A practical definition for "God"

[Lek]

I haven't conversed with you for a while, Rob.  I hope last weekend went well.  It sounds like a cause we can both agree upon.  This we can't agree upon.

If I knew Jesus when he walked the earth and I saw him heal the sick, raise the dead, and rise from the dead himself, then declare he was God, I would believe him.  In the same way I believe the written and oral testimony of those who did.  I also believe the testimonies of trusted people who profess to have had personal experiences with God.  This is not just based on wishful thinking or whatever.  Because these reasons are not good enough for you, doesn't mean they are not good reasons.

I think you've fallen into special pleading, here.  You say that if you saw Jesus, you would believe him.  You also say that you believe the testimony of people who make claims about Jesus.  Those aren't two equivalent cases.  If I were to see a water buffalo in my kitchen, standing and thoughtfully chewing, making water buffalo noises and emitting water buffalo smells, I would be justified in believing that I have a water buffalo in my kitchen.  If I make the claim to you that I have a water buffalo in my kitchen, it would be reasonable for you to doubt me, as a kitchen in a small town in New Zealand is an unlikely habitat for a water buffalo.

I've never seen anyone - anyone at all - walk on water, wither a fig tree with a word, heal lepers with a touch, turn water into wine, bring a dead person back to life, calm a storm, or feed thousands with a handful of bread and fish.  All of these are such extraordinarily unlikely events that it's perfectly fair of me to not accept the testimony of alleged witnesses whom I cannot interview (because they're all, like, dead and stuff).

Jesus is your water-buffalo-in-the-kitchen.  You believe the stories to be true because you want the stories to be true.  This is the very essence of '...wishful thinking or whatever'.  God is your unnecessary assumption.

Boru

So you're from New Zealand. For some reason, I always thought you were from England. I guess I can't distinguish a New Zealand accent from a British one. Sorry. Not only do I believe the testimony, but I've been into a deeper study of the old testament, and I'm amazed at how things link up with the new testament story. It's eye-opening to read the prophesies that were fulfilled at a later time and documented by different writers. What do you think about, well-known and respected people today who testify to having supernatural experiences? Do you think that because you have never had these types of experiences that nobody can? If ten people have all experienced the supernatural, they can back each other up. Are you assuming that a supernatural experience can be proved by natural means?

[Minimalist]

It's eye-opening to read the prophesies that were fulfilled at a later time and documented by different writers.

Odd that the jews have a different take on that, isn't it?  It is, after all, their book.

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

Before the time of the mashiach, there shall be war and suffering (Ezekiel 38:16)

The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).

What About Jesus?
Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.
On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kokhba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kokhba was the mashiach. Bar Kokhba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kokhba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach.

[Crossless2.0]

I think you've fallen into special pleading, here.  You say that if you saw Jesus, you would believe him.  You also say that you believe the testimony of people who make claims about Jesus.  Those aren't two equivalent cases.  If I were to see a water buffalo in my kitchen, standing and thoughtfully chewing, making water buffalo noises and emitting water buffalo smells, I would be justified in believing that I have a water buffalo in my kitchen.  If I make the claim to you that I have a water buffalo in my kitchen, it would be reasonable for you to doubt me, as a kitchen in a small town in New Zealand is an unlikely habitat for a water buffalo.

I've never seen anyone - anyone at all - walk on water, wither a fig tree with a word, heal lepers with a touch, turn water into wine, bring a dead person back to life, calm a storm, or feed thousands with a handful of bread and fish.  All of these are such extraordinarily unlikely events that it's perfectly fair of me to not accept the testimony of alleged witnesses whom I cannot interview (because they're all, like, dead and stuff).

Jesus is your water-buffalo-in-the-kitchen.  You believe the stories to be true because you want the stories to be true.  This is the very essence of '...wishful thinking or whatever'.  God is your unnecessary assumption.

Boru

So you're from New Zealand.  For some reason, I always thought you were from England.  I guess I can't distinguish a New Zealand accent from a British one.  Sorry.  Not only do I believe the testimony, but I've been into a deeper study of the old testament, and I'm amazed at how things link up with the new testament story.  It's eye-opening to read the prophesies that were fulfilled at a later time and documented by different writers.  

Yeah, I'm always blown away when narratives are made to "fit" the prophetic tradition in which the authors were versed. It's . . . miraculous!

