Some thoughts for non-believers

[Juan_Bottom]

Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?

Creationism!

????

[jesterhawk]

The scrolls mainly date from 150 BC to 70 AD , they were found close to where Jesus supposedly lived and preached, they were written by a deeply Mesianic sect and yet they dont mention Jesus once.......Mmmmm

For point, the scroll containing Isaiah dated back to past 100BC which is what I was remarking on. Second, they mention of him but not as a directly given name. I can refer to you in many ways without using your name and still explicitly mean you.

JH

Simply not true, just wishfull thinking and another attempt to disguise an inconvenient truth. implied or otherwise
there no mentiom of Jesus, his disciples, his works or miracles. Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?

I am sorry that I do not believe the statements to consider (distortion, huge leaps, and dishonesty) are accurate descriptions of the Bible.

JH

[joecoolfrog]

The scrolls mainly date from 150 BC to 70 AD , they were found close to where Jesus supposedly lived and preached, they were written by a deeply Mesianic sect and yet they dont mention Jesus once.......Mmmmm

For point, the scroll containing Isaiah dated back to past 100BC which is what I was remarking on. Second, they mention of him but not as a directly given name. I can refer to you in many ways without using your name and still explicitly mean you.

JH

Simply not true, just wishfull thinking and another attempt to disguise an inconvenient truth. implied or otherwise
there no mentiom of Jesus, his disciples, his works or miracles. Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?

I am sorry that I do not believe the statements to consider (distortion, huge leaps, and dishonesty) are accurate descriptions of the Bible.

JH

But it is a perfectly fair way to describe your assertion that Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls If you do not wish to appear a snake oil salesman then dont use the same tactics .Adam and Eve is literally true because the bible says so and Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls because it literally does not say so but you want to believe otherwise......yes very consistent reasoning that

[jesterhawk]

Simply not true, just wishfull thinking and another attempt to disguise an inconvenient truth. implied or otherwise
there no mentiom of Jesus, his disciples, his works or miracles. Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?

I am sorry that I do not believe the statements to consider (distortion, huge leaps, and dishonesty) are accurate descriptions of the Bible.

JH

But it is a perfectly fair way to describe your assertion that Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls If you do not wish to appear a snake oil salesman then dont use the same tactics .Adam and Eve is literally true because the bible says so and Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls because it literally does not say so but you want to believe otherwise......yes very consistent reasoning that

I am disagreeing with the concept that it is distortion (which implies intentional malice), huge leaps (like it or not, claim it has been altered or not, but the Bible DOES predict a great many things that pinpoint Jesus) and dishonesty (again, like it or not, but there is a tremendous evidence that the Bible is at least what was originally written leaving whether or not God is the author behind it up to you). This is what I was questioning in your statement. And yes, you are consistent, but just like you think I am consistently wrong, you can be also.

JH

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe I am just tired, but I really don't see why it would be any more of a problem. Care to explain what you mean?

God can't make a giant floating sign in the sky to let us know that he actually does exist. Because that effects free will.
But he can take the form of a man and walk around curing lepers and coming back from the dead because that doesn't effect free will.

I never understood that one.

There are a few ways to look at this. First, maybe he has given us "floating signs" (we do have the Bible), but we are not ready to see it. Of course, you can argue that he could make them clear enough, but some people would still question, as long as we truly have free will. Look around at all the "obvious" stuff people ignore now!

Second, God intervenes to the extent that will help us grow. A poor analogy, again, but parenting is like that. You cannot make all decisions for your kids. Even if you might sometimes save them some pain in the short term, you would cause far more long term harm by not letting them occasionally (or often ) fail. Again, this is not a perfect analogy, but it is as close as I can get. We, as humans don't know why God intervenes in some places, some ways and not in others even less than a young child might understand why we insist they get shots or take yucky medicine, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

Any fairly intelligent person who spends a decade studying and applies themselves should be able to understand the science behind the findings that are relevant to their field of study (or at least most of it). That is what I mean when I say science is "readily accessible to an inquiring mind", not that everyone can understand it as soon as they see it.

Correct and no argument.

