|
Religious debate on Jews/Passion of the Christ (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
See, I would disagree somewhat :). Given the nature of the forum, I think less emphasis is placed upon the respect of beliefs so much as it's placed upon rational judgements derived from a series of facts or argumentative stipulations.
Therefore, one could argue that the "entitlement" of opinion can ONLY be excercised once all rational discussion and debate have been exhausted. So in conclusion, it is our duty to be a pain in the ass? |
Yes, but there's a difference between shutting someone up using evidence to support your claim and making them look like a fool for placing themselves in a situation where they can only be proved wrong, and telling someone repeatedly to "go away". To each his own though I suppose.
| quote: | | The title makes me want to kill someone. It's so irritating how stupid they are :p |
:D And since I usually agree with you, I'm just not going to step a click into that thread! :) Better off simply avoiding things that are without a doubt going to irritate me, correct? :tongue2 |
|
|
| Frode |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
We can invoke semantics to dance around the truth of any issue, but in the end, all that really matters is the evidence which you use to back up your claim. Phrases like "superior to time" or "transcending time and space" have no physical or logical meaning. They simply constitute the use of incomprehensible language in the blind hope that nonbelievers will go "duh? Well, I don't understand it but I'll take your word for it."
|
It's the semantics of the bible. You have to understand them in order to understand the meaning of the bible. Modern semantics confuse the meaning.
In modern physics, there are theories that try to explain certain phenomena (or is it phenomenons?) and those theories are accepted until they are either proven or disproven. Same with religion. Nobody tries to explain lightning with religion anymore, don't even start with that, but it tries to explain what might happen when you're dead, for example. It's philosophical.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
But why you use the inconceivable to explain things when the conceivable and known work perfectly fine? We know what time and space are, and we know what happens when people die. So why invoke the supernatural? There's no reason to assume that anything happens when we die other than the inevitable environmental decay and recycling of the matter and energy in our bodies. It's true that animals have an instinct for self-preservation, but I think the emotional "fear" of death is something which is created by, not consoled by, most major religions.
The problem is that we don't "imagine" things in categories of space and time, we know that they exist and understand most of their properties. What rational person would willingly accept that there is any plane of existence where all known laws can suddenly be broken?
If you can't give scientific evidence or at least logical rationale, then your argument has no relevance to this debate.
|
Doesn't create this uncertainty about what happens when you die the actual fear of death? Heinz said he knows that he'll go to heaven when he dies, and he is not afraid.
There is a scientific theory that describes the universe as a soccer ball. It is a sphere with polygons. If you try to "leave" the universe on one side of the sphere, through a polygon, you reappear on the opposite side of the sphere, through a polygon. This theory cannot be explained in dimensions of space and time. You can compare it to my 2-d example, when you put a 2-d inhabitant on a sphere. It's a similar thing.
Different example:
Please explain the two-slit experiment with electrons (quantum mechanics). Why do electrons act like waves when we don't know which slit they passed (interference pattern), but act like particles if we do know their path? As far as I know it is impossible to explain with rational thinking, yet it happens. We can calculate the probability where the electron will hit, but we can't explain why.
Does the conceivable and known work perfectly fine? It works perfectly fine, but it is not conceivable.
My point is, that even in modern science, there are things that cannot be understood with logic and rational thinking but they still happen and people create theories to explain them.
These examples (just like the 2-d example) are not supposed to show that impossible things happen because of god or something supernatural. What I'm trying to say is that rational thinking cannot always explain the world.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
This is true, the lack of proof of a positive does not constitute proof of the negative. I never said it did (which is more than the average Creationist can say in his or her defense).
