"Gandalf" Happy Jesus Was Married
Sir Ian McKellen, who played Gandalf in "Lord of the Rings" and English aristocrat Sir Leigh Teabing in "Da Vinci Code" read Brown's novel and called it "codswallop." However, the ever politically correct McKellen redirects in the following statement:
Sir Ian said: "When I read the book I believed it entirely. I thought Leigh Teabing had answered his case very convincingly indeed.
"When I put the book down I thought 'What a load of potential codswallop'."That's still going on in my mind. But I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married.
"I know that the Catholic Church has problems with gay people and I thought that this was absolute truth that Jesus was not gay."
I KNEW there'd be some redeeming value in codswallop. We want people to "be happy" in what they believe--TOP PRIORITY! And we "homophobic Catholics" desperately need to have "proof" that Jesus wasn't gay. Oh, good, Jesus liked women. Phew! Thanks Mr. Brown!
For more ingesting of this swill, click here.
And you anti-Catholics think we're over-reacting to this "fiction?" If Gandalf the White can't resist Mr. Brown's cunning and deception, how can we mere mortals do so?
posted by Underground Logician @ 10:55 AM
29 comments
29 Comments:
Sam! It's a book! And not a well-written one at that.
Give it up.
Your church will survive.
And Jesus was HALF HUMAN according to the story. So what if he may have married and had children. Is that so bad?
Marriage is a sacrament for goodness sake!
Most gods do get married and have children.
Why wouldn't Jesus? What's so awful about that possibility?
I don't get it.
Your comments reveal you don't get it. Let me give you some coaching:
1. Jesus didn't marry Mary Magdelene, so any appeal to the possibility is false. Logically, something that is false has no merit.
2. People's opinions about Christianity are being formed by fiction, especially fiction portrayed by the author as factual or having merit. So, in turn, the Church is freely expressing itself with the same freedom Mr. Brown uses to debunk what he wrote, and now the movie.
3. You have twisted the issue that Catholics are against marriage since we are against "a married Christ." Clever rhetorical tactic, but you have ignorance working against you.
You see, Shaw, it's not a matter that we are getting our Jockeys in a wad over a fiction. You misrepresent the issue, and I hope not deliberately. The issue created by Dan Brown is that the historical background to the story, or the artistic facts he brings into this fictional thriller are true. If his "facts" have no merit, and we, the Church speak out about it, then Mr. Brown needs to face it. If people don't like the Church's intervention, tough. We have a right to speak up.
Shaw:
Now to your stated fictions.
1. Jesus was not HALF human, but fully human, AND fully divine.
2. Our Church will survive, but not with those in it who sit on their hands like lobotomized dolts and wait for Jesus to solve these problems.
3. Jesus not being married does NOT mean marriage is bad. Are you saying that those who choose not to be married say marriage is bad? There are greater things than marriage, and Jesus chose it. Theologically, Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church, his people, are his bride. I speak analogously of course, so you mighty find it difficult to conceptualize. It's a mystery.
4. As to gods marrying and having kids, I couldn't speak indicatively on that since I have never met any god-couples with kids. I'm aware of Greek and Roman mythology, but that's another story. So I can't vouch for the god-couple thing.
5. As to what is so awful about Jesus marrying Mary Magdelene--it circumvents his entire plan which he revealed to his disciples. Two, it denies that Jesus really did what he came to do. The gnostic heresy comes into play here which I won't bore you with. Subsequent to this, we have this supposed secret so huge and catastrophic. There is never anything good that comes out of falsehood, Shaw. You know that.
1. Jesus didn't marry Mary Magdelene, so any appeal to the possibility is false. Logically, something that is false has no merit.--UL
Other than the 4 gospels, how do you know that this is a fact? There were other gospels. The church used only the ones they selected. Have you ever read anything by Elaine Pagels?
There is no evidence that Jesus was or was not married.
The only record we have of the life of Jesus are the gospels that were written by his followers. The first one, written over 30 years after his death. I can't remember what I did 30 minutes ago. How can the human brain remember conversations or statements with any accuracy that occurred 30 years before? It can't. And we know that the mind can produce false memories--especially when one needs to enhance someone we believe is supernatural.
You cannot prove that Jesus was not married, nor can you prove he was. Therefore, you cannot pin the word "false" on an assumption that has no way of being proved.
You can believe he never married and others can believe he was.
Many protestant sects believe Mary had more children and Jesus had brothers. Are they wrong too?
