Do u beleave in God

[steveorino 7]

Quote

. I showed you the video of it happening on you tube and you completley ignored it. I guess it didnt fit with your desire to see this as an act of god.

So you answer to my miracle was a trick buick with all the weight distributed on the passenger side and a flat front tire?

And you think I'm dishonest with my statements.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Do you actually have an a point? I fail to see it, so far in your last post you call the video ridiculous without giving any reason why, perhaps becaue its a peice of performance but if you know the underlying mechanics of how this performance works you will understand the importance of the point im making. Just so you get it , there are mechanical ways for a heavy vehaicle to run someone over without them bveing harmed , it does not require a miracle.

"I'll bet you know next-to-nothing about the Bible or the Christian faith"
Your very presumptious, perhaps having to study it in the original language it was written in counts as nothing, but how are you more qualified than me? Furthermore just because I take an anti Christiian view does not mean I know nothing of Christianity, there are many ex preachers who are just as passionate in their opposition to Christianity as I am, would you make the same bet on them?

"You can't even accept the personal testimony as true of a man who almost lost his child? You practically called him a liar."
And do you accept the testimony of every ufo abductee ? Do you accept the testimony of every loch ness monster sighting? Do you accep the testimony of those who think world leaders are lizards? I did not call Steve a liar, I said his testimony is not sufficient evidence. if you cant see the difference thats your problem. Any court of law would agree with me, as Steve himself agrees he did not witness the events, it is hearsay evidence and therefore not admisaable. Similarly so are the gospels heresay evidence and therefore they are not admissable either.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Do you actually have an a point? I fail to see it, so far in your last post you call the video ridiculous without giving any reason why, perhaps becaue its a peice of performance but if you know the underlying mechanics of how this performance works you will understand the importance of the point im making. Just so you get it , there are mechanical ways for a heavy vehaicle to run someone over without them bveing harmed , it does not require a miracle.

Yeah, like the vehicle being rigged for such a trick with a huge amount of weight on one side only and fake FOAM RUBBER TIRES on the side that runs over the body. Man! You really DIDN'T watch that stupid YouTube video, did you?

Quote

Furthermore just because I take an anti Christiian view does not mean I know nothing of Christianity,

That's not the reason I think you know nothing of Christianity. You have shown me that you know nothing of Christianity. Wanna' take a test and prove me wrong?

Quote

"You can't even accept the personal testimony as true of a man who almost lost his child? You practically called him a liar."
And do you accept the testimony of every ufo abductee ? Do you accept the testimony of every loch ness monster sighting? Do you accep the testimony of those who think world leaders are lizards? I did not call Steve a liar, I said his testimony is not sufficient evidence.

Something tells me you doubt that Neil Armstrong actually walked on the moon... or that a jet flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. Everything's a conspiracy to you, phil. "Steve's testimony isn't sufficient." Give me a break.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[philh 0]

Its a not a trick vehicle, its a normal vehicle but yes with the weight distrubted on one side.The point is its possible without a miracle, thats if it happened at all. My experience in conjuring is that there are many ways to perform the same effect. Maybe your wife didnt run over your child in the first place, after all even she didnt see the event happen. you said Drew was crying, if it was a normal knockk down as you say its unlikely the child would have been crying, more likely they would be unconcscious. In her first estimate she thought she had run over some clothes, maybe that estimate was right in the first place. What we have is a scenario that not only you didnt witness, but also you wife didnt witness, so we actually have no witnesses to this supposed miracle. Whats more likely that your wife pakced the vehicle with weight on one side or she didnt run over the child in the first place or that she ran over her child and the child came back to life? There are plenty of examples of people escaping unharmed when we expect them to be harmed , it happens in skydiving too. To believe these are all miracles rather than having a rationale explanation is just presumption.
Im prepared to consider the possibility of a miracle happening if its well documented, I wont believe just because someone said so, would you? i guess you would because after thats the basis of religious belief.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

"There is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Darwin, Charles;
The Origin of Species, Chicago, Great Books of the Western World, 1952, p. 243.

Hmm, missed this first time round. How does it look after you compare it to this?

"The phrase 'by the creator,' in the final sentence of the selection chosen here, did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. It was added to the second edition to conciliate angry clerics. Darwin later wrote, 'I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Wife could have been high on crack cocaine too, eh? Just goes to show some will go to any lengths to explain away a supernatural event. I could have accepted "I don't know, but there must be a reason beyond miracle."

No, you have to say she was mistaken on what she did. Thinking you ran over a pile of clothes and then seeing your child BEHIND the wheel that crossed over his chest with tire tracks straight across the middle of the sleeper is no mistake.

