Theistic evolution, what is it ?

[jasoncran]

actually with out the signs and wonders, he wouldnt be the messiah.

one doesnt die for a lie, would you. if you know what you are is a lie and are going to die for that, would you. i meant that you intentionally and knowing lying to get power, or steal power from the true priests.

 

[seekandlisten]

actually with out the signs and wonders, he wouldnt be the messiah.

Well, I was referring to what he taught doesn't need miracles/magic to be true. We can't discuss every aspect of what you believe because I will simply disagree on some. My point to the 'magic' aspect of it is that if you won't accept the 'miracles' of another using the same resources why would you think I should accept your claim? I think there are far more useful things to learn from the life of Jesus then strictly believing he performed miracles.

one doesnt die for a lie, would you. if you know what you are is a lie and are going to die for that, would you.

I don't think Jesus thought he was dying for a lie.

i meant that you intentionally and knowing lying to get power, or steal power from the true priests.

I don't follow you here?

On a side note, I don't think our discussion really has anything to do with theistic evolution anymore.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

i know that,but i had to adress you.

one last thing, jesus didnt believe that he was lying, but if he wasnt who he said he was, then he just a dead man with bunch of followers following a dead man's faith.

 

[seekandlisten]

i know that,but i had to adress you.

Alright.

one last thing, jesus didnt believe that he was lying, but if he wasnt who he said he was, then he just a dead man with bunch of followers following a dead man's faith.

Well he did put his forward to his followers.

And He summoned the multitude with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. (NASB) Mark 8:34

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

yes, but paul said that if christ didnt rise from the dead that our faith was dead, and we are men most miserable.

 

[Bent Radar]

Sorry, this is a late response to an older post...

You're assuming that superstitious people are more easily deceived by con-artists than non-superstitious people. That proposition requires evidence, and you haven't provided any.

Let's see what one can dig up with not too much effort.

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v34/5 ... 083_v1.pdf
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0
http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id15.html

There some reading to get you started.

I certainly don't think these articles provide sufficient evidence for the proposition that superstitious people are more easily deceived by con-artists.

If you do, that's fine. Because at any rate, it doesn't matter to me even if that proposition were true, because that's a far cry from showing that bible-believers are superstitious. happyjoy was suggesting that people who believe in the miracles of scripture are superstitious, which is not true. Some probably are, some probably aren't. What of it?

I was simply pointing out that it had not been demonstrated that (1) superstitious people are more easily deceived, much less so that (2) those who accept the supernatural testimony within scripture are superstitious.

So for happyjoy to imply that those who accept biblical miracles are superstitious, and therefore more easily deceived by con-men is ridiculous.

 

[seekandlisten]

Sorry, this is a late response to an older post...

I had to go back to see what I was even talking about, but I remember now.

I certainly don't think these articles provide sufficient evidence for the proposition that superstitious people are more easily deceived by con-artists.

That was a quick search that brought me to those articles so I wouldn't say they are all that is out there. It would be an interesting to look into but I just don't have the time right now.

happyjoy was suggesting that people who believe in the miracles of scripture are superstitious, which is not true. Some probably are, some probably aren't.

This comes down to perception and I would have to say some terms would have to be defined to go further with this aspect of the conversation just so we'd be on the same page.

I am curious to your response in regards to the Sai Baba miracles though as to what would be 'evidence' of 'miracles'.

I was simply pointing out that it had not been demonstrated that (1) superstitious people are more easily deceived, much less so that (2) those who accept the supernatural testimony within scripture are superstitious.

So for happyjoy to imply that those who accept biblical miracles are superstitious, and therefore more easily deceived by con-men is ridiculous.

Well to make the statement as an absolute I too would need more studies done on this matter. The point I was getting at was more along the lines of the evidence for these 'miracles'. That is why I brought up the Sai Baba scenerio to see what people think in regards to those claims.

I wish I could find it in it's entirety but I would suggest watching Darren Brown's Messiah or Seance video presentations. I have them in their entirety but when I checked for a source with them the only thing I could find was it broken up into parts on youtube. Check it out, it was quite interesting what the studies shown and it is right along the topic of superstitious people and their responses to different scenarios, especially the part titled Messiah(I think it's labeled a little different on youtube but still has the word Messiah in the title).

cheers

 

[Bent Radar]

Thank you for the Derren Brown reference... I had not heard of Derren Brown before. I watched "Messiah" as well as "The Heist". I also watched some of his other videos. They were very interesting and entertaining. I don't really think it applies very much to what's being discussed here, however. It's difficult to label certain groups of people as superstitious without using circular reasoning.

I am curious to your response in regards to the Sai Baba miracles though as to what would be 'evidence' of 'miracles'.

I have not heard of Sai Baba. I think that the background information gives Jesus' miracles more credence than other miracle workers. In other words, looking at the big picture makes Jesus' miracles more likely. I don't take Jesus' miracles in isolation from everything else about him.

Of course it takes an amount of faith, because we can't be sure (but it isn't blind faith). We can be confident that Jesus did things that his contemporaries deemed as miracles. The gospels themselves are strong evidence for this, and there are extra-biblical references to Jesus as a healer and exorcist. But of course Jesus could have been an illusionist. From my studies, I would assign that a very low probability. I also find it unlikely that the miracles were late additions to the texts.

People from ancient times have had their savior god-men, and they expect them to perform miracles to prove their self. I believe that Jesus was the only personage in history who' s actually fulfilled this.

(I would like to add that the Christian faith does not necessarily stand or fall on the veracity of all of the miracles recorded in the gospels.)