There is no "historical" background to the story of Jesus. Only the gospels written by people who had a great deal invested in getting people to believe their stories.
Shaw:
For one who has "no evidence," you sure have a wrap on it all. I'm going right to your unspoken major premise: there is no historical background to the life of Jesus.
How can you make such an assertion with so little or non-existent historical knowledge available? Quite amazing if you ask me! Let's break down what you said and observe what you assume:
1. That early Christians' memories were only as good as yours.
2. The extraordinary events of their lives 30+ years ago are as memory-making as what you did 30 minutes ago.
3. You assert those who wrote the gospels had a vested interest in getting people to believe their myth yet you state there is no historical background. You refute yourself; you cannot assume anything of the sort without historical evidence.
There is plenty of historical evidence that Jesus WAS in fact, single, and died an early and horrible death by crucifixion. If you want to know more, let me know. I'll only give it to you if you are really interested.
HISTORICAL RECORDS
Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate.
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
You also have Flavius Josephus, and Pliny the Elder. These are extra-Biblical sources that accept the fact of Jesus though they would not accept his teachings. Even so, there is historical merit in the oral tradition within the Church itself that you reject.
Most historians accept the historical nature of the gospels. Skeptics who reject them would need to reject all historical events from that time period, given the large amount of evidences backing the existence of Christ in comparison to other historical figures and events.
Also, historians need to be aware of their prejudices either for or against. Your prejudices preclude the existence of Christ based on a method of doubt. Accordingly, your demand for a complete demonstration of Christ's existence is impossible. You'd have to go back in time and find out for yourself, which is absurd. The confidence you display is based on the conclusion of your method, it is artificial and contrived.
I, on the other hand, do not come from a position of doubt. My assumption is that the presence of an oral account of history is based on something historical. Actualities form the web of history. If myths are created, the web of history will account for this. I do not just assume a complete fabrication. Therefore, I don't need a complete demonstration of it's existence, which is absurd. Again, I look into what is historically authoritative within the oral web of history.
Anything historical, whether it's the life of Julius Caesar, or who are our actual birth parents, is verified by authoritative sources, professional historians or parents and kin. Here's the rub--written histories are as accurate as the oral histories that support them. Even if your assertion that Christ's disciples completely fabricated the story of Jesus for whatever vested interests they had, the oral histories do not support this. In the case of Christ, which you will NOT get from Mr. Brown, the oral history is so incredibly large that the positions he takes as historically accurate are laughable to historians, Christian or not.
Consider something, Shaw. Allow yourself to be more objective and perhaps try to understand why you resist this objectivity so much. Just a thought.
Shaw said...
And Jesus was HALF HUMAN according to the story. So what if he may have married and had children. Is that so bad?
Obviously you haven't really read "the story" so it speaks volumes that you would be so willy nilly about the ridiculous assertaion of Christ bearing children and marrying.
UL already told you that Jesus was fully man and fully divine, so in addition I would say that God wouldn't marry his own creation and father children with them--what would be the point? Exactly.
Obviously you haven't really read "the story" so it speaks volumes that you would be so willy nilly about the ridiculous assertaion of Christ bearing children and marrying.
UL already told you that Jesus was fully man and fully divine, so in addition I would say that God wouldn't marry his own creation and father children with them--what would be the point? Exactly.--Sadie Lou
Sadie Lou,
I don't think Christ would "bear" children if he were divine or human. It just isn't possible.
And who said anything about God marrying Jesus? And how in heaven would that happen? God marrying his own male creation?
But, according to the story, God did "marry" his creation--Mary. After all, he made her pregnant, didn't he? And she bore his son.
In that case, God did "marry" his creation.
I was raised Catholic. I know the story of Jesus.
When I say "half man and half divine" I mean that two halves make a whole. Okay?
I doubt anything can be a god and a human.
But that's because I don't believe in gods walking the earth.
For me, Jesus was a man who had some good ideas about how people ought to behave toward each other.
Everything else is a myth to me.
how...weird!
Sadie Lou,
I don't think Christ would "bear" children if he were divine or human. It just isn't possible.
uh-huh.
And who said anything about God marrying Jesus? And how in heaven would that happen? God marrying his own male creation?
Mary=God's creation
Jesus=God
God marrying Mary= God marrying His own creation.
see how easy that was?
*wink*
But, according to the story, God did "marry" his creation--Mary. After all, he made her pregnant, didn't he? And she bore his son.
erm. No--that was the Holy Spirit performing a miracle.
In that case, God did "marry" his creation.
uh huh.