However - and keeping in mind that this was originally intended to be about the after-life and not God - the fact that the very notion of God is a logical paradox and that no theory or hypothesis exists which can account for it, generally WOULD mean that there is no God, at least in the scientific world.
|
That is true, since god does not consist of matter. He does not exist in the material world. This is the materialistic undestanding of the world (see Feuerbach: "If reality is material reality, and if god is spiritual, there is no god because there is no spiritual world." ; Marx based his religious criticism on Feuerbach - just for your information). Christians accept the supernatural, you don't.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I do not believe that there are any reputable scientists who have postulated that there are "dimensions which we can't access" - if you are referring to things like hypercubes and supercubes, they are merely mathematical constructs and are not meant to reflect anything in the physical world.
|
See example above, although I don't know if it is legit.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
There is no such thing as a world in 2D. I've heard religious people use this argument all the time but it falls flat on its face in the first sentence! Physical dimensions are merely a mathematical model for a well-understood physical reality.
|
Hence I introduced my example with the word "imagine".
See above.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Mathematically speaking, it is flagrantly fallacious to truncate an existing set into a smaller subset and attempt to use that truncation as proof that the original universal set was truncated off of a larger set. This is precisely what you've attempted to do. Of COURSE 3D objects appear flattened when projected onto a 2D surface - but that's not evidence for claiming that the 3D objects we see are "flattened" from a 4D universe. It's merely a fantasy, a philosophical masturbation. A 2D universe cannot physically exist any more than a 4D universe can - even the ink that comes out of your pen when you draw on a piece of paper has some thickness.
|
Yes. Philosophy.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
To the contrary of your argument though, we have already seen that it is possible to create in 2 dimensions depictions of objects which simply cannot exist in 3.
It therefore makes sense that we are capable of creating constructs in 3 dimensions that can't exist in higher dimensions, and in fact, when you consider time to be the 4th dimension, that is exactly what you are doing with the afterlife - using the flattened 4th dimension to imply a physical reality which is impossible when we attempt to re-add that 4th dimension and extrapolate the construct into real space and time.
|
No! Afterlife is no physical reality! It has nothing to do with space and time. It means completion of the human personality or not.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Claiming that time ceases to exist in a spiritual plane requires the reduction of a real dimension to a singularity, and no cosmologist, physicist, or mathematician will tell you that such a thing would actually be possible. I cannot imagine living in a 4-dimensional plane any more than I can imagine living in a 2-dimensional plane (is there anyone here who can actually imagine being a cartoon character on a TV screen or a piece of paper?)
No evidence = no argument. ;)
To summarize, you're trying to expound on a theory for which we haven't accepted the initial postulates. People grow so accustomed to such fallacious theories that they start to treat those postulates as axiomatic and assume that other people must therefore also accept them. But no matter how much you explain and embellish your theory, it still rests squarely on the shoulders of a belief in God and the existence of the supernatural, and it's not going to make any sense to people who don't believe in it to begin with. The postulates are paradoxical and untestable, and thus are not going to be accepted by anyone with a rational mind.
|
I agree. If you don't believe in god or the supernatural, it doesn't work.
Again about the rational mind: it can't conceive quantum mechanics either. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
That really is quite a silly proof for an argument. Here, I'll do the same thing with my claim that God does not exist:
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,'says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic
- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 6, p. 42 |
***writes down book on list of books to read in future***
| quote: | | Look ma! I can argue like a creationist too! |
How proud you must be!:haha: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Allow me to at least try to throw this topic in another direction.
(Note the emphasis on the word "try")
Something kinda bothers me about Gibson's motives here. I understand his desire and faith, which obviously is likely the primary reason for him creating the movie. However, I tend to wonder if Gibson is really doing this for God's glory.
Because if it is truly for His glory (and not Gibson's), wouldn't it be more appropriate to take the $ from ticket sales and give it to a charitable cause? Wouldn't that be more appropriate in celebration of God's Glory?
Just a thought I've been mulling over. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frode
Different example:
Please explain the two-slit experiment with electrons (quantum mechanics). Why do electrons act like waves when we don't know which slit they passed (interference pattern), but act like particles if we do know their path? As far as I know it is impossible to explain with rational thinking, yet it happens. We can calculate the probability where the electron will hit, but we can't explain why.
Does the conceivable and known work perfectly fine? It works perfectly fine, but it is not conceivable.
...
