Non Aviation & Not For The Faint Hearted

[DEFCON]

GDR

I appreciate the way you frame the issues. It’s very clear that you’ve spent a considerable amount of time studying the subject and your arguments in favour of the faith are moving. I think it’s safe for me to say; I really don’t know what the truth is, I’m just not entirely convinced there’s a supernatural element or ending ( the Resurrection) that can be factually attached to the story of Jesus. On the other side, there are two amazing pieces of physical evidence that may yet prove the Resurrection was an actual event; they are, the ‘Shroud of Turin’ and its smaller cousin, the ‘Mandylion’. I’ve been following the Shroud story for over four decades now and I can’t tell you how sad a day it was when the carbon dating of the Shroud indicated it was a twelfth century relic. However, as it now stands, the carbon date assigned may be in error.

For better, or worse and in spite of the fact it doesn’t look like the matter will ever be settled during my lifetime, I doubt I’ll ever be able to conclude the Shroud is anything other than a true artefact of Christ; there just doesn’t appear to be any reasonable argument to the contrary. Improper sample selections may be responsible for potential errors in the carbon dating process. Nonetheless, the Shrouds do have several other features which cannot be explained away by any member of the modern science community, which means they are quite remarkable in their own right. The Shroud of Turin is the one and only ‘thing’ that causes me to feel a little concerned when I speak in blasphemous ways in regard to Christianity. Believe me, It is really tough, almost impossible and very disconcerting to be rational when examining Christianity at face value on one hand, but find the Shroud aspect of the Resurrection story to be absolutely compelling.

The notion of love is from my perspective, the most important aspect of the faith, but then I wonder when you say;

“They were to love their enemies etc. His message was that if they were to keep on in there militaristic ways the the Romans would do what they always did which is exactly what happened in 70AD when the Romans flattened Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. It wouldn't take any supernatural wisdom to understand that.”

I don’t mean to be a smart ass, but it appears the Jews followed the described path to peace with the Nazis, which didn’t go so well for them during the relative period. Where was Jesus, or their God Yahweh then? I guess it’s connections like this that make me question the entire religious attraction.

“The Samaritans were hated as apostates but Jesus told the story with the Samaritan being the one that followed the law of love, and the Jewish religious leaders the ones that didn't. I'm sure that in a 21st century context it would be the story of the good Muslim.”

I like the comparison, but have to fall back to my concern directly above.

“I suggest that you go back to my earlier post and re-read my CS Lewis quote which in part says that those who are in hell choose it.”

I re-read the quote in its entirety and agree with Lewis in principle, maybe even practically as I don’t think he and I are all that far apart. Like Lewis, I’ve considered the heaven and hell matter and have come to a position of belief of sorts that has nothing religious attached; people that are miserable, selfish, you know the types, in life, will continue on a similar trajectory in death. Similarly, those following the positive path will too continue along that same path post-mortem.

.

I’d like to thank you for the discussion to date GDR; I enjoy discussing the subject matter immensely. I particularly respect your learned, well rounded and reasonable approach to debating the issues.

Cheers

[Mitch Cronin]

Greg,

I'm sure you know I didn't expect you to answer those questions, but thank you very much for trying!

I'm likewise pretty certain that by now you've come to expect fairly unworthy responses from me, so this one shouldn't be too surprising. [i'm quite guilty of that with yourself, Don, and IFG - I could offer some explanation, but I'm sure it would be embarrassing, and it's no excuse. I'm just a lout.

....as for your rambling, please Greg...

Mitch

[DEFCON]

GDR

I received the attached link this morning to a relatively short commentary on 'turning the other cheek' which is fairly interesting and relative to the debate here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jlTLn5cfLM

[Mitch Cronin]

However if the resurrection was historical the we can take seriously the message that what God did for Jesus in the middle of time will be done for all creation at the end of time as we know it.

Can we look at that question alone then, for a second?... [i'm gonna try, dangit!]

A - We know such things don't happen.

B - There exists an old book, with claims that such a thing did occur 2000 yrs ago.

1 - The text was not written by eyewitnesses.

2 - The only extant copies of the book have been translated and edited by parties known to have sufficient motive and capacity for deceit.

3 - The tale is very similar to multiple other tales of others' religions from earlier times.

4 - It's such a nice story about such a good man that lots of people want it to be true.

C - There is no further evidence.

Greg.... You're a man of science..... can there reeeealy be anything more to say?

[GDR]

Hi DEFCON

DEFCON WRITES: I think it’s safe for me to say; I really don’t know what the truth is, I’m just not entirely convinced there’s a supernatural element or ending ( the Resurrection) that can be factually attached to the story of Jesus.

I think it is safe for me to say that I really don't KNOW what the truth is either. I agree that what I believe is just that – a belief or a faith. However, after e looking at and listening to numerous different arguments and points of view I have concluded that what I believe is the most reasonable belief on the market. I also find that more than anything else on offer it makes sense of my life and the world I live in.

Actually I wouldn't want certainty. We have free will. We make our choices which includes moral choices. If we had certainty then our ability to make uninfluenced moral choices would be diminished.

DEFCON WRITES: On the other side, there are two amazing pieces of physical evidence that may yet prove the Resurrection was an actual event; they are, the ‘Shroud of Turin’ and its smaller cousin, the ‘Mandylion’. I’ve been following the Shroud story for over four decades now and I can’t tell you how sad a day it was when the carbon dating of the Shroud indicated it was a twelfth century relic. However, as it now stands, the carbon date assigned may be in error.

For better, or worse and in spite of the fact it doesn’t look like the matter will ever be settled during my lifetime, I doubt I’ll ever be able to conclude the Shroud is anything other than a true artefact of Christ; there just doesn’t appear to be any reasonable argument to the contrary. Improper sample selections may be responsible for potential errors in the carbon dating process. Nonetheless, the Shrouds do have several other features which cannot be explained away by any member of the modern science community, which means they are quite remarkable in their own right. The Shroud of Turin is the one and only ‘thing’ that causes me to feel a little concerned when I speak in blasphemous ways in regard to Christianity. Believe me, It is really tough, almost impossible and very disconcerting to be rational when examining Christianity at face value on one hand, but find the Shroud aspect of the Resurrection story to be absolutely compelling.

i agree that the story of the shroud is an interesting one with many twists and turns. However; if we were able to confirm it was from the 1^st century. It wouldn't prove the resurrection. Say they could confirm that it was a forgery from whatever time it wouldn't prove that the resurrection didn't happen.

I think that we are all afraid of being duped, and I agree that some of things I believe to be true sound incredulous as they are events that are far removed from our daily experience, or so it seems on the surface anyway. Our experience as near as we can tell is that when someone is dead they stay dead. We don't see them coming back in a renewed bodily existence so when we have some 2000 year old texts telling us it did happen once we are rightly skeptical.

One thing that in this case where we have statements ascribed to Jesus we can delve into the message and see if it makes sense to us. As far as I'm concerned His message of love, peace, justice and forgiveness resonates with me. Now I realize that there have been others going back to Buddha that have espoused similar messages but at least the message that Jesus preached does represent the model for the world that I would like to see fully reflect reality.

I only bring this up from the point of view that if Jesus presented God's nature as seen in some places in the OT then I wouldn't see the need to go any further. (The nature of God that we see in Jesus can also be found in the OT as well as the tyrannical image that is there as well. IMHO the OT should be read through the lens of the Gospels.)


DEFCON WRITES:The notion of love is from my perspective, the most important aspect of the faith, but then I wonder when you say;

“They were to love their enemies etc. His message was that if they were to keep on in there militaristic ways the the Romans would do what they always did which is exactly what happened in 70AD when the Romans flattened Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. It wouldn't take any supernatural wisdom to understand that.”

I don’t mean to be a smart ass, but it appears the Jews followed the described path to peace with the Nazis, which didn’t go so well for them during the relative period. Where was Jesus, or their God Yahweh then? I guess it’s connections like this that make me question the entire religious attraction.


Great point. What, IMHO, Jesus was saying was that the enemy wasn't the Romans. The enemy was the power of evil itself. We just have to look at the scope of recorded history to see that humans are capable of unbelievable evil but also tremendous good. It all boils down to the human heart. The message is that we are to reflect God's justice, peace, love etc into the world to both help mitigate the evil on the short term, but also to change hearts which becomes a generational thing for the long term.

Let's look at the Nazi situation. Following WW I we had the Treaty of Versailles which was a punitive agreement that was largely formed to gain revenge against Germany. When Hitler came along the country was ripe for any movement that would be able to restore some measure of national pride to the German people. They had no idea what they were getting into, but once Hitler got into power and the Nazis were dominating the nation there was no turning back and we had WW II.

After WW II, although there were abuses as well, the Allies, (particularly the Yanks), helped rebuild Germany and to a lesser degree Japan, established relations with these countries and today we are all good friends. The battle was won on VE day but the war was won when we were no longer enemies but friends.


DEFCON WRITES:I re-read the quote in its entirety and agree with Lewis in principle, maybe even practically as I don’t think he and I are all that far apart. Like Lewis, I’ve considered the heaven and hell matter and have come to a position of belief of sorts that has nothing religious attached; people that are miserable, selfish, you know the types, in life, will continue on a similar trajectory in death. Similarly, those following the positive path will too continue along that same path post-mortem.

I agree. I believe that God honours our choices. A short book that Lewis wrote called “The Great Divorce” is a well thought out allegory on the separation between heaven and hell.

DEFCON:I’d like to thank you for the discussion to date GDR; I enjoy discussing the subject matter immensely. I particularly respect your learned, well rounded and reasonable approach to debating the issues.

Thank you very much. I enjoy it as well. You have valid concerns and ask well thought out questions. Again I'll add that what I write are my beliefs, and are subject to my multitude of fallibilities, but I believe them strongly enough to base my life on them. It is still a faith but we all faith in something. As Bob Dylan once sang, you gotta serve somebody". IMHO my beliefs best fit the world as I see and experience it

[GDR]

GDR

I received the attached link this morning to a relatively short commentary on 'turning the other cheek' which is fairly interesting and relative to the debate here.

Interesting video. I really don't find anything to disagree with. When he refers to the intent, comparing belief to understanding, I personally would refer to the heart. I agree that we can't always turn the other cheek. It is always about wanting to do something because you desire to do the right thing and not, as he says, simply that you should do the right thing.

For example if you see some elderly woman being mugged you are in the situation that you can only be kind to the mugger or the woman, but not both. I'd go with the woman. If you see the Nazis marching in and brutalizing Holland you can either be kind to the Nazis by saying that isn't a nice thing to do, or you can be kind to the Dutch by saying that you'll stand up for them and do something about it. I'd go with the Dutch.

However, if we go back to WW II again I can look at my home town of Medicine Hat. During the war there was huge German prisoner of war camp there. There were fed well and by and large treated well. As far as I could tell growing up there after the war the largest ethnic group in the city was German with the German language being taught in the schools. These guys who were fighting for the Nazis, (whether they were Nazis or not) had their hearts changed and wound up residing and raising their families where they had been prisoners.

Yes, turning the other cheek is what we should want to do unless there is a greater imperative, which is consistent with what Tom Campbell says.

[GDR]

Greg,

I'm sure you know I didn't expect you to answer those questions, but thank you very much for trying!

I'm likewise pretty certain that by now you've come to expect fairly unworthy responses from me, so this one shouldn't be too surprising. [i'm quite guilty of that with yourself, Don, and IFG - I could offer some explanation, but I'm sure it would be embarrassing, and it's no excuse. I'm just a lout.

....as for your rambling, please Greg...

Mitch

Hi Mitch

I'm more likely to listen to Buddy Holly or the Beatles. Actually I just started up a small band called "Twelve O'Clock Rock" - Back in time - to "59" to play for a fund raiser for the Ugandan mission I am involved with, where young women with virtually no hope for the future are housed, fed, cared for and educated.

Here is the web site for anyone interested. http://gendemi.getafricaonline.com/

We all know you're anything but a lout and I along with the passengers will always be grateful for the incredible job that you and your cohorts do. (A job that I doubt I could do with any amount of training.)

Thanks for your many posts on this site. I always enjoy them, but I ramble.......

Cheers

[GDR]

Hi Mitch

I WROTE: However if the resurrection was historical the we can take seriously the message that what God did for Jesus in the middle of time will be done for all creation at the end of time as we know it.

MITCH WRITES: Can we look at that question alone then, for a second?... [i'm gonna try, dangit!]

A - We know such things don't happen.

In our experience we can see that this hasn't happened. Of course the Christian belief is that it was a one time event.

If a theistic god who is responsible for the fact that sentient creatures with an understanding of morality exist then a question how you can say that we know these things don't happen. We can confidently say that in our experience it hasn't happened but how can we say that in all human history it hasn't happened. It sin't a repeatable event that a scientist could re-construct.

MITCH WRITES:

B - There exists an old book, with claims that such a thing did occur 2000 yrs ago.

1 - The text was not written by eyewitnesses.

Actually, they may have been eye-witnesses in the case of Mark in particular but we can't be sure. In the book of Luke he opens with this statement:

“1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”.

It is clear that the Gospels weren't the first texts but a compilation of earlier texts.

MITCH WRITES:2 - The only extant copies of the book have been translated and edited by parties known to have sufficient motive and capacity for deceit.

There are numerous translations of the Bible but we do have copies of part of the Gospels that date back to early in the 2^nd century or within a few decades of the original. Here is a wiki site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

I would question the idea that there was a motive for deceit but even if there was it does not mean that they succumbed to it.

MITCH WRITES: 3 - The tale is very similar to multiple other tales of others' religions from earlier times.

Not really. There are other so-called resurrection stories but they are essentially about dying and rising gods as this wiki article points out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

The resurrection of Jesus is unlike any other resurrection account. It is also a resurrection that a first century Jew wouldn't have envisioned. If they were going to suggest anything similar they would have had Jesus coming back shining like a star or something along that line. As I have said in other posts there were other messianic movements where the hoped for messiahs such as the Maccabean brothers died heroic deaths and had led in military conquests. From a Jewish perspective they would have been more lilkely candidates but no one came forward to suggest any such thing such as there being resurrected. . When they were executed their movements simply died out. Those guys also had friends in high places. Jesus didn't.