I was raised Catholic. I know the story of Jesus.
When I say "half man and half divine" I mean that two halves make a whole. Okay?
Not okay. That's not how it works but anyways...
I doubt anything can be a god and a human.
Yeah, well...doubt is what makes you a non-believer.
For me, Jesus was a man who had some good ideas about how people ought to behave toward each other.
Everything else is a myth to me.
Do you often think liars and lunatics have good ideas about how people should behave towards each other?
For me, Jesus was a man who had some good ideas about how people ought to behave toward each other.
Everything else is a myth to me.--Shaw Kenawe
Do you often think liars and lunatics have good ideas about how people should behave towards each other?--Sadie Lou
Sadie,
You've just implied that Jesus is a liar and lunatic.
As to the Holy Ghost impregnating Mary, according to my Catholic indoctrination, God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one. God-God, Jesus-God, Holy Ghost-God.
So the Holy Ghost-God impregnated Mary.
You are making a distinction without a difference. They are Three in One--Like a Three Muskateer Candy Bar--they can be separated, but it's still a candy bar.
We won't even get into the discussion of how a Holy Ghost-God can impregnate a human being. In that case, we're dealing with supernatural magic tricks. To believe that is to believe in hocus-pocus--a suspension of all the physical laws on Earth.
Once you start that, all bets are off. Once you say a god can perform supernatural acts, then I can tell you I believe a Flying Spaghetti Monster can turn you into a mushroom. Why not?
Shaw...
Sadie,
You've just implied that Jesus is a liar and lunatic.
That's right Shaw. I did. Because if you go around telling people that you are the Son of God when you really are not, then you are either crazy or a liar (or it's true!). Since you believe that Jesus was a real person and that he said some cool stuff about how we should behave towards one another, then I am being reasonable when I ask you, do you often believe that liars or lunatics have some quality things to say about how humans should treat one another? You obviously don't think he was the Son of God, right?
This other business about 'God impregnating a woman' is just wasting my time to discuss with you since you only believe in what you can see with your eyes; Miracles and the Supernatural are out of your grasp.
If you only believe in what you see, how do you prove you love someone?
I can ask you, Shaw, do you love your mom? (assuming you have a mom)
and if you say yes, I can ask you to prove it to me.
Could you prove it to me?
What does Love look like?
This other business about 'God impregnating a woman' is just wasting my time to discuss with you since you only believe in what you can see with your eyes;--Sadie Lou
Miracles and supernaturalism are irrational. What people consider "miracles" can, for the most part, be explained; and if there is no explanation now, science and reason will, in the future explain them. It has been thus since the beginning of time. As humans acquire more knowledge they learn that what they thought was a "miracle" can be rationally explained.
Many years ago, people thought that a gigantic monster in the sky periodically ate the sun. As humans acquired more knowledge, they learned that what they were observing was an eclipse of the sun. No miracle.
In the story of Jesus, God caused Mary to become pregnant--he impregnated her. The story says Mary became pregnant without having intercourse with a man. In those days, that was not possible--except through a "miracle." You have every right to believe that a god sent a "spirit" down to earth and Voila! one of Mary's eggs was fertilized.
But there is nothing in natural science to support this. Each and every human on earth was born from the union of a sperm from a human male and an ovum from a human female. In order to believe the Jesus story, we must abandon this and believe in magic. We must believe that the laws of nature didn't apply to Mary and Jesus. We must believe in fairy tales.
I do not believe in fairy tales.
If you only believe in what you see, how do you prove you love someone?
I don't "prove" I love someone. I can demonstrate my feelings toward someone by my actions. We have five senses, and we perceive the world through them. But if you don't think people "see" love, tell me what it is you see when, for example, someone cares for an elderly parent with Alzheimer's and that elderly parent is abusive, dismissive, and hateful to the child she once adored and cherished--but the child continues to treat the parent with tenderness, consideration and respect. I would say that what you observe is love.
If you only believe in what you see, how do you prove you love someone?
I can ask you, Shaw, do you love your mom? (assuming you have a mom)
and if you say yes, I can ask you to prove it to me.
Could you prove it to me?
What does Love look like?--Sadie Lou
Having no belief in the suspension of natural law and not being able to "see" an emotion are not analagous. One feels emotion and one observes behaviors as a result of the emotions.
Your asking a nonsensical question.
I notice you ignore the questions you can't answer or have painted yourself in into a corner--either way--why should I continue this discussion with you?
