Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Was a person called Jesus, ever really crucified?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1001-1025 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 10:54:35 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Apr 2012 10:59:25 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"You are still totally wrong."
Let's see...

"I was sceptical of the Joseph Smith incident because I thought he was the only witness to the supernatural events."
Well I'm happy to have corrected you. Mormons can cite three times the written eye witness testimony you can, testimony that has the names of people we have a lot if information and documentation of, as evidence it more than meets some of the standards you have outlined for accepting claims, it falls to your not fitting with Christianity caveat to find grounds to reject them.

"Now you tell me there were witnesses, so let us consider this."
OK, let's consider it...

"Could there have been a supernatural event as described by Smith & others? The answer is yes. So what is the problem?"
Was that the consideration? There's a few problems with it like, what is it really conceding as possible? I doubt you want to be accused of being evasively ambiguous so how given the superior numbers of testimony to the golden plates do you accept their existence is revatively more possible or less possible than say, the ressurrection.

"I have absolutely no idea what your purpose is in trying to equate your two threads with the gospel accounts."
I was seeing how you approach claims of miracles. What questions you ask, the considerations that come to the fore, the interest in claims of evidence and you you follow it up for miracles you don't accept and haven't yet meet. Also what you will claim for the miracles you do accept.

"On the one hand there are two seperate sets of writing that contradict each other and on the other there is one set of writing that presents a coherent whole."
Which is which? My report of levitation has been consistent, the Mormon claims and names for witnessing the golden plates are consistent, of you want to get into the discripemcirs of the Gospels ressurrection accounts I'd be happy to do do. The only discrepancy you think you found is in my history but you have recently cited Thomas' conversion from sceptic to believer through seeing, that is my standard too, that's all.

"Why even try to suggest that they are the same?"
Because elements in each are the same, sometimes the Mormon claim has an excess of testimony compared to the Gospels four.

"Your approach is contradictory and illogical and and is not one that I and the gospels have employed."
Nothing contradictory in my levitation claim, if you want to call it illogical make your case, so far it's been ad hominem because I was and am more sceptical than you.

"My approach is accept the possibilities of miracles and then deal with each claim it comes along."
I say your dealings have been revealed to be more interested in what is and isn't Christain rather than testing claims and their professed evidence as they come to you, you've been highly selective in which cases we move forward with and what is left in the discussion, not to mention how non-committal you have been to really say what you mean by allowing Islamic and Mormon supernatural events to be possible or from God.

"You on the other hand seem not to know whether miracles happen or should be denied."
I deny them until I see them, I saw a man levitate and have been consistent in standing by this.

"How can you contradictions even come close to the consistent approach I have tried to make (whether successful or not)."
Tried to make? The successful or otherwise in your attempt to be consistent can't be in question if this challenge is to have merit.

"Make up your mind - either you believe in levitation and therefore have to accept the possibility that other miracles/supernatural events can occur,..."
I believe levitation happened, my position on other miracles is as it was: in the absence of any reliable, relevant and fitting evidence they are as possible as the vast array of everything that could be said to be *possible*. I think you know, as hinted in your opening paragraph, how limp the admission something is possible can be though.

"... or you don't and are forced to admit that which I already know as true - that you made up the story for effect - one which has totally backfired because it was stupidlly applied."
Would you have entertained a hypothetical with any greater sense of worth?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 11:26:39 BDT
Norm Deplume says:
"The problem is that there is no point in banning books if nobody except the clergy can read them."

This is something you might usefully address to the church. I don't understand the thinking either.

"Banning things is as much a political exercise as it is religious - or do think the ban on hard-core pornography is a bad thing?"

Politics is an influence on everything. That decisions are made for a mixture of reasons is irrelevant. Are you trying to suggest that all of the 4000+ books forbidden to Catholics were pornographic?

"Personally, banning things only brings attention to them for the curious. So the real question is, were the books that were banned the ones holding back the development of society. The few I know of that were banned weren't and the advent of the Reformation effectively put paid to the banning of books, since such bans were only effective in the RC countries."

