5 ms·

Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

xerophyte12932 12y ago
I do not share his Faith, but I understand his views to be a Leap of Faith. While science is nice and all but as humans taking such leaps and trusting other people despite evidence to the contrary, is every day business, is it not? Of course it is rather hard to believe that such a vast majority of people take such Leaps on not just ONE person, but a whole chain of people spanning over 2000 years!! But he must have his personal reasons, and i respect those.
- nocman 12y ago
  No. My views are not based on any "leap of faith". A "leap of faith" implies that a person is believing in the absence of any evidence -- and that is by no means true of me. Eyewitness testimony is used every day in courts of law. It is one of the most common forms of evidence used to determine the truth about things that happened in the past. I am convinced that the New Testament contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus, the things He said, and the things He did. My faith in Him is based on those accounts. I believe it is God who made sure those accounts were recorded. I was convinced by the evidence given in those accounts. I understand that there are many who have either never read the accounts, or read them and were not convinced by them to believe in Jesus. Again, to anyone who is interested in knowing what Jesus said and did, I would invite you to draw your own conclusions after reading the book of John: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...
  - MisterBastahrd 12y ago
    You believe that the accounts of the bible are true because they're in the bible. Gotcha.
  - xerophyte12932 12y ago
    I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway, but in my opinion you still need that leap of faith to believe that not only all those eye witnesses were telling the truth, but also that the accounts recorded over 2000 years ago are still preserved the way they were. But frankly all this discussion is moot considering that if you believe in an omnipotent god, all other things should come naturally. I mean if a Being can create the entire universe from nothing (via the big bang or otherwise), then creating a Y-chromosome out of nothing is a very small feat for such a being. Now on the contrary, if someone chooses not to believe in such a god, then I don't see how you can make them believe virgin births or the integrity of 2000 year old eye witness accounts. Especially considering that history is full of people who used religion to serve their own agenda (recent example: Al Qaeda) thus giving religion as a whole, a bad name.
    - nocman 12y ago
      "I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway" No need to apologize (though I do appreciate the civility). I was not offended -- I just did not want anyone to think that my beliefs were based on no evidence, because that is not true. Your point about believing in God as an omnipotent being is important. You said "...if someone chooses not to believe in such a god, then I don't see how you can make them believe virgin births or the integrity of 2000 year old eye witness accounts." I merely suggested that people read one of the accounts. I believe God is omnipotent. I believe those accounts are accurate, because God has protected them, because they are His testimony about Himself and how He has dealt with man's sin. And I believe these things because I read the accounts and was convinced that they were true, and that the accounts themselves were of divine origin. I'm not trying to argue anyone into becoming a Christian. I'm merely stating my own beliefs, trying to explain the reasons behind them, and encouraging anyone who is interested to read the book that led me to those beliefs. On the other point, the fact that "history is full of people who used religion to serve their own agenda (recent example: Al Qaeda) thus giving religion as a whole, a bad name" is really not an issue to me. It is cutting a pretty big swath to lump everyone who has some belief in a supreme being into one large group. There are vastly differing beliefs between people which lead them in vastly different directions. There are always people who will use anything they can for their own selfish gain. It think it is a huge mistake to ignore God altogether just because many people have done evil things in His name. My faith is not in other people. My faith is in Christ. I am convinced He is not just an ordinary man, but that He is God in the flesh. The things that He said and did, the way He talked to people, the way He answered people's questions. All of that convinced me of who He is. Again, if anyone is interested I would encourage you to read the book of John (I linked to it in my other posts on this subject) and to draw your own conclusions.
  - fsloth 12y ago
    This is moving quite far from the main topic, but: Eye witnesses are actually really fallible even in fairly recent cases. You can easily manipulate how people remember scenes and how to interpret what they saw or heard. Google "eye witness fallibility". I think you need to go to the original texts to truly grok their meaning in their original context. I believe the King James bible is considered a literary masterpiece - and great literature, spiritual or not usually evokes feelings. The priesthood probably had the brightest literary minds of their time. Personally I just find it cool ancient literacy can evoke feelings through a span of thousands of years.