If you only believe in what you see, how do you prove you love someone?SL
This is a nonsensical question. It's like being asked to answer "I like peanut butter, do you skate?"
I can ask you, Shaw, do you love your mom? (assuming you have a mom)--SL
My mother is dead.
What does Love look like?--Sadie Lou
Love is an emotion. Actually, science has studied the reaction of the brain when a human feels love, anger, joy, grief, etc. So if you really need to know what "love looks like," I suggest you do research in Scientific American or similar publication. Or you can read about the part of the brain that experiences love, the amygdala.
One actually can "see" love experienced by the brain.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/feel.cfm
So I have answered your questions.
Here's another site that explains the difference between emotions and feelings:
And will further answer your question to me:
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux/the_emotional_brain/book_times_related.htm
Sorry, that url didn't make it completely.
Here it is.
You should educate yourself, Sadie Lou:
http://tinyurl.com/jxswn
And don't get all touchy over that suggestion. We all need to increase our knowledge and understanding. Learning is a life-long process. It should never stop.
Shaw Kenawe:
Before you continue pontificating on the primacy of science, answer me this:
Does natural science understand and prove ALL THINGS? Does natural science have the capacity to understand incorporeal immaterial being? Let me give you an example:
1. the human mind. NOT BRAIN, the HUMAN MIND. Don't bother writing about the brain. You diverted to the brain at another blogsite which skews the issue. You'll have to admit, if you'r honest, that the mind has no material or bodily existence.
2. To make it more clear, explain the substance and shape of an idea in the mind. An idea is a thing, is it not? It exists, doesn't it? If I think of my pet dog, Cassie, what shape and substance is my idea? Answer me that if you can. You will not, I'm sure.
As I have analyzed you explanations and arguments, I conclude that you are either an atheist or agnostic. If an atheist, you assert that God doesn't exist, right? And anything supernatural as fairy tales, right? If that be the case, you must have the capacity to know all things to make such a conclusion. You have to have omniscience to know what is the makeup of the universe and what is not. You do NOT have this capacity as a fellow human. You are simply speaking from your anti-faith and have zero credibility here, if this is your argument.
As an agnostic, if you suggest God exists, but we cannot know him, why is that? What knowledge do you possess about Deity or human beings that brings you to this conclusion? You refute yourself if you assert we cannot know God, for you must possess some knowledge about God's capacities, or better, incapacities to communicate with us due to our human nature. Shaw, either as an atheist, or an agnostic, your reliance on natural science as "proof" is nonsensical.
Therefore, when you take this anti-supernatural scientific presuppositions into the historical record, you disprove nothing. What you prove is your prejudice. You prejudge the impossibility of the supernatural based on science. Nothing could be more absurd.
Shaw,
Those were not the questions that you dodged. This was:
That's right Shaw. I did. Because if you go around telling people that you are the Son of God when you really are not, then you are either crazy or a liar (or it's true!). Since you believe that Jesus was a real person and that he said some cool stuff about how we should behave towards one another, then I am being reasonable when I ask you, do you often believe that liars or lunatics have some quality things to say about how humans should treat one another? You obviously don't think he was the Son of God, right?
You do that a lot. If there is a series of back and forth conversation, you drop the points that have corned you and move on to points you feel a little better about. It's kind of annoying.
Does natural science understand and prove ALL THINGS? Does natural science have the capacity to understand incorporeal immaterial being?--UL
Science does not deal with incorporeal immaterial beings (I'm assuming by "beings" you mean incorporeal human beings.) That is the realm of supernaturalism, and science doesn't have an opinion on it. That what religionists deal in.
Without the human brain, there is no human mind. Science has shown that when certain parts of the human brain are stimulated, all sorts of thoughts, memories, feelings, emotions, sensations are induced. You would have no ideas or thoughts without a brain.
Medical science defines the mind as this:
mind (mnd)
n.
1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.
Aristotle and St. Thomas, I believe, connected the "mind" with the "soul." That was before science began to understand and had some insight into how the brain functions. Aristotle and St. Thomas didn't know anything about brain function.
An idea is a thought or conception that occurs as a result of a brain function. Without a brain there is no "idea" of your puppy dog.
You want me to tell you what an idea is?
I haven't the time to type out all there is in scientific literature about that. You want a simple explanation? There isn't one. But you could start here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/electric.html
and here:
http://www.web-us.com/brainwavesfunction.htm
http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/
Science doesn't know all there is to know about brain function, but it discovers new truths every day.
