What does Christmas mean to you?

[TheLeft]

A PhD in Systematic Theology? I might have to get one of those. It must be great to call yourself a Doctor and only have to do an exam where every answer is either "God", "Jesus" or "God did it".

@Sogdog. Mate, you won't get any sensible answers. If someone believes in a Magic Wishing Fairy over science and cold hard facts, then a few questions on an internet forum are unlikely to sway them.

[basics]

TheLeft,

Is it not a cold hard fact that Jesus Christ was born. lived and died among us? One doesn't have to be a doctor or scientist to appreciate that as a truth. The difference between us is that you have never met Him as I have so all your comments are pure assumption on your part. If all that was predicted about Christ was not true then why in time did it happen according to these predictions? Salvation through Jesus Christ beats any science that you think you know of, why? Because Jesus Christ is our Creator something you'll only appreciate once you die. Where's the sense in putting your eternal life in jeopardy?

[TheLeft]

TheLeft,

Is it not a cold hard fact that Jesus Christ was born. lived and died among us?

Sure, but the fact that it was documented that he existed doesn't make him divine. After all, what's to stop me claiming any other historical figure as being Divine if we can proof they existed?

One doesn't have to be a doctor or scientist to appreciate that as a truth. The difference between us is that you have never met Him as I have so all your comments are pure assumption on your part. If all that was predicted about Christ was not true then why in time did it happen according to these predictions? Salvation through Jesus Christ beats any science that you think you know of, why? Because Jesus Christ is our Creator something you'll only appreciate once you die. Where's the sense in putting your eternal life in jeopardy?

Because I'm just not gullible enough to just accept things as truth with any form of proof. The Bible, while it is an interesting historical document, isn't scientific proof or cold hard fact. The ironic thing is that you would tell an adherent of any other religion that their beliefs were wrong, and they would do the same to you. When the basis of someone's beliefs are "It exists because I think it does", then that's not factually based. If religion was fact, then everyone the world over would accept it without question and there would be no disagreement over the existence of the divine.

The minute someone can actually prove the existence of God scientifically then I'll be on board, until then... I'm out, sorry.

[Sogdog]

Mythology and fiction are entirely different things. The key is in the intention. Fiction is intended to be un-true or un-real from the outset. Myth is not.
And yes, being the foundation of a culture does make them real...to that culture. You're confusing "real" and "truth" with "factual" and "literal". Literal truth is not necessarily the same as mythic truth.

mythical
adjective
UK /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.kəl/ US /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.kəl/
(also mythic, UK /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.k/ US )

existing only in stories:
the mythical island of Atlantis
a mythical hero
dragons and other mythical creatures

imaginary or not real:

[sumskilz]

mythical
adjective
UK /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.kəl/ US /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.kəl/
(also mythic, UK /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.k/ US )

existing only in stories:
the mythical island of Atlantis
a mythical hero
dragons and other mythical creatures

imaginary or not real:

MaximiIian's view is consistent with the concepts of myth and reality as they are considered in the social sciences, particularly anthropology and sociology.

[conon394]

mythical
adjective
UK /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.kəl/ US /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.kəl/
(also mythic, UK /ˈmɪθ.ɪ.k/ US )

existing only in stories:
the mythical island of Atlantis
a mythical hero
dragons and other mythical creatures

imaginary or not real:

But Maximilian remains correct. Any Athenian would know Plato's Atlantis is a fictional allegory just as the ring of Gyges (why no History channel shows get made about I can't figure). But the Myth that Athena's sacred snake lived under the acropolis and ate little cakes took down to it was realistically story and at the same time real to the Athenian's. Sufficiently so that either out of patriotism or a bribe from Themistocles (I favor the former) when the Priestess reported the cakes uneaten to the assembly as a sign that Athena favored the plan of Themistocles it was considered a valid argument and piece of evidence in favor of getting out of dodge and trusting the wooden wall at sea.