Copernicus's, Kepler's and Galileo's works were important in astronomy. Newton used Kepler's ideas when developing his theory of gravity. The index of forbidden books was in use for over 400 years so the revolution in information technology brought about by the printing press took a rather long time to percolate through to the papacy.

"Would the books that were banned really lead to 'advances in our understanding of the universe'? I don't get that impression at all."

You do not believe that demonstrating that planets revolve around stars in elliptical orbits does not increase our understanding?

"Galileo may have been put under house arrest, but he continued to write scientific studies regardless (and theological treatises also)."

If what you write cannot be published without censorship (either by others or self-imposed in the expectation of suppression otherwise) then progress and the free exchange of ideas is being held back.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 14:08:42 BDT
C. A. Small says:
WDB- mine was deliberately comic ( or was intended to be), Johns was comic though probably unintentionally. Only an idiot would fail to spot the similarities- only an idiot.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 14:10:21 BDT
C. A. Small says:
WBD was that a "sorry, you were correct, Galileo was prosecuted for his astonomical assertions" and "yes I was wrong in my previous assertion that he was not" ?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 16:53:54 BDT
Shakepen says:
Levitation without material means is impossible. The laws of gravity cannot be overcome mentally or religiously or spiritually or mystically. If we look at the orbits of planets and stars, we can prove this for ourselves. And, then, there is the granddaddy of them all, Black Holes where even light cannot escape gravity.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 17:03:58 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Shakepen- that is our point, witness statements do not mean the laws of nature change. Virgin births, walking on water and resurection are just as impossible as levitation and could not have happened.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 17:18:23 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Levitation without material means is impossible. The laws of gravity cannot be overcome mentally or religiously or spiritually or mystically."
We'll call it an internal truth then, that do anything for you?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 21:11:33 BDT
Yup, I guess that's how I'd do it. How would you?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 21:14:32 BDT
Mr Burchell,
You are beginning to adopt a rather peevish tone. Why?
Are you afraid of uncertainty?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 22:00:07 BDT
Shakepen says:
Drew: Yes, yours is an internal truth. If I were to give you a lie detector test, you would pass it with flying colors. You are probably more normal psychologically than I am. You can go through your life with levitation as part of that reality and live quite happily. I will go through life denying it. In the end, it will make little difference.

Posted on 15 Apr 2012 22:11:23 BDT
Spin says:
Levitation is conrary to the laws of nature. To levitate one must not only defy gravity (but only to the extent that one does not float away into spce. (One must "control" gravity so that one can remain on earth and collect the financial donations), but one must also control spacetime. Since gravity is not a force "pulling us down" but a force "pressing us down" (Space), those who levitate must be able to push against space in all directions. To be able to "push against space is an ability that can lead to the creation of vehicles that traverse the galaxy at enormous speeds and distances. The ability to levitate would result in an earth-shattering revolution. bUt I guess those who clim "levitation" are more concerned with profitable entertainment than advancing human knowledge of physics. Still, makes a change from bending spoons, eh?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 22:53:59 BDT
CAS _ "Hitlers letters and speeches make it very clear that he blamed Jews for just about everything. Nazis were clear about this."

1). Did Hitler, in Mein Kampf, make reference or not to the eugenic sterilisation policies then operative in parts of the USA?
2). Is it clear that Nazi persecution was directed against those who held to the Jewish religion, or only against those of "inferior" Jewish and Gypsy (non- Aryan etc.) species, and their "crimes"against the national economy? The regime wanted people to believe the latter, that (all) Jews were criminals.

We know (with after-sight) that the persecution was directed indiscriminately at (racial) Jews etc. But did the German people in general realise this at the time? I don't think most of them really wanted to know!

It is only natural that we have a great deal more documentary evidence (eye-witness testimony) for events of half a century ago than for 2 millennia ago. However, it seems pretty clear that Nero blamed the Crestians generically for the great fire of Rome, for which he himself may or may not have been responsible. They were seen as a threat to the established order of things, i.e. as troublemakers.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 23:01:37 BDT
Nom D. _ "The practice of listing books that should not be read by [lay] members of the church persisted until 1966, although one prominent cardinal was of the opinion that the books, although no longer formally banned, should nevertheless not be read"

I believe that Opus Dei still maintains a list of proscribed and undesirable books.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 23:17:08 BDT
WDB _ " the advent of the Reformation effectively put paid to the banning of books, since such bans were only effective in the RC countries."

See the history of "The Crucifixion by an Eye-Witness" for the suppression of a book (even of the register in the Library of Congress) in late 19th century America! This was scarcely the work of the Vatican.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 23:39:19 BDT
Drew J. _ "
JAQing it doesn't make it any better, it's still deliberately provocative and misjudged, using the horrors of the holocaust to grab attention and making inferred accusations by framing them as questions."

I never for a moment intended this to be taken seriously as an accusation, always firmly believing in your total repudiation of such a suggestion. Yes I was attention-grabbing (and it seems to have worked) and in this I may be in error, but it was not intended to be at your expense.
There was no intention of giving offence, and, if I did so, I apologise most heartily

In spite of the obvious differences in volume and sources of evidence, I still maintain that there is some parallelism between the two cases.
I also think that the model of American eugenic legislation is very relevant.

Posted on 15 Apr 2012 23:41:41 BDT
Spin says:
"Eugenics" is relevent. There's a statement I never thought would occur in my lifetime...

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Apr 2012 23:46:02 BDT
Sam H. _ "Good for Thomas. Keep asking for evidence, mate! "

An not be blessed?

By the way, would you happen to be the same Sam who is reputed to have levitated, and do you happen to have any recollection of the circumstances? I'd love to hear the details sometime!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 00:00:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Apr 2012 01:18:03 BDT
T. Radcliffe - "Yup, I guess that's how I'd do it. How would you? "

I wouldn't try to claim any objectivity about it! It's non-empirical data - unless it matches with an atheist (that is non-religious) system of human ethics.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 00:20:37 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Apr 2012 01:01:31 BDT
Spin - "Eugenics" is relevent. There's a statement I never thought would occur in my lifetime... "

It all depends whether you mean Mendelian genetic hybridism and selective breeding (giving rise to modern genetic modification/ improvement) or the American "Eugenics" of Davenport, giving rise to the American legislation that served as a model for Hitler.
I was saying that the model was relevant rather than the latter theory of eugenics as a non-voluntary instrument for the improvement of the human species (and economising of welfare payments).
Voluntary selective breeding of humans (Eugenics and other modern euphemisms) is still very relevant. See the Wikipedia article.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 07:20:05 BDT
Anyone who blesses blind faith and disapproves of reason isn't worth following.

Did Drew say that it was me who levitated?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 08:11:54 BDT
Sam H. - "Anyone who blesses blind faith and disapproves of reason isn't worth following."
You mean like most politicians? What about someone who blesses the (unthinking) children!

- "Did Drew say that it was me who levitated? " ^^^
There's a rumour going round, but it seems to be a case of mistaken identity (or none at all), like mistaking Hitler for Charlie Chaplin or something out of a G&S opera!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 08:43:50 BDT
Michael,

"You mean like most politicians?"

Yes. And Jesus.

"What about someone who blesses the (unthinking) children!"

Stop giving them useless blessings and instead teach them to think for themselves.

"There's a rumour going round"

There is, but not from Drew, despite some now saying that I was originally stated to be the one involved. It's interesting how quickly a story becomes corrupted.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 10:51:01 BDT
H W says:
Some people have died for what others consider hoaxes.

Whether they are worth dying for, is subjective.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 11:26:45 BDT
DB says:
Sam says ;- "Anyone who blesses blind faith and disapproves of reason isn't worth following."

Who did this Sam?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 11:44:02 BDT
It came up after the Thomas story was posted.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  85
Total posts:  3232
Initial post:  8 Mar 2012
Latest post:  27 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions