An interesting issue of religious freedom

[corydoras]

Fine re your second sentence, but I don't think you'll find I have ever expected anyone in debate to assume what the bible says is true. That would be completely unreasonable, and a circular argument as you have said. It is virtually the only source material we have, but of course written by arguably biassed authors. Of course the degree of that bias is open to debate.

 

In the case of Paul mentioning in a letter (which he did not know was to be read 2000 years later) that a criterion for being an apostle was that you had met the risen Christ, I find it hard to see what motive he could have had for making it up. Can you think of one?

The Epistles of the Apostles are not exectly what one would call eye-witness statements, having being written decades after the supposed event. Even if they were, Paul does seem to me like a man with a few axes to grind. these guys expected Jesus to come back in their own life times, he still hasn't showed up. I'd say the Statute of Limitations has passed.

[DavyR]

In the case of Paul mentioning in a letter (which he did not know was to be read 2000 years later) that a criterion for being an apostle was that you had met the risen Christ, I find it hard to see what motive he could have had for making it up. Can you think of one?

 

I've got no problem with Paul's criterion as such. What I was highlighting is the impossibility of debating with someone who, when presented with the suggestion that the experience of the Apostles may have been due to dreams or visions, responds that that is impossible, since in order to *be* an Apostle in the first place, one must have seen the risen Christ in the flesh.

 

That is a perfect example of a circular argument. I think the problem lies in, as I suggested earlier, the completely different definition of "evidence" used by both sides in the debate.

 

People in ancient times did not make the same distinction between myth and reality that most of us do today (I love mythology, by the way, and think it has a lot to teach us about human nature). Prophetic dreams, visions of gods and monsters, and apparent "miracles" of all sorts appear, not just in the Bible, but in the tales told by *every* culture in the history of the world that we still have access to. Many common themes are present, and "the risen god" is one of them. They all make a lot more sense when seen through modern eyes as symbolic, rather than literal fact.

 

One of the features that distinguishes historical fact from myth is whether or not key events are confirmed by independent witnesses who were around at the time. "Evidence" that consists of accounts by individuals (all of them "interested parties"), decades after the events they describe, that have passed through many translations, additions and amendments, and which disagree with each other on important points, simply wouldn't be accepted as such by most modern academic researchers.

 

Christian apologists, on the other hand, appear to accept the Bible (particularly the New Testament) as a valid historical document. One of the favourite gambits of doorstep evangelists (I know because I've been on the receiving end several times) is to say "Did you know that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon?". It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What they mean by "evidence" is quite different to my understanding of that term.

[corydoras]

According to this Creationist site, the Large Hadron Collider will provide the kind of evidence you and I may accept Davy. A strange hypothesis for those who think that the maximum age of the universe is 4004BC

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...hadron-collider

Edited March 31, 2010 by corydoras

[chesters1]

evidence or opinion?

phones were banned (and in some cases still are) in hospitals because someone dreamt up a "fact" they interfered with machinery and they blew up petrol stations (a little before CB "burners" were supposed to do the same thing) nothing more than opinion spouted as a fact.

it was a "fact" wearing hats stopped you dying of the cold

if you drank green tea ,ate piles or roughage or (still ) ate high antioxidant (sp?) food you suffered less with certain complaints all now proved as opinion ,theres no proof at all antioxidants do anything concerning fat or much anything else.

Smoking was good for you and asbestos and thalidomide our friends

 

"Fact" is easily dreamt up by companies with a vested interest but only ones that suit their agenda of-course ,say it enough and even the most blatant lie will become a truth as we saw with Tony blair and his ,poke enough money to scientists anything will become a fact as we see almost daily ,the gov are doing it at this very moment justifying their actions ,its a pity those that wont lie or cow tow to them are resigning but thats how "Fact" is made from nothing.

at 4.6 billion the colider will dream up some "fact" or other it needs to to justify the cost and get more for its upgrade .

Now the global warming money making plot is under suspicion money needs to come from somewhere so what "facts" are being thought up as we speak that are nothing more than an opinion.

as for "religion" all the church says is when drilled is little more than "mysterious ways" there's no fact at all just lies to further their money making scam ,i'm just sorry for the people taken in by it especially those that believe it ,not so sorry for those that promote this lie they do have a vested interest of course its money and power like every scam needs to continue unchallenged.

i remember the buddist jew chap telling me of someone buddisty (shakamonkey or something) he taught his teachings all his life then at 95 (some number) said forget all that this is now what i believe ,he then died and now his post 95 teachings are whats right ,i asked the chap what would have happened if at 98 he said forget all that post 95 stuff this is now the "truth" ? he smiled.

now like christianity nothing at the time was written down in buddism so only told via tales and we know how even the smallest tale gets embroidered over time and Christianity had a 150 years to be embroidered ,then ofcourse it was translated ,changed and politicised ,i doubt if anything in the bible is correct bar places and historical provable people (you need a little bit of truth people will see so it makes the lies less obvious) ,i'm afraid the main cast are nothing more than additions giving a thread to bind many stories together the later additions (the saints etc) nothing more than parts dreamt up to stop even the most stupid questioning the whole mucky thing ,its to stop the modern day people who sit at the pictures saying in loud voices "err just a minute XXXX was invented in 1909 so how could he be using one" the old nit pickers were swiftly accused of devil lovers and disposed of usually very cruelly.

people even a short time ago were accused of heresy and disposed of now the church has lost its power over life its scam is seen as just a scam to more and more people.unfortunately the newer religions still have this power of life and death hence their increase compared to the christian churches decrease ,now the church cannot hide those protesters who show its all a game more hear them and examine what they say for themselves and more importantly can say it also.

Edited March 31, 2010 by chesters1

[DavyR]

phones were banned (and in some cases still are) in hospitals because someone dreamt up a "fact" they interfered with machinery

 

Only partially true - mobile phones *can* affect some equipment in hospitals, but only when held literally inches away. In other words, not enough of a problem to warrant widespread bans on their use (something which is currently being reviewed by the Dept of Health).

 

The cynical amongst us may conclude, however, that those companies providing expensive "safe" telephone services to hospital patients have done rather well out of such bans.

[DavyR]

According to this Creationist site, the Large Hadron Collider will provide the kind of evidence you and I may accept Davy. A strange hypothesis for those who think that the maximum age of the universe is 4004BC

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...hadron-collider

 

"Whatever scientists discover about the universe from the LHC, it will show that the universe is upheld by God in a consistent way. This will therefore confirm that the Bible is true."

 

More circular arguments!

[chesters1]

Only partially true - mobile phones *can* affect some equipment in hospitals, but only when held literally inches away. In other words, not enough of a problem to warrant widespread bans on their use (something which is currently being reviewed by the Dept of Health).

 

The cynical amongst us may conclude, however, that those companies providing expensive "safe" telephone services to hospital patients have done rather well out of such bans.

we did R&D on nokia mobile phones using very sensitive electronics and there was nothing to find for equipment even in a very close area if the machinery was in a metal case ( basic Faraday shield)as most hospital equipment is , slight interference (were not talking about sending things loopy but getting a response on a meter of the phones transmission carrier wave) if it were in a plastic case (the metal frame supporting the case and its boards was a shield as sorts) infact the biggest problem we had was getting rid of the signal of the transmitter in Guildford cathedrals spire it was so powerful (not god i can assure you) we had to use our heavy faraday shielded room to get rid of it.

so its true "Phone" signals can cause problems but i would say its ignoring the far more powerful transmitters (i think even the hospital has one for a bit of extra lolly) but not phones per say.

and yes your second paragraph highlights exactly what i mean but the simple but more expensive notion of coating plastic boxes containing sensitive equiptment internally with mesh or carbon spray is far less welcomed (but far safer just in case) than simply banning phones making others suffer the saving will go toward a directors christmas party,blaming phones gets them off the hook and if theres a problem ignore the transmitters and blame a phone user breaking the rules

 

 

Trouble with god and its servants theve had many hundreds of years to get their story right ,right now its no doubt being transcribed that if the colider proves the universe is older than 4000 years it was god who gave man into this world gave him the intellect to invent things and "mysterious ways" will say whatever they find is flawed.

had it been 400 years ago the thing would have been a heresy and the whole lot and its inventors burnt at a stake to ensure gods existence

Edited March 31, 2010 by chesters1

[DavyR]

A study by the Medical Devices Agency in the United Kingdom reported that mobile phones could interfere with 4% of medical devices at a distance of one metre:

 

Department of Health. Patient power review group: use of mobile phones in

hospitals and other NHS premises. London: DoH, 2006.

 

Summary of Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory

Agency (MHRA) advice on use of mobile phones in hospitals:

 

A total ban on mobile phones is not needed and is impossible to enforce

effectively

Mobile phones should be switched off near critical care or life support

equipment and should be used only in designated areas

Authorised health and social care staff and external service personnel

should always comply with local rules regarding the use of mobile phones

Hospitals and NHS trusts should develop local rules to minimise the risk of

interference with important medical equipment

Mobile phones should not be used in critical care areas, such as intensive

therapy units and special care baby units, or where patients are attached to

complex devices

The MHRA also notes that

Telephone ring tones may disturb or alarm patients who are resting

The ringing of telephones and subsequent conversations may disturb

important discussions involving patients or healthcare professionals (or

both)

The use of camera phones may compromise patient confidentiality

Alarm tones on medical equipment may be overlooked if confused with

telephone ring tones

 

The bit I've highlighted is quite interesting, and probably more of a concern than the equipment issue. Some hospital staff have even spotted family members taking photos of recently-deceased relatives on their phones (not that dead patients tend to worry much about issues of confidentiality).

[chesters1]

or taking pictures of filthy wards more like

 

heres the "evidence" and it seems to be regarding ambulance radios etc

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Safety...etins/CON007355

the only other one seems to be how to report a problem with a phone interfering with equipment although how the hell a glitch could be spotted and the phone doing it determined without the apporpriate equipment i haven't a clue ,a "report" would be nothing more than hearsay not "evidence" in MHRA's hands ,i could report fred blogs passed my gate and the phone rang but no-one was there.

a quick scan through there's no mention of phones and if it is ambulance radios why are they still fitted to ambulances? AHA spotted the word cell phone so i expect its based on some cloudy american research for some dubious reason i think their system is different to ours ?

 

it boils down to this

 

"We would recommend that mobile data terminals should never be

operated while they are standing on any kind of medical device, and

that the healthcare organisation’s policy for cellphones be applied to

these devices (see DB9702)."

 

just how many people put their phones ON medical equipment

 

not sure why we have gone from god to mobile phones perhaps its "MYSTERIOUS WAYS" and the heat getting taken away from the baby jesus

oH yes it was fact being got from lie

Edited March 31, 2010 by chesters1

[The Flying Tench]

I've got no problem with Paul's criterion as such. What I was highlighting is the impossibility of debating with someone who, when presented with the suggestion that the experience of the Apostles may have been due to dreams or visions, responds that that is impossible, since in order to *be* an Apostle in the first place, one must have seen the risen Christ in the flesh.

 

That is a perfect example of a circular argument. I think the problem lies in, as I suggested earlier, the completely different definition of "evidence" used by both sides in the debate.

 

Ah, now I understand better the point you are making. But my reading of the article is not as extreme as yours. He argues that, since having seen the risen Christ was necessary to be an apostle, there had to be a difference between the 'appearances' and the kind of visions that many had - and in fact that many, including me, still have today in charismatic and pentecostal circles. In your excerpt he does not seem to conclude that this proves that bodily appearances necessarily happened, but I admit I have not read the whole thing.

 

IMHO there is no reason to think that Paul was writing fiction to try and bolster the faith against unbelievers, but there are still plenty of questions to be asked about what he was saying. He was arguing (I Cor 9:1) that he should be counted as an apostle for a number of reasons including having met the risen christ. It was a passing mention. I am not aware of any other evidence in the NT about it being a criterion. Also, unlike the the claimed appearances in the gospels which were very bodily, including Jesus cooking a barbecue and eating fish, Paul's 'appearance' was obviously nothing of the sort. In Acts 9 he sees a light and hears a voice. It was not an appearance in the same way. Fuel to your fire?

 

I Corinthians was the earliest letter, normally dated 21 years after Christ's death. So it is a very good source for what the early christians believed. In I Cor 15:6 he mentions that on one occasion he appeared to more than 500 people at once, some of whom had died. In other words there were plenty of people still alive who could confirm what he was saying. Now if this was a vision it was a very unusual type of vision, becuase most visions are seen by one person, not several hundred. He also refers to the appearances in the gospel accounts. The gospels were not written down by then, but the verbal traditions would have been well developed. And paul refers to the appearances to the apostles. It would seem probable that by this time the early christians believed there had been bodily appearances including lengthy conversations with Jesus, and his eating fish! (eg Luke 24:42). Personally, I find it hard to imagine such traditions developing so quickly, with the many of the apostles still alive, if they were not at least partly rooted in fact.

 

As to different standards of evidence by the two sides. I don't think that is true. There is a huge range of approach and knowledge amongst both christians and atheists. Theology is an academic subject in most universities, and there are leading theologians with a wide range of beliefs - including atheists, of course. The academic standards for theology in mainstream universities are not so different from other disciplines, I would have thought. There is, for example, a degree of movement between theology and philosophy departments. I can assure you that, in my theology exams, if I had just assumed the gospels were true I would have got even less marks than I did! The epistles, for course, are a bit different. They are records of what the early church believed, and there is not a huge difference beween the views of liberals and conservatives about that. It is in the critical analyis of the gospels that there is more disagreement.

Edited March 31, 2010 by The Flying Tench