are the gracies religious?

[Balto]

Basically, if you can accept that supernatural things are indeed possible sometimes, the argument for Christianity suddenly gets really strong.

If you cannot accept that such things are indeed possible sometimes, it fails at that point every time. And it ultimately rolls up to belief in a God, because God pretty much by definition is supernatural.

 

[Hyperborean]

With the Alexander example, I probably was not clear enough. I agree with you that modern history methods always toss out the supernatural as possible explanations. So I can't point to any figures that would be accepted as such.

So we can then agree that historians are not being unfair towards Jesus in this manner, given their, what shall we call it, secular non magical criteria?

My point was rather that if you don't automatically toss out such explanations, you will start seeing evidence for these things. It's just a matter of whether or not you choose to toss them out.

Now the special pleading part was a very keen observation. I can see how things appear that way from how this discussion has gone. But let me explain why it is not a case of special pleading.

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Christians do not believe Jesus is the only person who ever had any supernatural powers. In fact, Christianity basically requires that you believe many people have been able to do these things. The prophets in the Old Testament were able to do supernatural things like part the sea. The apostles were able to do supernatural things immediately after Jesus's death. And all of the saints that came afterwards have had to do miracles in order to become saints.

There is also nothing in Christianity that says someone like Julius Caesar could not have had supernatural powers either. There is nothing in the Bible that strictly limits them to only Christians. As previously noted, there is the belief that there can be evil miracles too. But there would be nothing really to indicate that the miracles attributed to Caesar are good or evil necessarily. I am not super familiar with his miracles, but there is nothing about Christianity that says I should not be open to the possibility. So the supernatural claims are not a case of special pleading. Christians accept many cases of supernatural events occurring in people other than Jesus.

Well it seems you are right. In your case it is not a case of special pleading since you would accept magical claims from non Christian agents. To be honest that was not the answer I expected, so fair play to you. I do have a couple of follow up questions. Does actual magic exist today? Both Christian and non Christian? If so, who "grants" these things, God and/or Satan? Or how does that work?

The reasons why Jesus is considered God are several. First, he explicitly claimed to be the Son of God. Then he said that he would prove it to people. Then he pulled off one of the biggest miracles ever attested to by resurrecting from the dead in three days.

I don

 

[Hyperborean]

Basically, if you can accept that supernatural things are indeed possible sometimes, the argument for Christianity suddenly gets really strong.

If you cannot accept that such things are indeed possible sometimes, it fails at that point every time. And it ultimately rolls up to belief in a God, because God pretty much by definition is supernatural.

No it would not get real strong, it would get slightly stronger. But that is also true for every other religion that makes magical claims, not just for Christianity. But that thing of accepting the supernatural is NOT a small thing. It

 

[Balto]

No it would not get real strong, it would get slightly stronger. But that is also true for every other religion that makes magical claims, not just for Christianity. But that thing of accepting the supernatural is NOT a small thing. It

 

[Hyperborean]

The one religion compared to another religion stuff is mostly argued using the normal secular methods of argument if you are going to have that debate. You don't have to appeal to faith nearly as much. So I find that is a lot easier to do.

I agree with you that it is not a little hump. Hence why these things tend to end there.

Ok, well I think that will be a debate for another day. But I do think we are making progress, could you answer the questions I posted in my other reply?

 

[Balto]

For the questions about magic:

I guess it depends on how you define magic. I would say that I believe that sometimes things occur that just don't really have a good explanation that we can come up with. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look. I love science. But I am saying that sometimes we can't come up with the answers just yet.

That doesn't mean we won't come up with the answer eventually. A lot of things that were once considered miracles can now be explained by science. I think that is normal though. Christianity does not hinge on not being able to explain things by science, so this is not a God of the Gaps argument. God of the Gaps was actually a term invented by a Christian as something we should avoid.

Even if somehow we could explain Jesus's resurrection scientifically (I am not hopeful here, but who knows), I don't think it would change his message at all. He said that he was the Son of God, and then he did something to prove it that was so advanced we haven't been able to replicate anything like it 2000 years later. Even if say, in the year 3000, we figure out how to resurrect people in three days, the fact that Jesus was able to do it back in 30 AD would be enough proof for me. So I am not worried that science will catch up.

As things stand now, I believe sometimes things happen that are miraculous even in the present day. As to who works them, the ultimate answer is God. God works even routine things that science can explain, so he should also work miracles too. Evil things that happen that way exist for the same reason God allows evil people to exist. You can't be good without evil, so we get to use our free will to choose.

People doing magical things against God exists in the Bible. Pharaoh's magicians are able to match some of Moses's miracles. Why would God allow that? Again Christians would say that was just part of his plan.

 

[Hyperborean]

For the questions about magic:

I guess it depends on how you define magic. I would say that I believe that sometimes things occur that just don't really have a good explanation that we can come up with. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look. I love science. But I am saying that sometimes we can't come up with the answers just yet.

That doesn't mean we won't come up with the answer eventually. A lot of things that were once considered miracles can now be explained by science. I think that is normal though. Christianity does not hinge on not being able to explain things by science, so this is not a God of the Gaps argument. God of the Gaps was actually a term invented by a Christian as something we should avoid.

Even if somehow we could explain Jesus's resurrection scientifically (I am not hopeful here, but who knows), I don't think it would change his message at all. He said that he was the Son of God, and then he did something to prove it that was so advanced we haven't been able to replicate anything like it 2000 years later. Even if say, in the year 3000, we figure out how to resurrect people in three days, the fact that Jesus was able to do it back in 30 AD would be enough proof for me. So I am not worried that science will catch up.

As things stand now, I believe sometimes things happen that are miraculous even in the present day. As to who works them, the ultimate answer is God. God works even routine things that science can explain, so he should also work miracles too. Evil things that happen that way exist for the same reason God allows evil people to exist. You can't be good without evil, so we get to use our free will to choose.

People doing magical things against God exists in the Bible. Pharaoh's magicians are able to match some of Moses's miracles. Why would God allow that? Again Christians would say that was just part of his plan.

And do we also agree on Jesus not being treated unfairly by historians and scholars? Given their non magical criteria?

But ok, so magic exists, in some form, and it does so even today. Ok good. Then there is a phenomenon that could be studied, then we should study it and if we could find evidence of it it would somewhat strengthen your position. But would you also agree then that if no such thing is found, it weakens your position? (I will not say defeats your position since it is possible that some "magic" stuff could exit that scientists had not thought off or thought of a way to test).

One more thing though. I assume you don

 

[Balto]

And do we also agree on Jesus not being treated unfairly by historians and scholars? Given their non magical criteria?

But ok, so magic exists, in some form, and it does so even today. Ok good. Then there is a phenomenon that could be studied, then we should study it and if we could find evidence of it it would somewhat strengthen your position. But would you also agree then that if no such thing is found, it weakens your position? (I will not say defeats your position since it is possible that some "magic" stuff could exit that scientists had not thought off or thought of a way to test).

One more thing though. I assume you don

 

[miscend]

says a lot about a person so I'm interested

Right like Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela.

Can't believe you hate people for being religious. It really doesn't matter at all what religion someone is.

 

[Hyperborean]

Yes, we agree on the first point. I don't think historians are singling out Jesus or anything. According to the modern rules, they have no choice but to throw it out.

I am just pointing out the inherent flaw of using a system that automatically discards the supernatural result no matter what. No surprise there that the system always finds the supernatural result false someway, somehow. If you just relax that constraint, suddenly the exact same system starts finding very different results.

It is not a flaw. It is security measure and a good one. Those restrains should not be loosened. If we did we can throw out the whole scientific method and that method has proven itself to be the best way we have come up with to aquire knowledge (best method so far at least). But noone is restraining it from the "supernatural" realms. Science has tested, and continue to test all sorts of claims that we can

 

[seatea]

I think it is mostly a matter of numbers.

The majority of Christians in the world are Roman Catholic, so that is >50% right there. The Roman Catholic Church believes in evolution and science.

There is also a large number of Orthodox Christians. They have very similar beliefs to Catholics on most issues.

The other large group is Protestant. This can be a mixed bag, but most Protestant denominations also believe in evolution and science. Some don't, and those are the ones that tend to get picked out in these discussions.

What about changes over time? These differences are even greater it seems than those between modern denominations. Were Christians from previous centuries practicing an 'incorrect' form, even thought those beliefs would have been more homogenous than in our time, with a huge percentage of the population conforming?