Knowledge about god, on the other hand, is declared impossible. That's one of the few things, maybe even the only thing, that believers from all religions and denominations agree on (apart from some gnostic movements): humans cannot understand god's mind.
Any knowledge about god has to be revealed by god, a person could spend a lifetime thinking about god and still know nothing. Any knowledge about god comes from an authoritative source (Bible, Qur'an, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, the Vedas, you name it) and must be taken at face value. Because it's the word of god it must be true (all of it) and anything that seems contradictory within the revealed knowledge is because we are lacking.

Only have time for a short bit right now. Essentially, though you are making an unfair/unequal comparison.

You compare a person's ability to understand some science (not all!)... and I would further narrow that to not even one section of science, just pieces of sections. Then you talk about ALL of religion and God.

The real truth is that no one person can possibly understand all of the science that we know, right now, never mind understand all that will come or the impacts it will have upon us.

Religion is similar in that way, it is just the way we know it differs. We cannot know all about God or perhaps even our religion, but we can certainly know chunks of it.

As for the other part of your "accessibility", Christians would mostly argue that the truth is there for you to see, you have only to turn to it. However, as long as you refuse to believe, are absolutely convinced at a deep level what we say is false, no words will ever change your perception. We believe that makes God extremely sad, but allowing people to choose failure is a consequence of a truly free will.

[joecoolfrog]

Simply not true, just wishfull thinking and another attempt to disguise an inconvenient truth. implied or otherwise
there no mentiom of Jesus, his disciples, his works or miracles. Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?

I am sorry that I do not believe the statements to consider (distortion, huge leaps, and dishonesty) are accurate descriptions of the Bible.

JH

But it is a perfectly fair way to describe your assertion that Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls If you do not wish to appear a snake oil salesman then dont use the same tactics .Adam and Eve is literally true because the bible says so and Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls because it literally does not say so but you want to believe otherwise......yes very consistent reasoning that

I am disagreeing with the concept that it is distortion (which implies intentional malice), huge leaps (like it or not, claim it has been altered or not, but the Bible DOES predict a great many things that pinpoint Jesus) and dishonesty (again, like it or not, but there is a tremendous evidence that the Bible is at least what was originally written leaving whether or not God is the author behind it up to you). This is what I was questioning in your statement. And yes, you are consistent, but just like you think I am consistently wrong, you can be also.

JH

I did not question the bible , I questioned your assertion that Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls , please tell me how you made this conclusion . As no evidence exists to support your claim , I propose that you are simply clutching at straws to support a wider agenda , either provide a direct rebuttal or concede my point please.

[AAFitz]

It is actually much, much easier to deal with an infinite mind than a finite one. You know exactly the limits of an infinite mind, while you can only speculate about a finite one.

You cant possibly know the limits of an infinite mind, because the limits are infinite, and are at once limitless, and limited at the same time, which while being illogical to a finite mind, is irrelevant to the infinite one.

You have all the right words in your sentence, but it should actually be stated, that we know there are limits with a finite mind, but can only speculate as to the limits of an infinite one.

An infinite mind can and necessarily understands a finite mind, but a finite mind can never understand an infinite one...unless of course that limit is very close to infinite...like say... .999recurring infinite mind...not quite there, but damn close.

In any case, youve simplified what can create free will and what cant. I understand the argument, and even further understand the reasoning, but even with my very finite mind, I can imagine an infinite mind that is capable of creating something, and giving it free will, while at the same time knowing what will happen to said creation. If I can imagine it with my finite mind, an infinite mind can certainly make it happen.

More importantly, I dont think anyone will ever be convinced of God, or no God because of a silly little logic debate like this. Its a fun little exercise like a crossword puzzle, but not much more. The situation is a complicated one, and it is one that no mind can ever conclusively prove either way. Logically, both situations will always be possible, that is, unless an actual creator proves himself to be true.

It is therefore simply a matter of choice and faith by the individual to decide, based on as much information as they choose to accept to make their choice/leap of faith.

The believers get one advantage over the non believers too. They will never, ever know if they were wrong, while theoretically, a non-believer could find they'ved lived their entire lives as a lie. Believers never have to fear anything more than believing in the wrong religion, because if there is no creator... they will simply never know they were wrong. Its almost fail-safe from a psychological stand point. Except of course for the reality that they very well could have litterally caused harm, and possibly even suffering with their beliefs, if they are incorrect. The same goes for the non believer, but in that case, its simply less hypocritical...not to say any better.