And I'd like to see a response to Min's point that the Jews don't agree with the Christians' take on the alleged fulfillment of the prophecies.

[Lek]

Odd that the jews have a different take on that, isn't it?  It is, after all, their book.

The bible belongs to all who follow Christ, the fulfillment of the old testament. If the old testament wasn't already fulfilled, I wonder why the Jews have not any added any books to it in the last 2,500 years. Also, why have they stopped following the old testament law?

Before the time of the mashiach, there shall be war and suffering (Ezekiel 38:16)

No brainer.

The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).

The verses about returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the temple were fulfilled upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile. Jesus's kingdom fulfills most of the verses you cited. The "last days" are normally referred to by christians as the time after Jesus until he returns on the "last day".

What About Jesus?
Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.
On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kokhba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kokhba was the mashiach. Bar Kokhba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kokhba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach.

Jews aren't the only ones who interpret scripture differently. Christians also differ in their interpretations.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So you're from New Zealand. For some reason, I always thought you were from England. I guess I can't distinguish a New Zealand accent from a British one. Sorry. Not only do I believe the testimony, but I've been into a deeper study of the old testament, and I'm amazed at how things link up with the new testament story. It's eye-opening to read the prophesies that were fulfilled at a later time and documented by different writers. What do you think about, well-known and respected people today who testify to having supernatural experiences? Do you think that because you have never had these types of experiences that nobody can? If ten people have all experienced the supernatural, they can back each other up. Are you assuming that a supernatural experience can be proved by natural means?

I'm originally from Northern Ireland, I live in NZ now.

I agree that the Old Testament Prophecies appear to 'link up' with the New Testament stories, but that's to be expected: The NT authors and compilers had a vested interest in making their Saviour appear to fill OT prophecies. The technical term for this is 'cooking the books.' But that's as may be. I'm a little surprised that you don't see the conflict this creates. You're taking one set of stories that you would like to be true and using them to substantiate another set of stories that you would like to be true. Using the OT to confirm the NT is a lot like using 'The Deathly Hallows' to confirm 'The Philosopher's Stone'. Since neither set of stories is veridical in any meaningful sense, you really are engaging in wishful thinking.

I don't doubt for a moment that some people have what they assume to be supernatural experiences. But this is the same problem. Humans are natural beings. We live in a natural universe. As such, natural explanations are always to be preferred over supernatural ones. Claims of the supernatural always fail during serious investigation. But even if a natural explanation isn't found doesn't mean we resort to a supernatural one.

Ten (or more) individuals having supernatural experiences rarely - if ever - back each other up. I know several people who claim to have see what they call angels, but the descriptions and circumstances are all different. I don't know if you're at all familiar with the USian stage magicians Penn and Teller, but they perform an amazing illusion where Teller appears to extract gold coins from the air and turn them into live goldfish. If they perform this trick before 100 people and 10 of them claim that the coins were really turned into fish, does that mean we should accept their testimony? Of course not, because Teller is known to be a professional illusionist. Personal testimony doesn't equal proof, or even a good reason to believe.

No, I do not think that supernatural events can be proved by natural means. But natural means are all human beings are able to employ, which is why supernatural events cannot be proved by any means. They have to be accepted as articles of faith, which is exactly the same as wishful thinking.

Boru

[MTL]

Jews aren't the only ones who interpret scripture differently.  Christians also differ in their interpretations.

Not to oversimplify it, but that, right there, is very simply one of the reasons I reject Religion.

Don't you think if God really exists,

and cares about having our obedience and worship,

enough to go to the trouble of leaving a literal, physical, written manual for mankind,

that He would make sure it was IMPOSSIBLE TO MISINTERPRET that book

...nevermind disagreeing over WHICH book was the actually the right one???

[Lek]

I'm originally from Northern Ireland, I live in NZ now.

I agree that the Old Testament Prophecies appear to 'link up' with the New Testament stories, but that's to be expected:  The NT authors and compilers had a vested interest in making their Saviour appear to fill OT prophecies.  The technical term for this is 'cooking the books.'  But that's as may be.  I'm a little surprised that you don't see the conflict this creates.  You're taking one set of stories that you would like to be true and using them to substantiate another set of stories that you would like to be true.  Using the OT to confirm the NT is a lot like using 'The Deathly Hallows' to confirm 'The Philosopher's Stone'.  Since neither set of stories is veridical in any meaningful sense, you really are engaging in wishful thinking.

I don't doubt for a moment that some people have what they assume to be supernatural experiences.  But this is the same problem.  Humans are natural beings. We live in a natural universe.  As such, natural explanations are always to be preferred over supernatural ones.  Claims of the supernatural always fail during serious investigation.  But even if a natural explanation isn't found doesn't mean we resort to a supernatural one.

Ten (or more) individuals having supernatural experiences rarely - if ever - back each other up.  I know several people who claim to have see what they call angels, but the descriptions and circumstances are all different.  I don't know if you're at all familiar with the USian stage magicians Penn and Teller, but they perform an amazing illusion where Teller appears to extract gold coins from the air and turn them into live goldfish.  If they perform this trick before 100 people and 10 of them claim that the coins were really turned into fish, does that mean we should accept their testimony?  Of course not, because Teller is known to be a professional illusionist.  Personal testimony doesn't equal proof, or even a good reason to believe.serious investigation

No, I do not think that supernatural events can be proved by natural means.  But natural means are all human beings are able to employ, which is why supernatural events cannot be proved by any means.  They have to be accepted as articles of faith, which is exactly the same as wishful thinking.

Boru

If 10 people said they saw an angel, why do the circumstances need to be the same and the angels look alike? Your assertion that when supernatural occurrences are seriously investigated thy always fail isn't correct. What is correct is that supernatural occurrences cannot be proven when investigated. Often they are proven to be fraud or imagination, but very often there is nothing to disprove them. That's because science is not equipped to test the supernatural. You are right that saying that believing something like christainity requires faith, but it's not an unfounded belief. Also, if I and many others have a supernatural experience, I'm going to believe it, especially if I don't have a history of seeing pink elephants, because I'm the who had the experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's because science is not equipped to test the supernatural.

I know right, if I hand you a scope and tell you to find the deer in an empty field...no matter how long you stare through that instrument, you'll never see those damned deer.  

Magic!

Perhaps, when people call your belief unfounded, they mean that it is unfounded relative to other things a person might hold as beliefs?

I don't think that every christian who claims a brush with the the divine is being honest (and it was once considered heretical to claim such a thing), but some of them undoubtedly are, they've experienced something. Calling that something a god is the unfounded bit, not the compulsion they feel as a consequence of whatever experience they've had. Sometimes I wonder if people think that they're being told that their -experience- itself wasn't real, or the -motivation- to action they feel isn't real...when they're told that their belief is unfounded. Does anyone doubt that people experience things, or that these experiences can be compelling? I hardly think so. It's certainly been -my- experience that both the experience and the compulsion are the palpable ends of religious faith, I'd call that very well founded - the god bit...not so much.

[Lek]

Jews aren't the only ones who interpret scripture differently.  Christians also differ in their interpretations.

Not to oversimplify it, but that, right there, is very simply one of the reasons I reject Religion.

Don't you think if God really exists,

and cares about having our obedience and worship,

enough to go to the trouble of leaving a literal, physical, written manual for mankind,

that He would make sure it was IMPOSSIBLE TO MISINTERPRET that book

...nevermind disagreeing over WHICH book was the actually the right one???

No. I think he wants us to study the scriptures regularly and to rely on him daily for guidance. Even if something is written explicitly, people still interpret it differently. That's one reason people are always in court debating the interpretation of our laws.

[Lek]

That's because science is not equipped to test the supernatural.

I know right, if I hand you a scope and tell you to find the deer in an empty field...no matter how long you stare through that instrument, you'll never see those damned deer.  

Magic!

Perhaps, when people call your belief unfounded, they mean that it is unfounded relative to other things a person might hold as beliefs?  

I don't think that every christian who claims a brush with the the divine is being honest (and it was once considered heretical to claim such a thing), but some of them undoubtedly are, they've experienced something.  Calling that something a god is the unfounded bit, not the compulsion they feel as a consequence of whatever experience they've had.  Sometimes I wonder if people think that they're being told that their -experience- itself wasn't real, or the -motivation- to action they feel isn't real...when they're told that their belief is unfounded.  Does anyone doubt that people experience things, or that these experiences can be compelling?  I hardly think so.  It's certainly been -my- experience that both the experience and the compulsion are the palpable ends of religious faith, I'd call that very well founded - the god bit...not so much.

If you look at an angel through that same scope you probably won't see it, because angels don't follow laws of nature. Your scope is not equipped to view the supernatural.