Sanctuary being torn down. We need your help!!! - click here for details
You can also visit TheSanctuaryTaiwan.org - click here to go to their contact page

The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby Fortigurn » 06 May 2011, 15:41

BigJohn wrote: Why do you keep pointing this out, when no one disagrees with you?


On the contrary. People =including yourself originally, and later the Chief, said that what I presented is a logical argument.[/quote]

Actually the chief never said that at all, he said it was your opinion ('You were stating opinions to support your position. Even though you worded them as statements, they were still opinions.'). I said you were stating a logical form of argument, not a logical proof. A logical form of argument and a logical proof are not the same, and I told you more than once that I was not saying you were stating a logical proof ('I didn't say it was a statement of logical proof', 'No one said you were offering any evidence or logical proofs; I have no idea why you keep saying 'I did not offer evidence or logical proofs'').

A logical argument consists of a conclusion and premises meant to support or prove.


The statement 'X because Y' is exactly that; X is the conclusion, Y is the premise. That's a standard form of inductive argument, such as the typical example 'All swans are white, because every swan observed is white'.

Why don't you take your own advice and read the earlier posts before saying that no one said this.


I did. Not only did no one say you were stating a logical proof, but I told you more than once I wasn't saying such a thing.

Or are you hair-splitting between proofs and proofs from premises?


No, I'm simply pointing out that 'logical proof' and 'logical form of argument' are not the same thing.

You said in your last post to me that you explained falsifiability in Cliff's Notes format because you felt I didn't understand the concept. Check your post.


I'm not denying this. I'm pointing out that I didn't simply assume that you didn't know what falsifiability was, I deduced it from the fact that you asked me to explain it in the context of my argument. I introduced it without assuming you didn't know it, you asked me to explain it, so I explained it.

Finally! Was that so hard?


No it wasn't so hard. You have completely forgotten that I had already provided this statement, and you had already read it. I provided that statement on Monday. You not only read this post on the same day that I made it, but you quoted it, so it's clear you were well aware of this simple, straightforward, three sentence explanation of my position and how falsifiability relates to it.

You then continue to ask me several times for what I had already given you. In fact on the very same day that you had read my explanation, you asked for it again. I reminded you the next day that I had already given it to you ('I gave it to you').

You then asked me again to give you what I had already given you ('Yes, I am asking you to give me the Cliff Notes version of your argument, including falsifiability'). I had to remind you yet again that I had already done so. This time I even linked to the post which contains exactly the statement you're saying 'Finally! Was that so hard?' about ('I gave the Cliff's Notes version of my argument here. I also linked to a very simple explanation of why I believe, here').

So to recap:

* Monday: I gave a simple, straightforward, three sentence explanation of my position and how falsifiability relates to it

* Monday: you read this statement and responded to it

* Monday: you asked for it again

* Tuesday: I reminded you that I had already given it

* Tuesday: you asked for it again

* Tuesday: I reminded you that I had already given it, and this time I not only linked to the post in which I had given it, but quoted the statement to you directly

* Tuesday: You read the post you had already read the previous day, and say 'Finally! Was that so hard?'; remember, this is the post you had already read and reponded to the previous day, of which I had reminded you several times

You spent three posts asking me for something you had already read, and when I quoted it to you, you acted as if it was the first time I had written it and the first time you had read it. Can you see why I might find your form of argumentation unnecessarily tedious? You managed to fail to understand what three other people found to be quite clear. That tells me that the communication problem wasn't on my side.

I think that's an odd position to take, considering how much stuff you do write down.


When I write something down, and you read it, and you then ask me three times to make a statement which I have already made (and reminded you of twice), clearly having forgotten not only that I had made the statement but having also forgotten that you had actually already read it, then it's not an 'odd position' to decide that I'm not here to remind you of what you've already read.

If I write something, you read it and reply to it, and then later that very day you can't even remember that you read it, I am not interested in reminding you constantly that you've already read it, then chasing up the post you read, giving you a link to it, and quoting it because I know you won't even make the effort to click on the link. It's a waste of my time to remind you of what you have already read and responded to. That is not my job here.

Because then the theory that some exterior force resuscitated a dead man would have some basis in direct evidence to him.


Why? Wouldn't hallucination be a more likely explanation?

That's a load of tripe. I haven't done any such thing, That is pure word twisting, and not sincere as far as I can tell.


I described in detail a fundamental scientific principle. As antarcicbeech has observed, you dismissed this as a 'style of philosophy which is all based on references to other things and does not bravely state it's own vision'. He pointed out that the 'style of philosophy' you were dismissing was, in fact, science. This is not word twisting, this is what you did.