  - olavk 12y ago
    Even taking the eyewitness accounts in the Gospels at face value, they are highly dubious. Note that the disciples don't even recognize him when they meet the resurrected Jesus (or they guy claiming to be the resurrected Jesus), and have to see and feel physical proof like the wounds before they even accept that the guy is indeed the resurrected Jesus. An then the guy suddenly vanishes again, without any explanation.
    - nocman 12y ago
      I believe there is a very good reason that they did not recognize Jesus. I believe what the text says. The scripture in question is Luke 24:13-35. The two disciples did not recognize Jesus because Jesus hid his identity from them supernaturally: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-35&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-35... The text says (in verse 16) "their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him." Jesus hides his identity, then asks them what they are talking about (they were talking about Him, including the fact that He had been crucified). Then he goes on to explain to them how all that happened (including his crucifixion) fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament (verse 27): "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." If you don't believe in the supernatural, then it is extremely improbable that you will believe in Jesus. His miracles are all evidence of His deity. He was not limited to things a normal person could do. That being true, obviously He could hide His identity from His disciples (for whatever reason He chose to do that). Personally I think He did so to increase the impact on the disciples of the things He expained to them while His identity was hidden -- but that is speculation on my part, the text doesn't say.
      - olavk 12y ago
        I guess that makes sense in-story, but if you want to take it seriously as an eye-witness account, it is somewhat problematic that deception-magic is used. They might just as well be under deception magic when they believe they recognize him, right?
        12y ago
- xivzgrev 12y ago
  Also just to follow up on nocman, you can read "who moved the stone", where the biblical account of final hours of christs life is examined in context of what we know about the time period...does it read more like someone writing an emotional story or someone trying to relate something that actually happened?
baddox 12y ago
I think that almost anyone's foundational world view is interesting, and worth asking questions about. Why, for instance, do you believe that serious claims require serious evidence?
- functional_test 12y ago
  Because if you don't require evidence proportional to the claim, your world view can end up including any and all beliefs, which is neither interesting nor useful. One of the classical ideas in epistemology is the justified true belief theory of knowledge [1]. This has flaws (see: the Gettier problem [2]), but it's a reasonable approximation. Obviously what qualifies as justified is a debated topic, but it's generally agreed that "no justification" is not a justification. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
  - baddox 12y ago
    You assume that requiring evidence proportional to the claim is the only conceivable filter for which beliefs to hold. Of course it's not.
    - functional_test 12y ago
      I did not say that it was the only way, please don't put words in my mouth. I said it was the standard way (which it is). What other methods would you suggest?
      - baddox 12y ago
        I was referring to your first sentence. > Because if you don't require evidence proportional to the claim, your world view can end up including any and all beliefs, which is neither interesting nor useful. That is only true if you assume that no other belief filter is being used.
nocman 12y ago
Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did. If anyone is genuinely interested, I would suggest you read the gospel of John, and decide for yourself if you believe what it says. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...
- doublextremevil 12y ago
  Why do you believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God when other texts(The Quran, etc) similarly purport to be the One Truth? These other texts also include "eyewitness testimony."
  - apta 12y ago
    FWIW, the Quran does not include eyewitness testimony in the sense you are speaking of. It is taken literally as the word of God. Although some parts in it ascribe certain quotes to certain people (e.g. Jesus said so and so, Mary said so and so, etc.), but the witness here is God Himself.
    - doublextremevil 12y ago
      Regardless, eyewitness testimony is not reliable[0]. Many people have claimed to seen UFO's, Aliens, and crimes that people did not commit. 0. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-i...
      - apta 12y ago
        Sure, but when investigating events of a certain magnitude, you would more likely have a bigger group of individuals who have witnessed said event. The article references incidents like murder convictions, where it can be easy to mistake one person for another, because they both happen to be of the same race for instance. In this case; however, we're talking events like person X gave a speech and said Y. This is much more likely to have been heard by many people, so the likelihood of it have happened in the way it was relayed is much higher.

xerophyte12932 12y ago

I do not share his Faith, but I understand his views to be a Leap of Faith. While science is nice and all but as humans taking such leaps and trusting other people despite evidence to the contrary, is every day business, is it not? Of course it is rather hard to believe that such a vast majority of people take such Leaps on not just ONE person, but a whole chain of people spanning over 2000 years!! But he must have his personal reasons, and i respect those.

nocman 12y ago
No. My views are not based on any "leap of faith". A "leap of faith" implies that a person is believing in the absence of any evidence -- and that is by no means true of me. Eyewitness testimony is used every day in courts of law. It is one of the most common forms of evidence used to determine the truth about things that happened in the past. I am convinced that the New Testament contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus, the things He said, and the things He did. My faith in Him is based on those accounts. I believe it is God who made sure those accounts were recorded. I was convinced by the evidence given in those accounts. I understand that there are many who have either never read the accounts, or read them and were not convinced by them to believe in Jesus. Again, to anyone who is interested in knowing what Jesus said and did, I would invite you to draw your own conclusions after reading the book of John: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...
- MisterBastahrd 12y ago
  You believe that the accounts of the bible are true because they're in the bible. Gotcha.
- xerophyte12932 12y ago
  I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway, but in my opinion you still need that leap of faith to believe that not only all those eye witnesses were telling the truth, but also that the accounts recorded over 2000 years ago are still preserved the way they were. But frankly all this discussion is moot considering that if you believe in an omnipotent god, all other things should come naturally. I mean if a Being can create the entire universe from nothing (via the big bang or otherwise), then creating a Y-chromosome out of nothing is a very small feat for such a being. Now on the contrary, if someone chooses not to believe in such a god, then I don't see how you can make them believe virgin births or the integrity of 2000 year old eye witness accounts. Especially considering that history is full of people who used religion to serve their own agenda (recent example: Al Qaeda) thus giving religion as a whole, a bad name.
  - nocman 12y ago
    "I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway" No need to apologize (though I do appreciate the civility). I was not offended -- I just did not want anyone to think that my beliefs were based on no evidence, because that is not true. Your point about believing in God as an omnipotent being is important. You said "...if someone chooses not to believe in such a god, then I don't see how you can make them believe virgin births or the integrity of 2000 year old eye witness accounts." I merely suggested that people read one of the accounts. I believe God is omnipotent. I believe those accounts are accurate, because God has protected them, because they are His testimony about Himself and how He has dealt with man's sin. And I believe these things because I read the accounts and was convinced that they were true, and that the accounts themselves were of divine origin. I'm not trying to argue anyone into becoming a Christian. I'm merely stating my own beliefs, trying to explain the reasons behind them, and encouraging anyone who is interested to read the book that led me to those beliefs. On the other point, the fact that "history is full of people who used religion to serve their own agenda (recent example: Al Qaeda) thus giving religion as a whole, a bad name" is really not an issue to me. It is cutting a pretty big swath to lump everyone who has some belief in a supreme being into one large group. There are vastly differing beliefs between people which lead them in vastly different directions. There are always people who will use anything they can for their own selfish gain. It think it is a huge mistake to ignore God altogether just because many people have done evil things in His name. My faith is not in other people. My faith is in Christ. I am convinced He is not just an ordinary man, but that He is God in the flesh. The things that He said and did, the way He talked to people, the way He answered people's questions. All of that convinced me of who He is. Again, if anyone is interested I would encourage you to read the book of John (I linked to it in my other posts on this subject) and to draw your own conclusions.
- fsloth 12y ago
  This is moving quite far from the main topic, but: Eye witnesses are actually really fallible even in fairly recent cases. You can easily manipulate how people remember scenes and how to interpret what they saw or heard. Google "eye witness fallibility". I think you need to go to the original texts to truly grok their meaning in their original context. I believe the King James bible is considered a literary masterpiece - and great literature, spiritual or not usually evokes feelings. The priesthood probably had the brightest literary minds of their time. Personally I just find it cool ancient literacy can evoke feelings through a span of thousands of years.
- olavk 12y ago
  Even taking the eyewitness accounts in the Gospels at face value, they are highly dubious. Note that the disciples don't even recognize him when they meet the resurrected Jesus (or they guy claiming to be the resurrected Jesus), and have to see and feel physical proof like the wounds before they even accept that the guy is indeed the resurrected Jesus. An then the guy suddenly vanishes again, without any explanation.
  - nocman 12y ago
    I believe there is a very good reason that they did not recognize Jesus. I believe what the text says. The scripture in question is Luke 24:13-35. The two disciples did not recognize Jesus because Jesus hid his identity from them supernaturally: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-35&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-35... The text says (in verse 16) "their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him." Jesus hides his identity, then asks them what they are talking about (they were talking about Him, including the fact that He had been crucified). Then he goes on to explain to them how all that happened (including his crucifixion) fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament (verse 27): "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." If you don't believe in the supernatural, then it is extremely improbable that you will believe in Jesus. His miracles are all evidence of His deity. He was not limited to things a normal person could do. That being true, obviously He could hide His identity from His disciples (for whatever reason He chose to do that). Personally I think He did so to increase the impact on the disciples of the things He expained to them while His identity was hidden -- but that is speculation on my part, the text doesn't say.
    - olavk 12y ago
      I guess that makes sense in-story, but if you want to take it seriously as an eye-witness account, it is somewhat problematic that deception-magic is used. They might just as well be under deception magic when they believe they recognize him, right?
      - 12y ago
xivzgrev 12y ago
Also just to follow up on nocman, you can read "who moved the stone", where the biblical account of final hours of christs life is examined in context of what we know about the time period...does it read more like someone writing an emotional story or someone trying to relate something that actually happened?