The car was "packed with weight on the one side"?? Is that the best you can do? You sound far more irrational than Fundamental Christians!

She was the eye witness to the miracle, but you discount her. Why? Because she is a Christian?? She would be a credible witness in court for the event, but not to you, the skeptic.

You said, "if it was a normal knockk down as you say its unlikely the child would have been crying," As a medic in SF and later as a RT in an emergency room, I've seen my fair share of incidents were people were making noise (crying, screaming, moaning, etc) after a crush injury or other accident.


You said, " I wont believe just because someone said so, " The truth is you wouldn't believe it if a man walked out of a tomb and said, "See, here are my scars." Then ascended to heaven in front of your eyes. You'd be looking behind the curtain for Penn & Teller.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"Some secular sources mentioning Christ's life/death/resurrection:
1) Jewish historian Flavius Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" (A.D. 93) says James, "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ," was executed in A.D. 62.......etc"

1)Your first source Josephus was born after the death of christ so hes not witness. You are right to say the second passage is a embellished but you dont go far enough , most people think its a forgery. But even if we are not sure about that, there is enough doubt to have it dismissed as any strong evidencce. Even the first passage you mention only describes James the brother of jesus being stoned to death, it doesnt mention anyhting about jesus himself. Some scholars have expressed doubt as to whether or not this Jesus is the same jesus , arguing that the phrase Christ was a later interpretation. Either way Jospehus doesnt mention anything specific about Christ and he wasnt alive at the time anyway.

2) Pliny the Younger, yet again not alive at the time of Christ, not a witness, doesnt count. In fact all he writes about is Christians not Christ himself, no one's doubting there were Christians. What we are doubting is the divinity and resurection of Christ.

3)Tacitus,yet again not alive at the time of Christ, not a witness, doesnt count. Its likely he was just retelling the Christ story as he heard it from Christians. Whatever sourse he did get the story from its obviously second hand as he was writing many decades after the events and Ill stress again wasnt even alive when the supposed events took place.

5) Suetonius , yet again not alive at the time of Christ, not a witness, doesnt count. In fact his comment that the Jews were expelled from Rome becuase of the leadership of Chrestus implies thats hes not even referring to Jesus. After all jesus never went to Rome.

6)Tertullian , yet again not alive at the time of Christ, not a witness, doesnt count.he was also a church leader and so not really a secular source.

So out all your evidences we have not one single non christian witness to the events of the gospels. This is your evidence? Youll have to do better than that. I think it would be wise to stop believing in stories without evidence, particularly stories from people who werent even there at the time.

[philh 0]

"Wife could have been high on crack cocaine too, eh? Just goes to show some will go to any lengths to explain away a supernatural event. I could have accepted "I don't know, but there must be a reason beyond miracle."

The latter is indeed that what I am saying. Youll notice i dont say the event happened the way Penn and teller did it, nor do i say your wife was mistaken, nor do I say you are lying, nor do i say your wife is lying, nor do i say the child was playing with a spare tyre, nor do I say your wife was on drugs , but are any of those impossible? All Im doing is bringing up possibilities, aplying criticial analysis of outrageous clams. You would have us accpet any outrageous claim on somones say so. Ill ask you yet again, do you accept every claim of alien abduction: YES OR NO?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Actually Steve, this is a fairly big point. Psychology is possibly the wooliest "science" known to man. Because it deals with stuff that is rooted in the patients own head it is therefore not subject to the normal rules of the universe. As such you're forced to take a lower standard of evidence than the rest of us.

Could I not say? ... theology deals with the spirit of man and his realtionship to God so "therefore not subject to the normal rules of the universe. As such you're forced to take a lower standard of evidence than the rest of us. "

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"Wife could have been high on crack cocaine too, eh? Just goes to show some will go to any lengths to explain away a supernatural event. I could have accepted "I don't know, but there must be a reason beyond miracle."

The latter is indeed that what I am saying. Youll notice i dont say the event happened the way Penn and teller did it, nor do i say your wife was mistaken, nor do I say you are lying, nor do i say your wife is lying, nor do i say the child was playing with a spare tyre, nor do I say your wife was on drugs , but are any of those impossible? All Im doing is bringing up possibilities, aplying criticial analysis of outrageous clams. You would have us accpet any outrageous claim on somones say so. Ill ask you yet again, do you accept every claim of alien abduction: YES OR NO?

No, of course not. But believe me, my wife and I both inspected this event with a great deal of scrutiny. Just because we are Christians we don't drop reasoning from our life. In fact we studied everything after the fact. We grilled the doctor as we were afraid of injuries that may not have shown up in his initial assessment. We inspected the tires, the sleeper, Drew's entire body (over and over and over again) There was no rational explanation. No one, the Drs, the EMTs, the nurses, engineers and scientist at my church had no reasonable explanation. We accept our miracle with a sincere heart of gratitude.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"Something tells me you doubt that Neil Armstrong actually walked on the moon... or that a jet flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. Everything's a conspiracy to you, phil. "Steve's testimony isn't sufficient." Give me a break.

Well that somethign whispering in your head (is it the holy ghost) is wrong again. i dont doubt those because we have overhwleming evidence for those evvents. Not just one persons say so, dont you see the difference?

[GravityJunky 0]

Quote

You guys need to understand as a therapist/counselor (hope to be pyschologist one day) I have a different view of evidence than a scientist.
Actually Steve, this is a fairly big point. Psychology is possibly the wooliest "science" "Art" known to man....

There fixed it for ya! Psychiatry is a science rooted practice, NOT psychology!

*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I could have accepted "I don't know, but there must be a reason beyond miracle."

That's exactly how the smart money would be bet.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[philh 0]

Ok well you accepted it, but I hope you understand why I cannot . Thast not to say i cannot accept any claim of a super natural event but I need better evidence than your say so, perhaps for the same reason you will not accept every UFO abductee story. May I ask why you dont accpet them?People who claim they have been abducted by aliens show just as much sincerity as you do. If you really have strong evidence take it to Randi and get the $1m , you can donate it to your favourite charity. if you dont have strong enough evidence to win the prize then perhaps well have to let the story go and I hope youll understand why I cant just believe you because you seem sincere.

if I saw a man get out of a grave and rise up to heaven , would I be looking for Penn and Teller? You bet i would, our senses can decieve us. Magicians are experts in fooling not just the gullible, but the skeptical too. You might think this doesnt apply to the gospel miracles. But I would reccomend trying to get a copy of two magicians performance of "tricks of the bible" (read more here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_and_Stuart)
and "the magic of Jesus", they turn the water into wine, get a virgin pregnant and bring the dead back (as did David Blaine with his butterfly trick as did Steve Shaw with his buried alive trick) . Now Im not saying that a mircale is necessaily a magic trick, but yes we should invesigate that possibility before we believe. Uri Geller's spoon bending convinced a lot of people pyschics were real (including skeptical scientists) until magicians exposed how he really did his "miracles". So yes I would look for Penn and Teller , a skeptical aproach is the only way of filtering out the bullshit. So far when the claim of the supernatural have been presented in front of scientist/maguicians every single one of them without fasil has been shown to be false, I think that says something.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

If you really have strong evidence take it to Randi and get the $1m , you can donate it to your favourite charity. if you dont have strong enough evidence to win the prize then perhaps well have to let the story go and .

For grins sake let's say Drew's experience was a miracle. By what reasoning would there be for God to repeat that miracle with my father-in-laws old buick and someone elses 1 year old baby? And how would I repeat this for Randi?

Does any rational Christian believe they can force Almighty God to perform miracles at their whim?

Yeah, we've beat this horse enough.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Yeah, we've beat this horse enough.

Well I thought I had an interesting theological question at the end of the last page, but oh well.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, we've beat this horse enough.

Well I thought I had an interesting theological question at the end of the last page, but oh well.

Jack, which one was that. you have many good questions.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Jack, which one was that. you have many good questions.

You sly old charmer It was in reference to the whole miracle debate.

Quote

Now this is an interesting line of thought. It appears you believe in quite an active, interventionist God. How does this gel with free will and facing the consequences of one's actions? If I ask the generic question "Why is there evil/ war/ murder in the world" you'd probably tell me about free will. Yet on the other hand you're telling me that God can and does intervene to save people from the consequences of their actions (eg. running over your kid). When you accept that God is perfectly willing to intervene to make the world a better place the fact that the world is so terrible for so many people must become a lot more problematic.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Are you implying that pyschology deals in the field of imaginary things?

Well, yes. But by imaginary I mean in the sense that pshycology is the study of mental processes, and how they are affected and/or affect an individuals or group's physical state, mental state, and external environment. Not that the patients episode with his step father at age 8 or his reaction to it was a mental fabrication.

Quote

Are you saying theology deals in the field of imaginary things?

Of course I think God is imaginary. What kind of half arsed atheism do you think I go in for?

Quote

If so, while your understanding of physics may be great, your concept of pyschology & theology is very limited.

Maybe you can run rings round me in both psychology and theism, but that wasn't my point.

You said that you had been giving good evidence all day today for the reliability of JC and his resurrection. To which I replied that to call it "good" or even "evidence" is a gross overestimate.

You then said
"I have a different view of evidence than a scientist ..... It is never concrete. I don't expect pyschology to be, nor do I expect theology to be either"

My point was that you seem to accept a much lower standard of evidence than I would be willing to and I hoped you would re-assess that position to see if it was justified.

Different subjects demand different standards of evidence. The sky is blue requires a low level, criminal justice demands a higher level (or at least I hope so). The more complex or extraordinary the claim, the higher the standard of evidence should be.

You seemed to be saying that in psychology, a standard of evidence that suggests a certain probabale diagnosis would be good enough for every other occasion also. I hoped to encourage you to re-evaluate that position.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Now this is an interesting line of thought. It appears you believe in quite an active, interventionist God. How does this gel with free will and facing the consequences of one's actions? If I ask the generic question "Why is there evil/ war/ murder in the world" you'd probably tell me about free will. Yet on the other hand you're telling me that God can and does intervene to save people from the consequences of their actions (eg. running over your kid). When you accept that God is perfectly willing to intervene to make the world a better place the fact that the world is so terrible for so many people must become a lot more problematic.

As I have said in a previous thread, the most amazing thing about JC's miracles is not the magnitude of their expression; after all how hard would it be for the creator of the world to change water into wine or walk on water? To me the amazing thing is how few miracles JC actually performed. While John records JC did more than what was recorded we are left with but a few examples of miracles during JC's 2-3 year ministry on earth where every minute a miracle in need lay waiting.

JC answered critics that wanted a demonstration of his powers that he would NOT give signs to those who do not believe. In other words, he reserved his infrequent miracles for a few that he chose to reveal his power to. One purpose was to give creedance for what he said he could do.

For instance he forgave a lame man his sins, but the Pharisees asked who he thought he was claiming to do what only God could do ... forgive sins. JC's reply was "so that you know the Son of Man has the ability to forgive sins, I say to you, 'Take up your mat and walk'"

The main purpose of his miracles was to demonstrate his power as God and encourage his followers. He obviously chose to not intervene in the natural laws and free will of mankind most of the time.

That is one reason I give little creedance to the TV faith healers who will heal you for a donation. For the few who may be healed in that situation I believe the innocent faith in God of the person healed had more to do with it than the huckster for God (think of the movie "Leap of Faith")

So, I have no reason to believe I'm special or Drew was so special that God intervened in our natural world, anymore than I believe that the others lacked faith or something else needed for divine intervention.

The pain of this world, such as my parent's early deaths, along with the many other sensless tragedies, illustrate to me a world desparately in need of redemption.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,257]

So the purpose of miacles is not to be 'good' but just to confirm to people that he can actually do them?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

You seemed to be saying that in psychology, a standard of evidence that suggests a certain probabale diagnosis would be good enough for every other occasion also. I hoped to encourage you to re-evaluate that position.

I'm not sure I'm following your point. Pyschology along with Theology do have different standards of proof than some natural sciences such as physics. It doesn't diminish one or elevate the other. Talk to most any medical doctor and he will remind you the science of medicine is really an art.

steveOrino

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Hmm, missed this first time round. How does it look after you compare it to this?

I had read that already. I'm not surprised that Darwin caved in to pressure. He obviously still had doubts in both directions. Poor guy.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[steveorino 7]

Quote

So the purpose of miacles is not to be 'good' but just to confirm to people that he can actually do them?

The purpose of JC's miracles were two fold; to cause men to believe in Him (Jn. 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. ), and to confirm His word (Jn. 20:30-31 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name).

Jesus promised His disciples the ability to perform miracles in order to confirm the word they would preach We learn from the NT that these miracles were performed and did indeed confirm the gospel message (Heb. 2:2-4 For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will).

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Apparently you didn't watch it either.

Did YOU watch the video? What's the problem?
They do have a big truck running over a man, and then he does stand up with no injuries. So what's are all your insults for? Just because they did not mention Jesus and Lord?

Quote

You can't even accept the personal testimony as true of a man who almost lost his child?

The problem with his testimony is that he makes conclusions instead of telling the facts. He would not be allowed to do it in a court, and I see no reason to accept the conclusions as well.
If you look just on the facts, you'll see that car driving over a human body sometime is not fatal. That is ALL you both can testify. The rest is just the result of your imagination you have no proof for.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *