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts - the less you know the hotter you get."--Bertrand Russell

[Goat]

Now, I noticed you ignored the potential for forgery, nor gave me any evidence it
WASN'T a later add on. You just hand waved the objections away, and then
skipped to another one. Let's look at 'TACITUS' now.

And i have noticed as well how empty your oppositions are.

You have not shown to us how and why such writings of Josephus was considered tainted. All you can offer is your cynical statement which means nothing in debating.

Now try again to substantiate your claim. All I was reading is a statements coming from the 21st century "doubting" person who can'e even fill his own arguments with substantiation.

Yawn.. He has not convinced me one bit.. And let's look at tacticlus

Where did he get his information? It is not known. However, by the time of the
writing of this, it is now 115 C.E. Tell me, where did Tacitus get his information.
IT is very reasonable that by this time , he either received the information from
Pilny , who got it from the torture of Christian slaves, or from other Christian sources. Since we do not know where he got his information, we can not call it an independant source for a historical Jesus.

We do know where Pilny the younger got his information.. and that is through the torture of slaves. We can call HIS information independant information about the existence of early Christians, but not of Jesus the man.

An historical Jesus might have existed, the evidence you provided so far is hardly independant evidence of the existence of a man. It is evidence for the existence of Christians , but not of Jesus.

Kindly try to substantiate first your opposition. You are crying for the evidence presented here while you, on the other hand has nothing to quote in here from ancient credible historians, documents or anything verifiable. Your own words alone as opposition to scholarly acceptable documents from the ancient writings of historians will not stand against it.

I was pretty much disappointed to read your post.

I am sorry you are disappointed. However, Tacitus is not particular independant or convincing. It is a full 45 years after the Jewish revolt, with no knowledge what so ever where he got his information.. as well as getting many of the details incorrect.

Maybe if you had something worthwhile to begin with there would be more of a discussion.

[joer]

No, science and religion CANNOT coexist as entities that drive the same policy in a logical manner.

Oh, I think they do coexist - in fact are one and the same.

God creates 'code' to originate the universe and life. He creates laws to maintain the code, thus, maintaining the universe and life.

Man makes small discoveries in this area and names it 'science'.

Then science is simply the discovery of the creation of this being.

If we look at the traditional revealed religions, that is the religions which are based on some wisdom allegedly given by the god directly to humans, then I have to agree with Cmass.

Science approaches the acquisition of knowledge with the attitude that nothing can be assumed and anything can be questioned and tested. Religion approaches the topic with the attitude that what has been given by the god cannot be questioned, just interpreted and properly understood in light of other evidence. These two approaches are mutually exclusive.

OK - what do you have to agree with if you step outside the arena of traditional religions ?

I don't think anything should be assumed either. AND, I think we should question and test. I'm not sure God would want it any other way. Why would He - if we search for truth, we search for truth. It seems to be a nature He has given to some.

This still doesn't eliminate the possibility that science and religion (term used for belief in God for this topic) do coexist, does it?

O.K. I'm getting hooked again. Justifyothers draws me in because in her perspective I see the truth. Sure another hundred years from now, as we adjust to the new things we learn the truth for that period may leave the truth we know today lacking. So the truth evolves just as everything else does.

BUT justifyothers "sees" and I'm impressed. That's why she has no fear of science. She has no fear of questioning because what stands up to it lasts. That's why she sees no conflict between religion and science. I read this recently on another site.

...the worst of the materialistic age is over; the day of a better understanding is already beginning to dawn. The higher minds of the scientific world are no longer wholly materialistic in their philosophy, but the rank and file of the people still lean in that direction as a result of former teachings. But this age of physical realism is only a passing episode in man's life on earth. Modern science has left true religion--the teachings of Jesus as translated in the lives of his believers--untouched. All science has done is to destroy the childlike illusions of the misinterpretations of life.

Religion approaches the topic with the attitude that what has been given by the god cannot be questioned

This is old religion, McCulloch not the new faith based on the living spirit of God. There are new religionists. And atheists are going to have to find new arguments. The beating up on the Bible days are over. As you can see by this excerpt from a thread Confused started, even Jesus picked apart the OLD Testament BY WHAT HE DIDN'T REPEAT. He put forth the Good and left out the bad. And I'm speaking about overall truth and Good. Not specific exceptions others would pick out to discredit the whole thing. Anyway take a look at this link to see what Mr. Shakita had to say. He reminds me of justifyothers. They see things in a new way that lives within peoples hearts without regard to the organized religion or religious position they take.

Saved by the Grace of God??? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 472#151472

I have a friend, Alexia, who addressed this problem today. I'll include what he said here. I like it because it reflects a new perspective that is coming upon many people. They are recognizing a new vision of God that is coming into realization. It's quite different than the old fundamentalist type of Crystallized dogmatic truth that contains the error of the OLD LAW that Jesus came to correct. And he didn't correct it by saying it wasn't TRUE. He corrected it by embracing the truth it contained and offering it forth to Humankind. The problem is like this example you gave here, people are reluctant to release the archaic OLD law and embrace the living spirit of truth as it exists in our hearts today and was poured upon the earth as Jesus said. Anyway alexia check out what Mr. Shakita said. He got it right.

And finally consider this perspective on how humankind deals with religion.

Primitive man lived a life of superstitious bondage to religious fear. Modern, civilized men dread the thought of falling under the dominance of strong religious convictions. Thinking man has always feared to be held by a religion. When a strong and moving religion threatens to dominate him, he invariably tries to rationalize, traditionalize, and institutionalize it, thereby hoping to gain control of it. By such procedure, even a revealed religion becomes man-made and man-dominated. Modern men and women of intelligence evade the religion of Jesus because of their fears of what it will do to them--and with them. And all such fears are well founded. The religion of Jesus does, indeed, dominate and transform its believers, demanding that men dedicate their lives to seeking for a knowledge of the will of the Father in heaven and requiring that the energies of living be consecrated to the unselfish service of the brotherhood of man.

[joer]

Joer wrote:

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

Yep, that is what the "God of Gaps" is all about! Whatever science cannot yet explain is where people automatically insert God. Eventually science may fill that void....so people move their God to another gap in scientific knowledge. ZZ started an interesting thread on this topic: Is the God of Gaps decreasing?"

No, science and religion CANNOT coexist as entities that drive the same policy in a logical manner. They can only coexist if people sell and accept religion as a matter of faith and thus fantasy and recognize the other (science) as a process of evaluation of data. They are mutually incompatible and in fact completely different systems in your brain.
I don't know what the drive is to put these apples and oranges together other than an attempt to legitimize religious dogma as some kind of thinking and evaluation process which it IS NOT! Faith does not require evaluation or deep thinking - it just requires faith that something you cannot prove does indeed exists. Science does NOT look for evidence of things I want to be true - it just looks for the truth and lets me decide what to do with it.
There is truth ......then there is faith.

One Battle


"The believer has only one battle, and that is against doubt - unbelief."

[Cmass]

joer wrote:
One Battle
"The believer has only one battle, and that is against doubt - unbelief."

I agree with that statement. And it is completely and utterly at odds with science. They are completely different creatures and should not be in bed together: They cannot mate.
Once again, you can have religion and science existing in a culture as two separate entities, which is why you can have religious scientists. However, they cannot coexist in the lab. They cannot work together as "one and the same".
I am completely at a loss as to why anyone would argue this was not true except as an attempt to legitimize religion.