As an agnostic, if you suggest God exists, but we cannot know him, why is that? What knowledge do you possess about Deity or human beings that brings you to this conclusion? You refute yourself if you assert we cannot know God, for you must possess some knowledge about God's capacities, or better, incapacities to communicate with us due to our human nature. Shaw, either as an atheist, or an agnostic, your reliance on natural science as "proof" is nonsensical.
I can very easily turn this around and put the onus on you:
As an theist, if you suggest God exists, but we cannot know him, why is that?
UL, you've often told me that we cannot "know" God, that he moves in mysterious ways. Why is that?
What knowledge do you possess about Deity or human beings that brings you to this conclusion?--UL
same question to you.
You refute yourself if you assert we cannot know God,--UL
No, UL, you have told me we cannot "know" God, he's bigger than anything we can know. You have told me this.
for you must possess some knowledge about God's capacities, or better, incapacities to communicate with us due to our human nature.
You're putting words in my mouth here. I've never, never stated this. I have no opinion about a god's capacities or incapacities, because I. DO. NOT. BELIEVE. IN. SUPERNATURALISM. Okay?
Shaw, either as an atheist, or an agnostic, your reliance on natural science as "proof" is nonsensical.--UL
What are you saying here? Proof of what? I don't rely on science to prove or disprove the existence of god. AGAIN: SCIENCE DEALS WITH THE NATURAL WORLD, NOT THE SUPERNATURAL--Science has no opinion on whether or not gods exist. Why can't you understand this?
Therefore, when you take this anti-supernatural scientific presuppositions into the historical record, you disprove nothing.--UL
That has absolutely no meaning to me. What are you saying here? What? What do you mean by "anti-supernatural scientific presuppositions?" And what historical record are you talking about.
What you prove is your prejudice. You prejudge the impossibility of the supernatural based on science. Nothing could be more absurd.
And do you not have "prejudice" when you state that supernatural beings created the world and everything in it and have an influence in our daily lives?
Sir, I can say the same to you. You are prejudiced against the possibility that there is no god.
"...the impossibility of the supernatural based on science. Nothing could be more absurd.--UL
By this statement, you've just proclaimed scientific knowledge is absurd.
You're welcome to your god and your view of the world, and I'll stick with mine. Thank you.
Shaw:
When I say incorporeal immaterial being, I'm talking about metaphysics, being as being, not just human beings, any thing that has being. An idea has being, mind has being--mind exists. It has no shape, it has no body. So your discussion as to the source of mind from the human brain is well and good, and I don't disagree; but it is besides the point. Plus,, scientists haven't disproven the existence of soul yet. They wouldn't know where to begin.
2. You could put the onus on me, but then, but then are you going to concede to me that you cannot show how supernaturalism is fairy tales and magic?
3. To say we know God and what He consists of is to say that of Himself in entirety, and I would agree it is impossible for finite creatures to know or apprehend an immortal, infinite and eternal being. However, I never said that we cannot know him at all. I'm not an agnostic. We can know him in part, mostly through faith in revelation, and partly through reason, mainly metaphysics. Aquinas holds to this, and I tend to lean on him.
However, I will put the onus back on you. For it is YOU that declares that supernaturalism is fairy tails and magic. Not me. Therefore, prove it. Show how this is the case, other than "this is what you believe." Phooey! Tell me what is the authoritative means by which you come to such a conclusion.
4. As to my stating that you refute yourself since you must by necessity know God well enough to say He is incapable to communicate with us--is an inference based on if your were an agnostic. I put the two options you have up for you to comment on, either you are an atheist or an agnostic. In either camp, you refute yourself. I wasn't tryin to quote you, I was trying to anticipate either option you may hold.
5. Your appeal to natural science in response to Sadie Lou was the basis of my comments to you. You are banking on science to give explanation to the things we Christians call miracles. You assume they don't exist and that science will prove them to have natural causes. This shows me you put great faith in the scientific method. However, since science cannot disprove the existence of God, nor will they try, how can you be so sure that science will explain away supernaturalism? To do that would be begging the question, it would be proving what it already asserts.
6. Shaw, it is plain you don't understand logic. You simply don't. This is nothing personal to you; this isn't saying your stupid. Not knowing something is not an indictment on your value as a human being. I would never say that to you because I don't believe it. I like it when you come on my blog. You know how to express yourself well, you are passionate about what you think. You are articulate about what you feel and think. But, you cannot analyze arguments. You don't recognize fallacies nor are you that concerned if you commit them.