I ask, because as a non-believer it doesn't matter to me to see that Christianity has changed so much, but a believer feels there to be a fundamental Truth (note capital T) behind the whole thing. How do you approach finding that Truth, when so much of Christianity changes, from denomination to denomination, from century to century?

 

[Balto]

It was fun Hyperborean.

One last thing I will say about God of the Gaps:

God of the Gaps is basically assigning God to all the gaps between scientific knowledge and observable phenomenon. I am not doing God of the Gaps because I am not assigning God to just those gaps. If we close a gap, God is still there because he works in science too. We could have a ton more scientific knowledge, and it would not diminish God in any way for me.

If you believe God is in all things, even things we know from science and not just the gaps, then you are not doing the God of the Gaps.

 

[Balto]

What about changes over time? These differences are even greater it seems than those between modern denominations. Were Christians from previous centuries practicing an 'incorrect' form, even thought those beliefs would have been more homogenous than in our time, with a huge percentage of the population conforming?

I ask, because as a non-believer it doesn't matter to me to see that Christianity has changed so much, but a believer feels there to be a fundamental Truth (note capital T) behind the whole thing. How do you approach finding that Truth, when so much of Christianity changes, from denomination to denomination, from century to century?

I don't believe Christianity has really changed that much over time. The denomination differences that have popped up are all relatively minor in my opinion.

For example, early Christians came up with the following faith statement in the year 325:

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

To this day, this faith statement still forms the basis for all of those groups I listed above. It has not changed since 325. Despite their differences and all the wars, they still all agree nearly 100% (there are some very minor wording differences, but it does not change the meaning at all).

 

[seatea]

What makes a miracle a miracle is that you can't figure it out at the time. So Jesus being able to pull such a big miracle is proof to me that obviously he had some special knowledge if we can't figure it out 2000 years later. If we figure it out 3000 years later, he still had that knowledge 3000 years before everyone else.

Jesus being God is based on the fact that he said he was, the fact that he fulfilled the prophecies, and that he then proved it by doing something so incredible we have not been able to come close to explaining it. Instead we just throw it out because we refuse to accept the possibility that something like that could be true.

This opens possibilities that Jesus was an alien with advanced tech, or a time traveler from the distant future (there're probably churches out there that believe such things), rather than the son of God.

The funny thing is that if science were suddenly able to explain how Jesus could have resurrected, my argument would get a lot stronger because now people would not throw the red flag on it anymore since there was a scientific explanation. But he still would have done it back in 30 AD way before anyone else knew about it. Then I assume the critiques would change to well somehow Jesus obviously knew about this science way before everyone else but that doesn't really prove anything, etc. I am pretty sure some people would still not believe.

Not in the least; Occams' Razor still applies. Did Jesus have advanced technology to enact his miracles, or did those miracles simply not take place?

 

[Balto]

This opens possibilities that Jesus was an alien with advanced tech, or a time traveler from the distant future (there're probably churches out there that believe such things), rather than the son of God.

Not in the least; Occams' Razor still applies. Did Jesus have advanced technology to enact his miracles, or did those miracles simply not take place?

Yeah I know there would be other explanations that would be used instead.

Occams' Razor won't shave down to the miracles not taking place. The main reason it is used now is because people believe the miracles are fundamentally impossible. The historical evidence is otherwise strong if we were talking about anything that was not a miracle.

The more complex explanation would be that the miracles did not take place because it would involve a whole bunch of people lying (some of whom didn't really even like each other that much personally so it doesn't seem as if they were in collaboration), and the only reason they would be lying is to get tortured and killed. So that should be the one that gets shaved rather than the explanation that the accounts are true. Again, we would not shave the true explanation if we were talking about anything other than a miracle here.

 

[Balto]

For example, use Occams' Razor on Alexander. Since his accounts mainly involve claims that we understand scientifically, we have the following:

1) Alexander was real and the five main accounts we have are telling the truth

2) Alexander was fake, all five guys are lying independently, and they are lying for some reason that doesn't seem to give them any personal gain

You shave the second one. It's simpler to just accept that it is true.

People shave the true explanation for Jesus as more complex because it involves something that is in the realm of the supernatural. If it is no longer supernatural, it won't be shaved.

 

[seatea]

I don't believe Christianity has really changed that much over time. The denomination differences that have popped up are all relatively minor in my opinion.