I agree. If you don't believe in god or the supernatural, it doesn't work.
Again about the rational mind: it can't conceive quantum mechanics either. |
There's not much you've said that I can disagree with, since it seems like you're conceding that things like God and an Afterlife are merely matters of imagination and have no rational basis. It's a matter of belief. Thus, by those principles, I could choose to believe that hell is in fact a midget headbutting you in the groin for all eternity, and it would be just as valid using your stated principles.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and as long as you are rationally consistent in your beliefs (i.e. you admit that everyone can believe anything and that there does not have to be a rational or logical basis for beliefs), then that's fine.
However, I AM violently opposed to your attempted use of well-known quantum mechanical principles as examples of the existence of the supernatural. Allow me to take apart this "argument from ignorance":
First of all, you've left out two very important characteristics that differentiate a scientific theory from a religious belief, which are:
1. Scientific theories model real behaviour in a repeatable or predictable fashion.
2. Scientific theories are testable and falsifiable, that is they are able to be proven wrong given the results of certain experiments.
God has neither predictable behaviour nor falsifiability, thus it fails instantly as a scientific theory. It's what we call a catchall argument, which means it can be used to prove one thing and at the same time be used to prove its negative. The Afterlife as you are attempting to describe it is also a mystical, untestable hypothesis, thus it cannot be accepted on any rational grounds.
I am not familiar with the "soccer ball universe" you speak of and I don't think it's an established scientific theory. What you're talking about sounds vaguely like wormholes and black holes/white holes, but if that's what you're talking about, then it's been grossly misstated.
As for your dual-slit experiment, what you are referring to is wave-particle duality and this is a WELL UNDERSTOOD scientific phenomenon. EVERY particle acts like a wave - even, for example, a tennis ball - the difference is that the tennis ball is so massive compared to an electron that its wavelength is far too long to exhibit any visible behaviour. But the duality principle HAS been demonstrated for particles other than electrons - scientists have used larger molecules to model the exact same behaviour.
The principle is surprisingly simple when you understand a bit of statistics. If we take a completely free electron, i.e. we have no idea where it is in space, we see that it can be assigned any energy or velocity. However, when its energy is constrained to a potential well - the most common textbook example being the ideal 1-D "bounded box" - we see that its position takes on a perfect probability wave function. That is, it will exhibit a sine wave function between the potential "walls" that represents the probability of it being in that particular position (actually, the position probability is the square of the wave function). Various mathematical manipulations can also be used to obtain the momentum, energy, etc. from this wave function.
This isn't a demonstration of a lack of knowledge. It is the fundamental basis for random processes which we see every day. What most people are taught in high school about wave-particle duality is not the whole story; those particles aren't literally waves in the sense that they don't exist as particles - they are particles that actually travel in wave form. They are regular particles whose properties are predictable by a probability distribution function (wave function).
This is why you see a dispersion pattern in the dual-slit experiment; it is a direct application of this wave function. By constraining the position of particles to a very small range, the wave nature of their position and momentum becomes obvious as they are projected onto a dispersion screen - the dispersion pattern matches exactly that of a sine wave. Why? Because probability functions "fill out" as the number of sample points approaches infinity. This is perfectly logical, modellable, testable, and repeatable behaviour.
But just to add further insult to injury, this theory actually has practical applications! Maybe you haven't realized this, but quantum mechanics is not just a theoretical field anymore, it has been the basis for the application of many phenomenon such as quantum tunneling and avalanche photodiodes (i.e. the backlight you see on many LCDs!). These are direct applications of quantum mechanics and make no sense according to the principles of classical mechanics. Why? Because classical mechanics is two hundred years old! Matter on a quantum level does not follow its laws, which only work on a macro scale. But taking this to mean that quantum mechanics is somehow "supernatural" or "beyond our grasp" is utterly ridiculous! This entire example is simply a very well-worded form of the classic argument from ignorance (I don't understand it, therefore there must be a supernatural element to it).
Hope that clears things up! Sorry for the boring science lecture everyone, but that one really got me worked up!
|
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Allow me to at least try to throw this topic in another direction.