And don't call me BJ, Fart-again! The name is BigJohn.


Sorry, it wasn't inded to offend, it was just a convenient abbreviation; I won't do it again. You can call me what you like by the way. :)

Obviously I disagree with Fortigurn's beliefs and style or argumentation. However,nothing in that makes me believe he is ill-willed or intellectually dishonest, beyond the occasional snarky Anglican-tippler style crack, which obviously I can tolerate. I look forward to having a glass of Baal's blood with him at the next HH. He is probably a loving and kind person in real life, and obviously has read a few books now and then,.


Thanks, returned. I owe you a beer, remember. :thumbsup:
Hiking gear.
________________________
一閃一閃亮晶晶晶晶 我的項鍊到底在哪裡 滿天都是小星星星星 我要瞬間變成大明星!
一閃一閃眨眨眼眼眼 氣球飛來飛去的樂園 比太陽還耀眼眼眼眼 鑽石都讓到一邊!
我就是shining shining 大小姐 快大聲喊一遍! 我就是shining shining 大小姐 加滿元氣衝上天!
Forumosan avatar
Fortigurn
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
 
Posts: 4853
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 16 Jan 2004, 17:59
Location: Wanfang
13 Recommends(s)
33 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby BigJohn » 06 May 2011, 15:47

I said, let's drop it. OK? Neither of us agrees on the fundamentals and there's also a lot of detail there we disagree on too.

This has become an endless back and forth, and likely of interest to no one but ourselves.

So I think the time has come to put an end to our co-dependent stubborn ranting.

OK old chap?

There's a point where it becomes an unhealthy obsession....

If you really want to continue debating, let's wait until a fresh subject comes up, or even over that beer. :)
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4641
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
110 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby Gao Bohan » 07 Jun 2011, 06:26

housecat wrote:The three days--from Good Friday to Easter Sunday--Christ spent in hell, suffering for the sins of all mankind. And being simply given over to Satin--who, of course, inflicted every horror possible while he had the chance.


This is a late response, but the Bible does not say Jesus went to hell, nor does it say he suffered in hell for the sins of mankind, nor does it say the Devil tortured him.
Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. - John F. Kennedy
Forumosan avatar
Gao Bohan
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6300
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 03:20
Location: The Glorious American Empire
145 Recommends(s)
273 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby LhasaLhamo » 18 Jan 2012, 04:35

Has anyone here heard the theory that Jesus survived the crucifixion, and went east to India afterwards, where he spent the rest of his life teaching, mostly to the lowest-caste people? He's also said to have gone to India during the "Lost Years" of his youth, between age 13 and 29, to study healing techniques, spiritual wisdom, and so forth. A Russian, Nicholas Notovich, said he found a text about Jesus' life written in Tibetan , in a Buddhist monastery in Kashmir back in the 1880's. His interpreter translated the text, it was about Jesus' life in the East. Notovich's account is very controversial, but in the 1920's, a Russian with advanced degrees in Oriental Studies from Harvard and the Sorbonne traveled to the same monastery, found the text, translated it, and published some passages from it in newspapers in the US. Since then a few Hindus and Muslims have also investigated the story. A tomb said to be Jesus' burial place is in Kashmir.

I don't have a Bible, but I'm told that in John: 20-27 it says the apostles, Thomas especially, couldn't believe that Jesus was still alive when he appeared to them after the crucifixion, so he had them touch him, and touch his wounds to prove that he was not spirit, but flesh.

Some info can be found about this here: http://www.tombofjesus.com
LhasaLhamo
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 10 Jan 2012, 02:05
2 Recommends(s)
3 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby bismarck » 18 Jan 2012, 23:42

LhasaLhamo wrote:Has anyone here heard the theory that Jesus survived the crucifixion

Well, that's the general idea behind Christianity:
1. Belief in Jesus as the Christ
2. Belief in the Crucifixion, the Resurrection ("survived" the Crucifixion) and the Ascension into Heaven.
Image
World Champions 1995, 2007; Tri-Nations champions 1998, 2004, 2009; Grand Slam Champions 1912/13, 1931/32, 1951/52, 1960/61; Defeated British & Irish Lions 1903, 1924, 1938, 1962, 1968, 1980, 2009
Image
Super 14 Champions 2007, 2009, 2010
Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.
Sir Winston Churchill