Now if you want to be a hard core atheist and trust absoultly only observable facts in the reductionist form than both are just fiction, but in practice that is not true. One is a myth created and revered by a culture and one is a philosopher's allegory (which knowing what a git Plato could be that fact that it is treated as germ of truth myth now must amuse him endlessly in the next life - if there is one). In any case it is important to differentiate myths vs fiction.

[MaximiIian]

existing only in stories

The meaning of those stories and the intent behind the creation of those stories matters.

As has been said by sumskilz and conon, my usage is consistent with how mythology is defined in the social sciences. I would expect that someone who reveres science as much as you claim to, would at least attempt to adhere to scientific definitions. But instead you seem intent on cherry-picking definitions when and where it suits your preconceptions.

[basics]

Sure, but the fact that it was documented that he existed doesn't make him divine. After all, what's to stop me claiming any other historical figure as being Divine if we can proof they existed?



Because I'm just not gullible enough to just accept things as truth with any form of proof. The Bible, while it is an interesting historical document, isn't scientific proof or cold hard fact. The ironic thing is that you would tell an adherent of any other religion that their beliefs were wrong, and they would do the same to you. When the basis of someone's beliefs are "It exists because I think it does", then that's not factually based. If religion was fact, then everyone the world over would accept it without question and there would be no disagreement over the existence of the divine.

The minute someone can actually prove the existence of God scientifically then I'll be on board, until then... I'm out, sorry.

TheLeft,

That Jesus inferred that He was/is Divine by the signs and wonders He did must surely resonate a spark in your mind that His claims are true because all the miracles that He did defies science in every way?

[TheLeft]

TheLeft,

That Jesus inferred that He was/is Divine by the signs and wonders He did must surely resonate a spark in your mind that His claims are true because all the miracles that He did defies science in every way?

Did they? Did they defy science? Especially bearing mind that we have no scientific data for these supposed 'miracles'. We only have the Bible, which is hardly a reputable scientific textbook. It's not logical to claim that if we have no scientific data to study.

Going by your reasoning so far there is a pretty good case for declaring David Blaine to be divine.

1. We know he existed
2. He performed public 'miracles'

[Cope]

Did they? Did they defy science? Especially bearing mind that we have no scientific data for these supposed 'miracles'. We only have the Bible, which is hardly a reputable scientific textbook. It's not logical to claim that if we have no scientific data to study.

Going by your reasoning so far there is a pretty good case for declaring David Blaine to be divine.

1. We know he existed
2. He performed public 'miracles'

Science, by definition, rules out the possibility of miracles. Your point is self-defeating.

[TheLeft]

Science, by definition, rules out the possibility of miracles. Your point is self-defeating.

Which is why I wrote supposed 'miracles'. Do try and keep up.

[Cope]

The scientific standard does not entertain miracles at all: they cannot be supposed. Arguing that there is "no scientific data" for events which, by definition, cannot be proven by scientific data, is self-defeating.

[Sir Adrian]

Go back 70 years and you can replace miracles with black holes. Go back 140 years and you can replace them with radio waves. Go back 40 years and you can replace them with exoplanets and gravitational waves.

Dismissing something simply because it cannot be proven by current science is self-defeating.

[Gromovnik]

The scientific standard does not entertain miracles at all: they cannot be supposed. Arguing that there is "no scientific data" for events which, by definition, cannot be proven by scientific data, is self-defeating.

That also means that these supposed miracles don't "defy science".

[Cope]

That also means that these supposed miracles don't "defy science".

It means that miracles cannot exist by scientific standards.

[basics]

Did they? Did they defy science? Especially bearing mind that we have no scientific data for these supposed 'miracles'. We only have the Bible, which is hardly a reputable scientific textbook. It's not logical to claim that if we have no scientific data to study.

Going by your reasoning so far there is a pretty good case for declaring David Blaine to be divine.

1. We know he existed
2. He performed public 'miracles'

TheLeft,

No, we have books written by eye witnesses which we call the Bible. So yes, His exploits in the miraculous field would have been pretty public. It was these signs and wonders that terrified the Sanhedrin leading to His death on the cross.