baddox 12y ago

I think that almost anyone's foundational world view is interesting, and worth asking questions about. Why, for instance, do you believe that serious claims require serious evidence?

functional_test 12y ago
Because if you don't require evidence proportional to the claim, your world view can end up including any and all beliefs, which is neither interesting nor useful. One of the classical ideas in epistemology is the justified true belief theory of knowledge [1]. This has flaws (see: the Gettier problem [2]), but it's a reasonable approximation. Obviously what qualifies as justified is a debated topic, but it's generally agreed that "no justification" is not a justification. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
- baddox 12y ago
  You assume that requiring evidence proportional to the claim is the only conceivable filter for which beliefs to hold. Of course it's not.
  - functional_test 12y ago
    I did not say that it was the only way, please don't put words in my mouth. I said it was the standard way (which it is). What other methods would you suggest?
    - baddox 12y ago
      I was referring to your first sentence. > Because if you don't require evidence proportional to the claim, your world view can end up including any and all beliefs, which is neither interesting nor useful. That is only true if you assume that no other belief filter is being used.

nocman 12y ago

Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did. If anyone is genuinely interested, I would suggest you read the gospel of John, and decide for yourself if you believe what it says. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

doublextremevil 12y ago
Why do you believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God when other texts(The Quran, etc) similarly purport to be the One Truth? These other texts also include "eyewitness testimony."
- apta 12y ago
  FWIW, the Quran does not include eyewitness testimony in the sense you are speaking of. It is taken literally as the word of God. Although some parts in it ascribe certain quotes to certain people (e.g. Jesus said so and so, Mary said so and so, etc.), but the witness here is God Himself.
  - doublextremevil 12y ago
    Regardless, eyewitness testimony is not reliable[0]. Many people have claimed to seen UFO's, Aliens, and crimes that people did not commit. 0. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-i...
    - apta 12y ago
      Sure, but when investigating events of a certain magnitude, you would more likely have a bigger group of individuals who have witnessed said event. The article references incidents like murder convictions, where it can be easy to mistake one person for another, because they both happen to be of the same race for instance. In this case; however, we're talking events like person X gave a speech and said Y. This is much more likely to have been heard by many people, so the likelihood of it have happened in the way it was relayed is much higher.