[jesterhawk]

Simply not true, just wishfull thinking and another attempt to disguise an inconvenient truth. implied or otherwise
there no mentiom of Jesus, his disciples, his works or miracles. Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?

I am sorry that I do not believe the statements to consider (distortion, huge leaps, and dishonesty) are accurate descriptions of the Bible.

But it is a perfectly fair way to describe your assertion that Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls If you do not wish to appear a snake oil salesman then dont use the same tactics .Adam and Eve is literally true because the bible says so and Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls because it literally does not say so but you want to believe otherwise......yes very consistent reasoning that

I am disagreeing with the concept that it is distortion (which implies intentional malice), huge leaps (like it or not, claim it has been altered or not, but the Bible DOES predict a great many things that pinpoint Jesus) and dishonesty (again, like it or not, but there is a tremendous evidence that the Bible is at least what was originally written leaving whether or not God is the author behind it up to you). This is what I was questioning in your statement. And yes, you are consistent, but just like you think I am consistently wrong, you can be also.

I did not question the bible , I questioned your assertion that Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls , please tell me how you made this conclusion . As no evidence exists to support your claim , I propose that you are simply clutching at straws to support a wider agenda , either provide a direct rebuttal or concede my point please.

Because contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of Old Testament books of the Bible (mostly pieces of books to be accurate), like a complete copy of the book of Isaiah, and those books contain prophesies about the coming Messiah. Since, a Christian believes that the Messiah was Jesus, then it is a logical conclusion that a Christian would see that Jesus (the Messiah) was mentioned in the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is how I arrived at that conclusion. Yes, Jesus is not directly mentioned, but most of the documents found pre-date Jesus.

JH

[Frigidus]

It is actually much, much easier to deal with an infinite mind than a finite one. You know exactly the limits of an infinite mind, while you can only speculate about a finite one.

You cant possibly know the limits of an infinite mind, because the limits are infinite, and are at once limitless, and limited at the same time, which while being illogical to a finite mind, is irrelevant to the infinite one.

You have all the right words in your sentence, but it should actually be stated, that we know there are limits with a finite mind, but can only speculate as to the limits of an infinite one.

All right, I did phrase that a bit poorly. What I meant is that there are no limits to an infinite mind, and that is what makes it easier to work with than any finite mind is. What does it know? Everything there is to know. There is nothing it can't plausibly know.

An infinite mind can and necessarily understands a finite mind, but a finite mind can never understand an infinite one...unless of course that limit is very close to infinite...like say... .999recurring infinite mind...not quite there, but damn close.

You feel that it is easier to understand a nearly perfect mind than a perfect one? How so? In a nearly perfect mind you can't possibly know what its weaknesses are. You therefore have a flawed knowledge of it. Although finite minds can't comprehend what possessing an infinite mind would be like, we certainly can understand it. In its complexity is extreme simplicity. As I said, we know what it knows, everything.

In any case, youve simplified what can create free will and what cant. I understand the argument, and even further understand the reasoning, but even with my very finite mind, I can imagine an infinite mind that is capable of creating something, and giving it free will, while at the same time knowing what will happen to said creation. If I can imagine it with my finite mind, an infinite mind can certainly make it happen.

How can you imagine it, might I ask? Was there a flaw in my reasoning (or am I, as often seems to be the case, missing something you brought up)?

More importantly, I dont think anyone will ever be convinced of God, or no God because of a silly little logic debate like this. Its a fun little exercise like a crossword puzzle, but not much more. The situation is a complicated one, and it is one that no mind can ever conclusively prove either way. Logically, both situations will always be possible, that is, unless an actual creator proves himself to be true.

Ah, but for the purpose of the argument I have already presupposed God's existence. What I argue is that either the God we have defined has created us without will, or that our definition of God is flawed. I suppose that, in a way, that that might be interpreted as "no God", but there is a difference.

Also, I'd argue that logical debate is far from silly. It is at the crux of religion, and my incapability of explaining a lot of the things I argue is what initially made me lose the little faith I'd picked up from being in society. At the very least, logical inconsistency should drive someone to alter their notions of their beliefs at least enough to remove flaws. If you honestly see nothing wrong with your beliefs after examining them at some length, good. I'd prefer people to analyze their beliefs than to jump over to one side or another after reading a debate on the internet.

The believers get one advantage over the non believers too. They will never, ever know if they were wrong, while theoretically, a non-believer could find they'ved lived their entire lives as a lie. Believers never have to fear anything more than believing in the wrong religion, because if there is no creator... they will simply never know they were wrong. Its almost fail-safe from a psychological stand point. Except of course for the reality that they very well could have litterally caused harm, and possibly even suffering with their beliefs, if they are incorrect. The same goes for the non believer, but in that case, its simply less hypocritical...not to say any better.

I am not concerned about being wrong, honestly. If there is, in the end, a creator who damns me for eternity because of my opinion...well, I can't help that I have an opinion. Pretending I have a different one to escape damnation doesn't seem feasible to me. Either my shallow disguise would be picked apart immediately or there is something wrong with the system in the first place. This actually brings up some issues I have with heaven and hell that I might start a new thread on later, but for now I'm going out for breakfast.

[jonesthecurl]

Also you might pick "there is a god", even pick "Jesus is the One", and still get sent to hell for being a heretic and joining the wrong church.

[PLAYER57832]

The scrolls mainly date from 150 BC to 70 AD , they were found close to where Jesus supposedly lived and preached, they were written by a deeply Mesianic sect and yet they dont mention Jesus once.......Mmmmm

For point, the scroll containing Isaiah dated back to past 100BC which is what I was remarking on. Second, they mention of him but not as a directly given name. I can refer to you in many ways without using your name and still explicitly mean you.

JH

Simply not true, just wishfull thinking and another attempt to disguise an inconvenient truth. implied or otherwise
there no mentiom of Jesus, his disciples, his works or miracles. Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?

WAIT! It does not seem as if either you or Jcurl know a whole lot about the Dead Sea scrolls.

( I read your later discussion, but this seems to be where it began..).

Originally, it was thought that the Dead Sea Scrolls were Jewish documents, copies of the old Testament secured by Rabbis of the time. Now it appears that they likely originate from the Essenes, a Jewish "offshoot" that (debateably) might well have influenced Jesus, either directly or indirectly. Some versions have Jesus actually growing up with or spending serious time with the Essenes, but I think that is largely dismissed.

At any rate, there are similarities, but the connection between Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls is heavily contested and debated. Mixed in with the scholarship are heavy doses of politics and what I will call a kind of religious "protectionism" (for lack of a better word). Many Orthodox Jews have held the scrolls highly sacred and expected to see verification/validation of their beliefs. Any suggestion otherwise is not exactly welcomed with open arms.

Anyway, the whole debate is rather pointless and really proves nothing. All the Bible is old. The Old Testament very, very old. There were documents/"foreshadowing" ideas circulating similar to those Jesus expressed prior to Jesus. No one really disputes that. However, Jesus put the message all together and put forward one particular group of ideas (actually more than one group, but anyway..) as the truth, solidifying and clarifying what was already in the old Testament. Further, Jesus was the son of God and was the first/only to proclaim such in Christian history.

[PLAYER57832]

Also you might pick "there is a god", even pick "Jesus is the One", and still get sent to hell for being a heretic and joining the wrong church.

????

Sort of true, but not really. You are not going to be sent to hell for "joining the wrong church". You might wind up in hell if you don't believe truly in Christ, regardless of the church. Within each "legitimate" (for lack of a better description) church, will be many who go, but don't truly follow in their heart AND, there are some outside of those "legitimate" churches that may turn to follow Christ truly -- perhaps throughout their life, perhaps only at the last minute, as the man on the Cross with Jesus -- who will be saved.

[jonesthecurl]

Also you might pick "there is a god", even pick "Jesus is the One", and still get sent to hell for being a heretic and joining the wrong church.

????

Sort of true, but not really. You are not going to be sent to hell for "joining the wrong church". You might wind up in hell if you don't believe truly in Christ, regardless of the church. Within each "legitimate" (for lack of a better description) church, will be many who go, but don't truly follow in their heart AND, there are some outside of those "legitimate" churches that may turn to follow Christ truly -- perhaps throughout their life, perhaps only at the last minute, as the man on the Cross with Jesus -- who will be saved.

A number of branches of Christianity consider other branches damned as heretics.
The Catholic church has softened its stance somewhat, but the doctrine is still that you still need the church, you can't attain salvation without its help.

[notyou2]

Also you might pick "there is a god", even pick "Jesus is the One", and still get sent to hell for being a heretic and joining the wrong church.

????

Sort of true, but not really. You are not going to be sent to hell for "joining the wrong church". You might wind up in hell if you don't believe truly in Christ, regardless of the church. Within each "legitimate" (for lack of a better description) church, will be many who go, but don't truly follow in their heart AND, there are some outside of those "legitimate" churches that may turn to follow Christ truly -- perhaps throughout their life, perhaps only at the last minute, as the man on the Cross with Jesus -- who will be saved.

A number of branches of Christianity consider other branches damned as heretics.
The Catholic church has softened its stance somewhat, but the doctrine is still that you still need the church, you can't attain salvation without its help.

I think we need to add more middle men between us and god, so that we can make the "church" of each middle man even richer and we free ourselves from the sinful gluttony of money.

[AAFitz]

It is actually much, much easier to deal with an infinite mind than a finite one. You know exactly the limits of an infinite mind, while you can only speculate about a finite one.

You cant possibly know the limits of an infinite mind, because the limits are infinite, and are at once limitless, and limited at the same time, which while being illogical to a finite mind, is irrelevant to the infinite one.

You have all the right words in your sentence, but it should actually be stated, that we know there are limits with a finite mind, but can only speculate as to the limits of an infinite one.

All right, I did phrase that a bit poorly. What I meant is that there are no limits to an infinite mind, and that is what makes it easier to work with than any finite mind is. What does it know? Everything there is to know. There is nothing it can't plausibly know.

An infinite mind can and necessarily understands a finite mind, but a finite mind can never understand an infinite one...unless of course that limit is very close to infinite...like say... .999recurring infinite mind...not quite there, but damn close.

You feel that it is easier to understand a nearly perfect mind than a perfect one? How so? In a nearly perfect mind you can't possibly know what its weaknesses are. You therefore have a flawed knowledge of it. Although finite minds can't comprehend what possessing an infinite mind would be like, we certainly can understand it. In its complexity is extreme simplicity. As I said, we know what it knows, everything.

The problem here is, that you dont know what "everything" is so you cant possibly understand what it knows or what everything is, so defining it is, and always will be impossible. Infinitely so.

In any case, youve simplified what can create free will and what cant. I understand the argument, and even further understand the reasoning, but even with my very finite mind, I can imagine an infinite mind that is capable of creating something, and giving it free will, while at the same time knowing what will happen to said creation. If I can imagine it with my finite mind, an infinite mind can certainly make it happen.

How can you imagine it, might I ask? Was there a flaw in my reasoning (or am I, as often seems to be the case, missing something you brought up)?

I can imagine quite a bit with my finite mind. I can imagine that an infinitely intelligent mind can find a way to create free will, and know everything at the same time... simply because my finite mind does not see how, does not mean it is not possible. That is the flaw in the reasoning.

More importantly, I dont think anyone will ever be convinced of God, or no God because of a silly little logic debate like this. Its a fun little exercise like a crossword puzzle, but not much more. The situation is a complicated one, and it is one that no mind can ever conclusively prove either way. Logically, both situations will always be possible, that is, unless an actual creator proves himself to be true.

Ah, but for the purpose of the argument I have already presupposed God's existence. What I argue is that either the God we have defined has created us without will, or that our definition of God is flawed. I suppose that, in a way, that that might be interpreted as "no God", but there is a difference.

Well, there are many definitions of God, so some are necessarily flawed to begin with. Realistically, all are except for perhaps one, and that would be as much luck at this point. I do however see no reason to call a flawed God, No God however. If there was a creator, that made everything, however flawed, he would still be God. Your definition would be the only thing flawed.

Also, I'd argue that logical debate is far from silly. It is at the crux of religion, and my incapability of explaining a lot of the things I argue is what initially made me lose the little faith I'd picked up from being in society. At the very least, logical inconsistency should drive someone to alter their notions of their beliefs at least enough to remove flaws. If you honestly see nothing wrong with your beliefs after examining them at some length, good. I'd prefer people to analyze their beliefs than to jump over to one side or another after reading a debate on the internet.

I never said logical debate was silly, only that someone would be silly to make their decision based on a simple logic statement as the ones you made. Myself, I am only comfortable discussing religion in the first place, because I feel the likelyhood of actually affecting ones beliefs is very marginal at best. If I thought the debate would sway someones beliefs over something so important that can actually define life to them itself, then I would never take the chance of influencing their beliefs. While I dont necessarily believe in God, I do believe in the basic teachings of my religion, and professing something to be true, when I have no idea if it is or not would be tantamount to lying, and I simply wont do it. All discussion is meant more for entertainment as anything else.

The believers get one advantage over the non believers too. They will never, ever know if they were wrong, while theoretically, a non-believer could find they'ved lived their entire lives as a lie. Believers never have to fear anything more than believing in the wrong religion, because if there is no creator... they will simply never know they were wrong. Its almost fail-safe from a psychological stand point. Except of course for the reality that they very well could have litterally caused harm, and possibly even suffering with their beliefs, if they are incorrect. The same goes for the non believer, but in that case, its simply less hypocritical...not to say any better.

I am not concerned about being wrong, honestly. If there is, in the end, a creator who damns me for eternity because of my opinion...well, I can't help that I have an opinion. Pretending I have a different one to escape damnation doesn't seem feasible to me. Either my shallow disguise would be picked apart immediately or there is something wrong with the system in the first place. This actually brings up some issues I have with heaven and hell that I might start a new thread on later, but for now I'm going out for breakfast.

[/quote][/quote]

Actually, I know exactly what you are saying here, and I believe it is essential to any discussion of God. You are referring to the system of what a Good God would be capable of, and that can be logically discussed. Any religion that professes their God to be truly good, and does not describe his needs to follow that, are obviously contrary to that one belief, so either their God is not truly Good, or their other beliefs are wrong.

Ive discussed this many times too, and in short, I know if there is a God, he is the God of Good, and I then know that he is infintely good, and any reward/punishment would be infinitely fair, so there is no need to worry about technicalities. All would necessarily need to be rewared/punished in exact proportion to the good/evil they did on earth, or the system would not be Good, and no Good God could ever implement it, or allow it.

Its also why I question His very existence, because I feel a Good God, would have made this easier for the world at large to figure out, and would not have so many conflicting religions. At the same time, I realize this quite easily, so perhaps it is that easy, and most simply choose not to see it, or simply never considered it.

I did my best to straighten out the quotes here...

[john9blue]

What I meant is that there are no limits to an infinite mind, and that is what makes it easier to work with than any finite mind is.

So would you agree that Occam's Razor doesn't exclude an omniscient God (seeing as "all knowledge" is simpler than "some knowledge")?

[joecoolfrog]

The scrolls mainly date from 150 BC to 70 AD , they were found close to where Jesus supposedly lived and preached, they were written by a deeply Mesianic sect and yet they dont mention Jesus once.......Mmmmm

For point, the scroll containing Isaiah dated back to past 100BC which is what I was remarking on. Second, they mention of him but not as a directly given name. I can refer to you in many ways without using your name and still explicitly mean you.

JH

Simply not true, just wishfull thinking and another attempt to disguise an inconvenient truth. implied or otherwise
there no mentiom of Jesus, his disciples, his works or miracles. Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?

WAIT! It does not seem as if either you or Jcurl know a whole lot about the Dead Sea scrolls.

( I read your later discussion, but this seems to be where it began..).

Originally, it was thought that the Dead Sea Scrolls were Jewish documents, copies of the old Testament secured by Rabbis of the time. Now it appears that they likely originate from the Essenes, a Jewish "offshoot" that (debateably) might well have influenced Jesus, either directly or indirectly. Some versions have Jesus actually growing up with or spending serious time with the Essenes, but I think that is largely dismissed.

At any rate, there are similarities, but the connection between Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls is heavily contested and debated. Mixed in with the scholarship are heavy doses of politics and what I will call a kind of religious "protectionism" (for lack of a better word). Many Orthodox Jews have held the scrolls highly sacred and expected to see verification/validation of their beliefs. Any suggestion otherwise is not exactly welcomed with open arms.

Anyway, the whole debate is rather pointless and really proves nothing. All the Bible is old. The Old Testament very, very old. There were documents/"foreshadowing" ideas circulating similar to those Jesus expressed prior to Jesus. ady in the old Testament. Further, Jesus was the son of God and was the first/only to proclaiNo one really disputes that. [color=#BF0000]However, Jesus put the message all together and put forward one particular group of ideas (actually more than Christian history.

This is a statement of faith not fact, the opposing view would be that a composite figure ( Jesus ) was created to reflect prevailing mesianic thought. What needs to be understood is that Christianity evolved from Judaic tradition, it was Jews that needed convincing and pushing a message that was familiar and desirable is a classic marketing tool. Nobody would argue that it was mere chance that the figure of Jesus happened to fulfill previous prophesies, he was either indeed the Messiah or created to appear so.
I have indeed some knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls , the period in question has great historical significance but has largely been presented in a narrow New Testament perspective.
We were all taught about persecution of the early Christians but what of the heretics that were repressed and slaughtered by the church right up until the middle ages , what of the alternative gospels and gnostic writings that were destroyed, or at least were never considered.
Anyhow I digress, my simple point is that Jesus is not mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and I think that there is significance in that, so does Jesterhawk which is why he attempts to deny it. You know very well that I am no militant atheist, I readily concede that much Christian teaching is beneficial, but it annoys me when dogma is presented as fact.

[grandin]

I know if there is a God, he is the God of Good, and I then know that he is infintely good, and any reward/punishment would be infinitely fair, so there is no need to worry about technicalities. All would necessarily need to be rewared/punished in exact proportion to the good/evil they did on earth, or the system would not be Good, and no Good God could ever implement it, or allow it.

This assumes that fairness is the same thing as goodness. In one way or the other a system like this punishes "evil" actions with suffering according to some definition of 'reasonable revenge'. Killed someone? Alright, damnation or perhaps someting less eternal, whichever God think is proportionate. But it's not an act of goodness. It instills pain and suffering in the recipient of the punishment. An infinite good being would not be able to do this, since it would be an act that lessened the percieved satisfaction and happines in the universe. Infinite goodness would, by definition, be about doing the opposite at all times.
If the punishment would somehow logically affect the living complex, perhaps an argument could be made that it would indeed be possible - but, it does not. An infinitately good being, with power over a presumed afterlife, would by definition be forced to make everyone fully content - and especially so since the omnipotent God doesnt need to let Hitlers afterlife affect Gandhis.

Punishing actions when no longer relevant is not Good - although it might be Fair.

So would you agree that Occam's Razor doesn't exclude an omniscient God (seeing as "all knowledge" is simpler than "some knowledge")?

It depends. Occam's Razor can just as well be applied as this:

A) Life does, by all scientific evidence, seem to follow basic rules of evolution.
B) The existence of an extremely powerful being in the universe is not completely illogical, it can indeed have evolved through darwinian means somewhere along the history of existence.
C) The existence of an omnipotent being is alot more improbable, since it implies knowledge and control of every physical particle in the universe - which would indeed be way more difficult to obtain than simply a large amount of power.
D) An omnipotent being NOT coming coming into existence through natural evolution, but simply existing by definition, is improbable beyond reason. The question of 'where does it come from' cannot be logically ignored or dismissed.
E) Spontaneous creation of complex beings are extremely improbable, spontaneous creation of omnipotence ridicilously so. Have you ever seen a car jump into existence? No?
F) An omnipotent God being the cause of existence is even more unlikely, since it cannot in any reasonable way explain how itself came to be.

Occam's Razor says: Omnipotence is improbable and contradicts observed facts about the physical reality, it is not simple in any way.


[And my apologies if i don't make any sense. Nothing makes me feel worse at speaking english than trying to debate something ]

[MeDeFe]

What I meant is that there are no limits to an infinite mind, and that is what makes it easier to work with than any finite mind is.

So would you agree that Occam's Razor doesn't exclude an omniscient God (seeing as "all knowledge" is simpler than "some knowledge")?

Not quite, what some people here (me included) are saying is that it's a lot easier to draw conclusions from the premise of god having all knowledge there is to have, than from the premise of god having only some of it.