[Gromovnik]

According to the Bible.

[conon394]

Go back 70 years and you can replace miracles with black holes. Go back 140 years and you can replace them with radio waves. Go back 40 years and you can replace them with exoplanets and gravitational waves.

A few holes there and not all black.

First of course Exo planets go back to Democritus at least as a theoretical proposed reality.

Radio waves. Ahh see that is the thing. If you give me simple instructions and I can build a crystal radio receiver and hear people on them over and over again. No magic nor sorcery. A reproducible result of a reproducible technology. The Bible is unfortunately not reproducible for effect. It does require blind faith with that opens the question of competing blind faith. Also of course once I can understand use and explain radio waves a lot of the stories of the bible and man in the sky must tend to be deemed as parables at best since they objectively do not describe the real world nor how it works.

----

No, we have books written by eye witnesses which we call the Bible. So yes, His exploits in the miraculous field would have been pretty public. It was these signs and wonders that terrified the Sanhedrin leading to His death on the cross.

Well certainly no the OT there basics. You I suppose mean to say the NT but even that is second hand and unsupported.

[basics]

conon394,

Have you ever read the Bible? The Old Testament is full of His miraculous exploits never mind the creation of all things inside and outside this planet. My wife and I have seen first and second hand miracles and their results. If prayers themselves are not miracles then why do they get answered with either a positive or even negative result? Christmas is a time of joy because Jesus Christ our Creator and God came into the world as prophesied way back to the garden event so why do you keep making such a miserable attempt at doing what you are trying to do in decrying it? Glad I won't be in your home on Christmas Day.

[conon394]

Have you ever read the Bible?

Yes in Greek and Latin and better translations than your favorite.

The Old Testament is full of His miraculous exploits

And petty and cruel ones as well. But the problem is so is the myths of other people as well.

never mind the creation of all things inside and outside this planet

Which frankly I sure the really erudite men who worked on the NT probably wished they could dump it. Since it looks a lot like the simple narrative of bronze-iron age sheep farmers, that got crudely edited to monotheism when somebody wanted to be different (or lock in a privilege).

My wife and I have seen first and second hand miracles and their results.

You personal faith is well personal, and how you view it. But it remains faith, not a external fact. I can't possibly understand how you define a miracle that you have witnessed.

If prayers themselves are not miracles then why do they get answered with either a positive or even negative result?

Are they answered that is. If you pray for health or life there is no possible way to know if you were in fact heard or answered. Or if you saved by random chance or those around you or some other deity whit spare time.

Christmas is a time of joy because Jesus Christ our Creator and God came into the world as prophesied way back to the garden event so why do you keep making such a miserable attempt at doing what you are trying to do in decrying it?

Again because a petulant god created the misery Jesus had to try to eventually and partially come to save some people from. But see below I really do find the OT an unconvincing mess. But it clearly inspires a fair amount of faith. I can respect that when that leads to good and decent people. But however I feel no reason to not say what I think in this case on discussion board.

Glad I won't be in your home on Christmas Day.

You sir misapprehend me. As I have said I am agnostic not atheist(*). Thus my Christmas is rather fun, I think you would enjoy being at my home and be welcome to come. I would do nothing but gladly bow my head in silence and link hands if you wanted to pray over the meal or the moment nor is a day of celebration is a day not to squandered on TWC level posting nor baiting my libertarian aunt, etc. As I see it many Atheists have achieved their own faith which is likely why they are often acrimonious. I simply have not, not yours or any of the others based on the Bible, or other options they simply do not speak to me. I am left there for as a Stoic I suppose in terms of trying to live a good life and a decent one to my fellow humans (and I hope if I come to faith the will be sufficient as a track record). I will be thus in the same boat with Socrates speculating about but not fearing my end and hope there is a something interesting because its obvious that we (humans) have been thinking about the end since we started telling stories.

* I realize that is open to ridicule as a fence sitter. But I think if approached honestly it has it own dignity especially if you accept that well if it turns out say Mohamed was right I guess I'm hosed but am willing to face the results.