ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

Scott Hebert said:
All right. Let's try this. Can you give me PROOF that Julius Caesar ever existed? All you have are stories about him, and maybe a tomb where somebody (who you claim was Julius Caesar) was buried. If you rely on the stories, then you're just 'parroting' things.

Neither I nor anyone else is claiming the Julius was/is a deity. Jews believe that Jesus existed (as I also accept), but they do not accept (AFAIK) his alleged divinity. Yet they, as do the Christians, believe in the *same* God. I do not doubt that most (if not all) of the *events* in the Bible took place. Where I differ is in the interpretation of their causes and/or meaning. An ignorant peasant (or even a "learned" scholar) from 2000 years ago, not knowing what a comet or nova is, would see such an event as a portent or devise some other supernatural explanation for what they didn't understand. Hypothetically speaking (because time travel may or may not be possible), if we were to take a person back 2000 years, equipped with many of the technological tools we have today and with today's understanding of science, they would be able to wow the locals of the time with their "godlike" knowledge and "godlike" powers. Something simple like CPR would have been seen as a divine miracle 200 years ago, nevermind 2000. To assume that the stories in the Bible do not have what's termed "observer bias" is dangerous. People see (and pass along) what they *thought* they saw or what they wished to see. It's not necessarily what really happened.

People think they see Elvis, or Bigfoot. Doesn't mean they're right. No matter how many of them there are, or how loudly they tell their stories.

Scott Hebert said:
And what is wrong with dogma? All because I believe what the Catholic Church believes, and has believed for milennia, does not mean that I accept it blindly, or without investigation. To assume I do is an insult to my intelligence.

Dogma is an established opinion (see M-W definition #1). There is a huge difference between dogma and fact. Dogma may or may not be based upon facts, but dogma must not be used *in place of* facts. That's what makes dogma dangerous (in my opinion): that people often use it to explain things, rather than objective facts. Dogma, by definition, is subjective, since it's an *opinion*.

I haven't assumed you don't question your faith. If I've given you such an impression, I apologize for that wasn't the intent.

BTW, in case you're the slightest bit curious, I was raised Roman Catholic by devout parents. The more I dug beneath the surface of what I was being taught, the less sense it made. Eventually, when I dug deep enough that priests told me I had to "take it on faith", since they could not (or would not) provide the answers I sought, I knew I'd exhausted reason and had entered the realm of mythology and superstition. It's no more tolerable as an adult to get such an answer as it is for a child when she asks her parents "why?" and they respond "because we say so". It's not a real answer. It's just a means used to control you.

Scott Hebert said:
Why do you smack a child's hand instead of explaining to him the rather involved idea of personal property? Just like in matters of the intellect, you have to learn to walk before you can learn to run, in moral matters.

Why? Because it's quick and convenient. It's also terrible parenting if you fail to explain *why* you smacked him/her. All you're doing is instilling fear. The purpose of the smack is to reinforce the lesson, not be the lesson in and of itself. If you're saying that religion gives us just the smack and that we're too immature to be able to learn morals by reason, then no thanks, I'll pass on religion as a means of education.

Scott Hebert said:
Besides, the idea that God was a 'hard-***' in the Old Testament and suddenly became 'meek and mild' in the New Testament is a fallacy.

You missed my point. The supposed authoritative work on morality, and which alleges an infallible and all-knowing deity, contradicts itself all over the place.

Scott Hebert said:
Are you aware of Aquinas's arguments regarding the existence of God?

Yes, I am.

Scott Hebert said:
May I ask what you do consider proof, if printed words and personal testimony isn't enough? If you're holding out for a personal vision of God, I'm afraid you're not likely to receive one. People have in the past (and still do, in the present), but they are only a handful.

Good questions. BTW, the Egyptians had their own written works and "testimony", as did the Greeks and Norse. How many Ra, Zeus, or Odin worshippers are there today? Printed words and testimony aren't proof, as I said. What is proof is not a "personal" vision of God (a la Joan of Arcadia). That would just be more hearsay (except, perhaps, to the recipient, assuming they don't consider themselves to have gone mad). It's a recordable vision of God, or some divine act (indirect, yet solid evidence) that cannot be explained by anything short of His existence.

Scott Hebert said:
Also, please be advised that I will ask you to prove various things by the same standards that you give to me regarding God, to ensure that the standards you set are fair.

Of course. Just be advised that my ability, or inability, to prove something does not justify any other claims. At best it can justify, or fail to justify, the claim I'm asked to prove. In other words, just because I may be unable to meet the standards I've set doesn't make a position on God any less (or more) valid. Another way of looking at it is that if I can or cannot prove an apple is red has no bearing on whether an orange is sweet. That must be proved separately. So asking me to prove something, using my own standards, accomplishes nothing. It's merely an attempt to cloud or dodge the issue of proving claims.

Analogy: you say you saw me attempt to rob a store. You have friends who also say they saw me. There is no video of me being there. There are no fingerprints. Nothing was taken. Was I there? Testimony says 'yes'. Hard evidence says 'no'. My fate will rest upon whether the witnesses are credible. If you and your friends were all stoned at the time (and thus cannot be sure of what they saw or thought they saw), or are known to hate me (thus have an agenda in telling their story), the jury will likely dismiss the testimony. The analogy comes in that witnesses in the Bible had political motivations for telling their stories, as did the clerics who decided which stories to include in the compilation known as the Bible. History is written by the victors (and the Roman Catholic church was ultimately and for a very long time victorious), and inconvenient facts tend to be downplayed at best or outright expunged.