Second of all, as in all honeymoons, all is well until it is not. It is until the unexpected happens that you will see all grievances surface -ask anyone in any relationship. The girl can chew with her mouth open, that if you love her, you do not care. If you do not lover her, if her pinkie toe is half an inch deviant, the relationship is doomed. - Icon
Forumosan avatar
bismarck
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 11605
Joined: 07 Jan 2005, 04:44
Location: Tainan City 台彎, 台南
150 Recommends(s)
143 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby LhasaLhamo » 19 Jan 2012, 03:58

bismarck wrote:
LhasaLhamo wrote:Has anyone here heard the theory that Jesus survived the crucifixion

Well, that's the general idea behind Christianity:
1. Belief in Jesus as the Christ
2. Belief in the Crucifixion, the Resurrection ("survived" the Crucifixion) and the Ascension into Heaven.
Did you read my post? This is about Jesus physically surviving the Crucifixion, in human, not spirit, form, and traveling East to India to minister to Jews who had settled in Kashmir, and to the local people. If it's true, it would mean Jesus wasn't Divine, he was just another prophet or wise man. Pretty much knocks the foundation out from under Christianity.
LhasaLhamo
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 10 Jan 2012, 02:05
2 Recommends(s)
3 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby ādikarmika » 19 Jan 2012, 07:57

For what it's worth, there's frank huguenard's doco on the subject at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/beyond-belief/
Huguenard is right to be sceptical about traditional accounts of the life of Jesus, but his own version hardly fares much better.

Notovich's book can be read at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29288
the moon's too bright, the chain's too tight, the beast won't go to sleep
ādikarmika
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
 
Posts: 691
Joined: 04 Feb 2011, 10:24
6 Recommends(s)
37 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby bismarck » 19 Jan 2012, 09:03

LhasaLhamo wrote:
bismarck wrote:
LhasaLhamo wrote:Has anyone here heard the theory that Jesus survived the crucifixion

Well, that's the general idea behind Christianity:
1. Belief in Jesus as the Christ
2. Belief in the Crucifixion, the Resurrection ("survived" the Crucifixion) and the Ascension into Heaven.
Did you read my post? This is about Jesus physically surviving the Crucifixion, in human, not spirit, form,

Apart from the post-Resurrection "holiday" in India, that's exactly what most Christians will tell you. But apart from anything else, you're going to have a hell of a time proving, historically, that Jesus existed at all. So I doubt it's going to knock the foundation out from under Christianity any time soon.
Image
World Champions 1995, 2007; Tri-Nations champions 1998, 2004, 2009; Grand Slam Champions 1912/13, 1931/32, 1951/52, 1960/61; Defeated British & Irish Lions 1903, 1924, 1938, 1962, 1968, 1980, 2009
Image
Super 14 Champions 2007, 2009, 2010
Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.
Sir Winston Churchill

Second of all, as in all honeymoons, all is well until it is not. It is until the unexpected happens that you will see all grievances surface -ask anyone in any relationship. The girl can chew with her mouth open, that if you love her, you do not care. If you do not lover her, if her pinkie toe is half an inch deviant, the relationship is doomed. - Icon
Forumosan avatar
bismarck
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 11605
Joined: 07 Jan 2005, 04:44
Location: Tainan City 台彎, 台南
150 Recommends(s)
143 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby LhasaLhamo » 19 Jan 2012, 13:18

I was just asking if anyone here had heard of the theory that he lived out a long life in India after the Crucifixion. Good to know Notovich's book is available online. I just read on the website I posted a link to earlier that a filmmaker in India has made a film about the tomb attributed to Jesus and the claim that he lived in Kashmir. He's calling for the Indian government to do a DNA test on the body inside the tomb. But the neighborhood in Kashmir is currently controlled by Muslims who aren't allowing access to the tomb, so the government has to wait until things settle down there politically. A DNA test wouldn't tell us who is in the tomb, but it could at least tell us it's a Semitic person, it might be able to pinpoint it a little more, ethnically.
LhasaLhamo
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 10 Jan 2012, 02:05
2 Recommends(s)
3 Recognized(s)



Re: The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

Postby MikeN » 30 Jan 2012, 13:03

Yea, heard that when I was in Kashmir- there were various local publications about it. Best explanation I got was from a (Muslim)school teacher who told me that, because of his great suffering on the cross, God allowed the Prophet Jesus to spend the rest of his life in Kashmir, because that's as close to Paradise as you can get on Earth ( this was before the current round of troubles.)
MikeN
Second Landlord (èr fáng dōng)
Second Landlord (èr fáng dōng)
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: 16 Nov 2003, 14:12
35 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to Religion & Spirituality



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 1 visitor

I held a moment in my hand, brilliant as a star, fragile as a flower, a tiny sliver of one hour. I dripped it carelessly, Ah! I didn't know, I held opportunity -- HAZEL LEE