(Note the emphasis on the word "try")
Something kinda bothers me about Gibson's motives here. I understand his desire and faith, which obviously is likely the primary reason for him creating the movie. However, I tend to wonder if Gibson is really doing this for God's glory.
Because if it is truly for His glory (and not Gibson's), wouldn't it be more appropriate to take the $ from ticket sales and give it to a charitable cause? Wouldn't that be more appropriate in celebration of God's Glory?
Just a thought I've been mulling over. |
well..it says somewhere in the bible that u should give 10% of ur income for those less fortunate and since this movie is his job then he should give 10% of his income to charity..if not then he is a hypocrate..though i am sure he will |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
well..it says somewhere in the bible that u should give 10% of ur income for those less fortunate and since this movie is his job then he should give 10% of his income to charity..if not then he is a hypocrate..though i am sure he will |
Verse? That is interesting if true. Is 10% considered the rule of thumb for charity giving for Christians? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
***writes down book on list of books to read in future***
|
You've never read it??? Shame on you! :whip:
I swear, every single day the world looks more and more alike the universe envisioned by adams :haha: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Verse? That is interesting if true. Is 10% considered the rule of thumb for charity giving for Christians? |
Matthew Chapter 57 23:45
The formulae for giveth is as follows:
A = .1(x)(y)^2
Whereby amount A is determined by 10% times salary X multiplied by the desired lodging in heaven quotient Y. If ye giveth less than A you are forever damned. Proper, timely payment however will ensure that the gates of heaven are open to you. This is the word of the lord. And there are no contradictions. |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Verse? That is interesting if true. Is 10% considered the rule of thumb for charity giving for Christians? |
i dont remember where it was but i remember it for some reason..i am pretty sure thats what it is..i can look more into it.. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Matthew Chapter 57 23:45
The formulae for giveth is as follows:
A = .1(x)(y)^2
Whereby amount A is determined by 10% times salary X multiplied by the desired lodging in heaven quotient Y. If ye giveth less than A you are forever damned. Proper, timely payment however will ensure that the gates of heaven are open to you. This is the word of the lord. And there are no contradictions. |
Alright, now you're crackin' my up! Would you stop it for just a second and give this chap a chance?
You're terrible.:D |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Hey, let's hear a perspective from a lefty for a change:
| quote: | 'The Passion' of the Americans
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 27 February 2004
The television airwaves have been filled for the last several days with a lot of back-and-forth about Mel Gibson's new film, 'The Passion of The Christ.' A great deal of debate centers around whether Gibson has fashioned a broadside against Jewish people in the manner of the Medieval anti-Semitic passion plays of old. There are plenty of rabbis arguing with Christian ministers on just about any channel you might choose to watch, so I'm going to leave that question to them for the time being.
My question is much simpler: Why would Mel Gibson make a movie about people in the ancient Middle East and cast it with so many white people? To look at the central actors in this film, you'd think Jesus did his work near Manchester, New Hampshire instead of the Holy Land. The answer to that question lies within the United States, the prime market for this film. There are millions of Christians in America, some 25% of whom would characterize themselves as evangelical. It stands to reason that this film would do very well here, especially given the controversy that has surrounded the content.
The whiteness of the cast, however, speaks to a decidedly un-Christian truth that lies near the heart of this republic. Simply put, nailing a white Jesus Christ to the cross on film will generate a far more emotional response from the American viewing public than the crucifixion of a savior who actually looks like he is from the Middle East.
First, let's dispense with the idea that the white people who were cast to play the most emotive characters - Jesus, Judas, and Mary Magdalene - have anything to do with historical accuracy. In truth, the region where Jesus was born was, and remains, populated by brown-skinned people. The fact of Christ's non-whiteness is borne out in the historical record, and in biblical scripture. Right off the bat, the Book of Matthew describes Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Egypt is in Africa, and is populated by brown-skinned people. For my money, this would be the last place on earth I would go to hide a white baby from an angry King.