For example, early Christians came up with the following faith statement in the year 325:

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

To this day, this faith statement still forms the basis for all of those groups I listed above. It has not changed since 325. Despite their differences and all the wars, they still all agree nearly 100% (there are some very minor wording differences, but it does not change the meaning at all).

While the core may have remained the same, it are far from the whole. And it is whole that has changed so drastically, and it is the whole that affects the world, for good or ill. For instance, no where in the Nicene Creed does not say how to deal with the likes of me, an atheist. Instead, the whole would come into play, the entire culture of the Christianity (combined with the secular culture, if any) I found myself under. Over various times and places I would have been treated very differently, from being physically persecuted, to being outcast, to a daring intellectual rogue.

How does one find the Christian way to deal the messy and multitudinous problems real life throws up? How do you find a truly Christian 'whole' that is not simply covered in the core doctrine that Christ was God's son by virgin birth, who died for our sins, and was resurrected?

 

[Balto]

While the core may have remained the same, it are far from the whole. And it is whole that has changed so drastically, and it is the whole that affects the world, for good or ill. For instance, no where in the Nicene Creed does not say how to deal with the likes of me, an atheist. Instead, the whole would come into play, the entire culture of the Christianity (combined with the secular culture, if any) I found myself under. Over various times and places I would have been treated very differently, from being physically persecuted, to being outcast, to a daring intellectual rogue.

How does one find the Christian way to deal the messy and multitudinous problems real life throws up? How do you find a truly Christian 'whole' that is not simply covered in the core doctrine that Christ was God's son by virgin birth, who died for our sins, and was resurrected?

The Christian answer is take the core truth that we know and apply as best as we can in our time. You are right that certain interpretations can start to change. The idea that the way we interpret the exact same words can change over time is fundamental to Christianity. That is exactly what happens with the Old Testament and the New Testament. No words were changed in the Old Testament, but the mere fact that the New Testament exists changes how we view the exact same words.

I think that God wants us to evolve with time. That is a pretty typical Christian view as well. For a scientific example, think of the laws of physics. The laws of physics we don't believe have changed throughout our time as humans. However, the way we view, interpret, and use those laws sure has. I don't see why religion needs to be different. It is our nature as humans, and God made us the way he did for a reason.

The core Christian belief is found in the Jesus story. How we apply that story in our modern life is indeed ever changing. As a seeker of the Truth (I'll use your capital T), I am totally fine with that. If our path to the Truth was direct, there would have been no Old Testament in the first place. Just skip straight to the New Testament and be done with it. But as said before, I believe that God has a plan.

 

[Balto]

I mean I am not persecuting you or casting you out now am I? Yes, I know this is a change from certain Christian actions in the past.

Historically there really wasn't a ton of thought into how to deal with these situations throughout a lot of Christianity. For a long time, essentially the whole known world for most Christians would have also been Christian. A few Jews lived in the Christian areas, and Muslim encounters were mainly limited to the battlefield. The vast majority of people where Christians ruled were also Christian, and it was very homogenous.

Obviously that is different now. One reason I think the transition has been awkward is because it's relatively recent. But I like to think I am trying at least.

I don't believe it is my place to put divine judgment upon anyone. That's up to God and God alone. So I make no judgments on any non-believers in this thread. All I wish to do is explain what I feel is a reasonable Christian position, and perhaps clear up a few misconceptions along the way.

 

[Oldguy]

But you know what? If its true, if you are right and I am sent to Hell just for disbelieving (despite living an otherwise fairly decent life).

You are decent by your own standards, not God's. God does not grade on a curve.
You can't earn heaven. If you could, God would owe you and you would be making the rules.

How hard is it to understand the penalty of sin is death. You are dead in your sins right now. The good news is that Jesus paid the price for these sins and rose again on your behalf. He could do this because he is perfect. God became a man and took the penalty for your sin. The only thing you need to do is accept the free gift he is offering you. God gave you free will and will not force you to love him back.

Is that so hard? You don't even have to get up from your chair.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. This isn't rocket science. It is the very beginner basics of Christianity that has been around for 2000 years. You guys act like this is something new or complicated like quantum physics.

We are talking the ABCs of Christianity!

It is like learning the shrimp move on your first day of BJJ.