MITCH WRITES:4 - It's such a nice story about such a good man that lots of people want it to be true.

That doesn't mean it isn't true. There are lots of nice stories that we want to be true that are. I'd also add that it is actually a very brutal story about the inhumanity of man so it really isn't all that nice a story.

MITCH WRITES: C - There is no further evidence.

Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC. We have fewer written accounts of that than we do the resurrection of Jesus yet we don't question that. What further evidence would you expect there to be?

MITCH WRITES: Greg.... You're a man of science..... can there reeeealy be anything more to say?

I'd hardly call me a man of science. I simply enjoy reading it and trying to understand it conceptually. I view it as a natural theology and look to it to understand how things happened and do happen.

I find science absolutely compatible with and even complimentary to my Christian faith. One small example is evolution. Here is a process that has produced creatures as simple as an amoeba and as complex as an AME. If you want to believe that this could come from the chance combination of particles that by chance formed just the right chemicals that somehow by chance combined to form living cells that by chance evolved to sentient moral beings then on faith you can believe that. I am unable to have that much faith. I suggest it is more reasonable to believe that there is a creative intelligence responsible for it.

AbE. I just thought that I'd add that Francis Collins who was the head of the team than unraveled the human genome and is a strong proponent of evolutionary theory is a strongly committed Christian and even wrote book where he called DNA "The Language of God".

Christianity posits the idea that we exist in our Earthly dimension or universe and that God exists in His, (call it heavenly if you like), dimension or universe. I subscribe to Scientific American. When I picked up he Nov 2010 edition on the cover was the headline for the lead story. This is how it read. “Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter – An Entire Universe May Be Interwoven Silently With Our Own”.

If science can talk about other dimensions or universes is there any reason that theologians can'? As I say, I view science as a natural theology.

[Kip Powick]

You guys really need your own 'chat' room.

[DEFCON]

Thanks very much for the discussion Greg.

[GDR]

Back at ya DEFCON

Cheers

[Don Hudson]

Some threads nicely illustrate the best of what this forum is about.

[deicer]

On a related note, an article, which in my opinion, the world needs to see more of....

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351277631/prominent-muslim-sheikh-issues-fatwa-against-isis-violence

[DEFCON]

It's nice to note, there's at least someone within the faith working towards peace. The problem is, the jihadist has no interest in this type of thinking; he's motivated by another force that he finds religiously appropriate.

[Wolfhunter]

During my career I've participated in 11 foreign deployments and collected a rack of medals in the process. At a wedding recently, a very pretty lady asked me about them and I ran through the inventory of this was for that and that was for this. On completion, it occurred to me that all (CD excepted) were directly or indirectly attributable to Islam. In other words, without Islam I would have spent a lot more time at home. Then again, without Islam, she likely would never have talked to me in the first place... sigh.

I fear J.O. has it right, fanatics will always find a way.

Religion is not the true reason of all these conflicts but rather the excuse used by those who would rather be at war.

WRT to the young soldier's comment, let's also not forget that "war against muslims" might just be different than "war against Islam".

Ah, to be a young soldier again; if only.

However, I generally agree. In my view, it's often the tool used to justify and legitimize the "excuse" and motivate / recruit the troops. Too often what we perceive as mindless religious conflict between Muslim sects is more about interests and aspirations; be they political, financial, territorial or whatever. God is always on OUR side... just ask any "young soldier" . Their young soldiers are lead to believe that other Muslims are infidels by virtue of the fact that they don't .............. or .............. (lots of options here).

In my view, nothing much will change with radical Islam until moderate Muslims take a stand against it. There be lots of moderates yet their voices remain unheard. They need to stop whispering in the closet and make some noise. As well, people in North America would be well advised to pay particular attention to Muslims who have either left the faith or converted to Christianity and take heed. Let me say that again... take heed. Moderate Muslims may not be as moderate as you think. I often hear such things as "my hairdresser is a Muslim and she's nice". Well, cool... as a "young soldier" , I've had many "engagements" with them that wasn't.

In fairness to the moderates though, I should also point out that even if they were vocal, there voices might go unheard. By way of example, most Taliban fighters (over 90%) are illiterate and thus, have never even read the Koran they claim to defend (cool eh?). Home grown (usually privileged) bad guys require a firm hand. No need to hide from the Taliban though, the vast majority can't even find North America on a map.

[Wolfhunter]

Some threads nicely illustrate the best of what this forum is about.

I agree. Lots of reading here and some very thoughtful opinions. Thanks for the effort you took to further the debate. Cheers