The earliest renditions of Jesus, painted by the first Christians called Essenes in the catacombs of Rome, depict a person with brown skin. During the time of Roman Emperor Justinian II, a gold coin featuring an image of Jesus was minted. This coin, which today can be seen in the British Museum, depicts a man with demonstrably non-white features and tightly curled hair. Finally, there is the Book of Revelations, which bears out the crafting of the Essenes and the Roman coin-makers by describing Jesus as having hair like wool, feet the color of burnt brass, and who resembled jasper and sardine stones. Jasper and sardine stones are both brown, as is burnt brass.
The Jesus most familiar to Americans, the Jesus featured in Gibson's film, looks like the front man for an alternative rock band out of Minnesota. Judas in this film is a shorter version of the same phenomenon. White skin, long straight brown hair, decidedly European features - this is not the Jesus that preached revolution against the Empire long ago. This is the Jesus fashioned by Michelangelo five centuries ago, who used his white cousin as the model for the savior.
The ugly truth which never even occurs to most Americans is that Jesus looked a lot more like an Iraqi, like an Afghani, like a Palestinian, like an Arab, than any of the paintings which grace the walls of American churches from sea to shining sea. This was an uncomfortable fact before September 11. After the attack, it became almost a moral imperative to put as much distance between Americans and people from the Middle East as possible. Now, to suggest that Jesus shared a genealogical heritage and physical similarity to the people sitting in dog cages down in Guantanamo is to dance along the edge of treason.
George W. Bush calls himself Christian. If you believe him, he is on armchair-to-armchair relations with the Almighty, enjoying regular conversations with He Is What He Is on everything from tax policy to invasion plans. Bush serves a unique dual role as both the Commander in Chief and as high priest to the evangelical wing of American Christianity.
When Bush did his little flight-suit strut across the aircraft carrier last May, he proclaimed victory in biblical verse and sent a signal to those Christians who see him as more than a man. Bush, that day, quoted Isaiah's passage from the Servant Songs about captives coming out and slaves being free. This is the same passage, as described in Luke chapter 4, which Jesus used to announce his coming as the Son of God. "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing," said Jesus. Bush's use of this incredibly loaded passage speaks as much to his messianic fantasies as it does to his status as Christian-in-Chief.
Yet this is the same man who invades countries without cause and consigns tens of thousands of innocents to explosive, burning death. This is the same man who pushes tax policies that further enrich the wealthy while stripping funds and services from the neediest in this nation. This is the man who speaks the language of vengeance, of fear, of violence. This is the man whose entire moral existence flies in the face of Christ's words from Luke, chapter 12, verse 15: "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possessions." Sadly, the skewed moral compass of George W. Bush is shared by too many Americans who would call themselves Christian.
Possibly the most important words ever spoken by Jesus can be found in Matthew, chapter 5, verses 38-45. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'" said Christ. "But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
It is these words that condemn both Bush and the hands-off moral attitude of too many American Christians. Certainly, Jesus was no fool. In Luke, chapter 11, verse 21, he said, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." Self-protection, for person and nation, is both moral and intelligent. But vengeance, violence and hatred are not Christian. Mercy, love and generosity are the hallmarks of the teachings of Jesus. If you are to call yourself Christian, you must be for the poor and the weak, and against empire and vengeance. Period.
These simple attributes are all too absent in the American soul and spirit. Gibson's white Jesus is but one example of how far we have strayed. It is a safe bet that, had Gibson chosen a brown-skinned actor to portray Jesus, his film would not find a connection in this country. Millions of Americans try to live by the teachings of Jesus, and do so with success, but find themselves at odds with those who carry the banner of Christianity. This is a travesty.
Too many so-called Christians are blind to history, blind to the actions of our nation, blind to the hypocrisy of our so-called leaders, and the world bleeds because of it. Too many so-called Christians are people who would slaughter the savior to protect their power and position. Were Jesus alive today, he would probably nail himself to the cross to get away from all these people who act like barbarians in His name.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022704A.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
|