I am certain you are very capable to learn and use logic, but you don't. So when you and I disagree, you misunderstand what I'm trying to say to you almost 98% of the time. You think I'm being arrogant or whatever comes to your mind. Therefore, we just do not communicate. If I point out a fallacy, you are unphased and then you counter with more of the same, or you'll post URL's or place copy of articles that you think supports what you say.
It's all in the arguments themselves. There are rules to logic that are cut and dried. I don't make them up. Case in point, you want to put the onus on me to show how we can know God. That's fine, but it deviates from the point that YOU made earlier, that supernaturalism is fairy tales and magic. If you want me to take on the burden of proof, I'd be willing. But in the case of defending your argument, you'd have to concede to me that you cannot show how supernaturalism IS nothing but fairy tales.
So, are you going to concede?
2. You could put the onus on me, but then, but then are you going to concede to me that you cannot show how supernaturalism is fairy tales and magic?--UL
Supernaturalism is what it says it is--outside the natural world. You cannot prove a "spirit," "angel," or "god" exists because it is outside the natural world. There is nothing you can tell me that proves supernaturalism is a reality. Therefore I don't have to concede anything.
We can know him in part, mostly through faith in revelation, and partly through reason, mainly metaphysics. Aquinas holds to this, and I tend to lean on him.--UL
I can know nothing through "faith." Only through evidence, observation, and analysis. Faith is a belief in something without any evidence, and metaphysics is a priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. So I don't care about metaphysical arguments. They're meaningless to me.
However, I will put the onus back on you. For it is YOU that declares that supernaturalism is fairy tails and magic.--UL
Not just me, but the scientific community.
Not me. Therefore, prove it. Show how this is the case, other than "this is what you believe." Phooey! Tell me what is the authoritative means by which you come to such a conclusion.
Let's talk about one kind of supernaturalism, transubstantiation.
It does not happen. Molecules of bread and wine do not magically change into blood and flesh just because a priest says some words over them. Period. And forget about the arguments on "inner reality" and "accidents." That's not what an scanning electron microscope will show. And what the electron microscope shows is real. Real. Declaring that bread and wine turns into blood and flesh is supernaturalism. And it's false.
I'll have to come back to your other points. I'm in the process of moving.
I put the two options you have up for you to comment on, either you are an atheist or an agnostic. In either camp, you refute yourself. I wasn't trying to quote you, I was trying to anticipate either option you may hold.--UL
Don't label me. I am neither of the above--atheist nor agnostic. If you need to understand my position, I'm a nontheist--a person without a belief in a god. That is not the same as saying there is no god, [atheist] or that there may be or may not be a god, I just don't know [agnostic]. I have no belief in a god.
This shows me you put great faith in the scientific method. However, since science cannot disprove the existence of God, nor will they try, how can you be so sure that science will explain away supernaturalism? To do that would be begging the question, it would be proving what it already asserts.--UL
Yes, I do have great confidence [not faith] in the scientific method. Faith is the belief in something with no evidence. The scientific method demands testing, proofs, evidence. Science does not have to prove anything about supernaturalism--it has no interest in it. Science deals in reality.
Shaw:
HOW CONVENIENT!!!!!!!
You get to say whatever you want about supernaturalism and then state that science has no means to prove or disprove. Do you care to know which fallacy this is?
SPECIAL PLEADING
Do you care to know why your special pleading is so absurd? Or are you going to continue wasting precious bytes? Look it up. I'm not wasting my time with you.
YOU MAKE THE ASSERTION THAT SUPERNATURALISM IS FAIRY TALES. YOU PROVE THIS ASSERTION!
Until you do, I will not read your comments. Your comments are superfluous and a waste of time.
I LOVE JESUS!
I just have to hop in here...
"Faith is a belief in something without any evidence..." - shaw
For the record, that is not necessarily the case. Faith actually is more based off of what we already know and have experienced. For example,I can have faith in the chair in which I sit not to break. I could have either sat in this chair before, studied the design of it, or seen someone else sit in it. However, that doesn't mean that it WILL ALWAYS support my weight because I've seen these things. It could very well break under me, but I still take my chances.
So when I see a different chair, what I already know and have experienced becomes the evidence on which my faith stands on.
I hope that was as clear as I was hoping it to be. haha
George Orwell once wrote:
"We human beings are capable of convincing ourselves of something that's not true long after the accumulated evidence would convince any reasonable person that it is wrong."
Pretty much sums up religion.
Nero Wolfe once said, "Phooey!"
Post a Comment
<< Home