Posted on 01/03/2002 11:19:13 AM PST by ArGee
A very rich man decided that he wanted to show kindness to the people of the fair city where he lived. Since he was very rich indeed, he decided to throw a banquet for the entire city. He rented the largest sports arena in the city and began his plans. He planned for huge amounts of the best food possible, making allowances for every religious and medical diet. He advertised the banquet in every possible manner - television, radio, billboard, door-to-door canvassing. Considering that there might be some who could not travel, he arranged for free bus transportation to and from the event, and some special-needs vehicles for all who could not ride busses. He even scheduled the banquet to run for 24 hours a day for several days so that everyone could be sure of being served.
He planned long and hard and finally the big day came. The rich man ate quickly and then went about wishing all his guests well and personally making sure that all had every need met. After a while he went outside to tour the grounds and talk with those who had not yet gone in, and those who had already left. Everyone was happy. Many were profusely thankful. It was a glorious occasion.
At one point the rich man noticed a group of people sitting outside a locked door with most unpleasant looks on their faces. Sensing they were not happy, he went over to them. He did not introduce himself but simply asked them if he could be of service.
"We want to go in through this door," one of them replied.
The rich man explained to them that the hall was arranged to feed a large number of people as quickly and effortlessly as possible. This required order inside, and the entrances and exits had been carefully planned to be as efficient as possible. He then offered to go call one of the golf carts that were avaialbe to help people who could not walk far to take them to the entrance. But the man replied, "We do not want to go in the entrance. We want to go in this door. We don't understand why we can't go in any door we wish. We think the man who set this banquet up is mean and hateful for insisting we go in through the entrance. He has tried to bill himself as a very kind man by offering this banquet, but he is not kind at all if he will not indulge us and let us go through this door.
The rich man was distressed at these words, but still attempted to please these people. He tried once more to explain to them what was behind this particular door, and how if they went in this door they would disrupt the meal service being offered inside. He offered to drive them himself, not only to the door, but inside the hall to their tables if they would only go through the entrance to enjoy the meal. Again the man said, "No, but only a hateful man would keep us from going through the door of our choosing. And we will sit here and tell anyone who will listen to us what an awful man he is until he lets us in."
At that the rich man was enraged and he shouted, "Enough." Then he called a police officer to have them thrown off of the property and ordered that they not be allowed to return until the banquet was over and all the scraps had been hauled away. Then, mourning for their loss, he turned to visit with other guests.
I am not sorry I started this thread. I am sorry I am so slow with the replies.
Thank you for your valuable contribution. I have enjoyed reading it.
Shalom.
Thank you. I appreciate it. And while I will not ask you to reveal something private about your relationship with your girlfriend, I will read it if you FReepmail it to me.
If there is anything I must do to open LuvIt's eyes, please pray that I find it. I fear he doesn't want his eyes opened.
Shalom.
Hmmm. I saw about four responses, including mine. Only one of them could have been remotely considered to evidence someone who was "spun up."
Perhaps you don't dream very wildly?
In the mean time, it is pretty straightforward to discuss the differences between the Koran and the Bible. Are you interested?
Shalom.
Uh...please quote where I ever said I was quitting this thread. I told Elsie I was through with our discussion on this thread, but I never said that to anybody else!
Talk about trying ignoring what one wishes to, SHEESH! Pot, meet kettle!
I'm not putting anybody down. The point I make about evidence is the requirement of faith. You have faith. I do not. It's that simple. You will never be able to present the independently verifiable evidence I require. I don't really care what you choose to believe without evidence. That's your choice, not mine.
All I would expect is the same courtesy.
But I also think I know why you never saw G-d. The next time you go looking for Him, look up rather than down. He is far bigger than you think. And you are not nearly as big.
When I look up at the sky, I see clouds, no god. When I look up at the sky on a clear night, I see the vastness of the universe, but no god. That's good enough for me. I don't need any gods.
Then I will pray that G-d makes you uncomfortable. I think you would be a fantastic addition to the Banquet.
Shalom.
The religion includes a belief in the afterlife and most religious Jews believe that the souls of ALL good people go to heaven. There is no Hell in the sense of a place of eternal suffering. Bad people just stay dead, distant from God.
Well, not in my experience. Do I count?
How do you determine who's good and who's bad?
I'm not being argumentative, however why would the disciples spend the rest of their lives being imprisoned, tortured and eventually martyred if all they witnessed was a badly beaten and certainly sickly looking man who survived a crucifiction? Or why would these men give up their lives preaching that Christ rose from the dead if they indeed stole the body? Coming from a Jewish background they would know that they have no hope in this life or the life to come, with no riches and having to give up everything they knew. The martydom of the disciples is a well substantiated historical fact.
Nope. I've presented evidence. It is up to you to decide, based on your judgement, to what extent you choose to believe.
But the point remains that if someone claims religious belief based on personal experience, then that is evidence to the person who experienced it, independently verifiable or not. Evidence of the senses is always legitimate.
But the point remains that if someone claims religious belief based on personal experience, then that is evidence to the person who experienced it, independently verifiable or not. Evidence of the senses is always legitimate.
I'm sorry, I've stated time after time on this thread. I require independently verifiable evidence as I can only accept that which is demonstrated to be true under the scientific method. Anything short of that is unacceptable, and anecdotal evidence is unverifiable, ergo, you have presented no evidence, only hyperbole.
ArGee: I am at the banquet now. The food is good. The wine is excellent. The fellowship is divine.
Must be one of those cyber-restaurants with an Internet connection on every table. 8>)
By your logic, if someone said to you, "I love you," you'd demand independently verifiable evidence, rather than trusting your own judgement.
You make my point for me! I have stated again and again, I require independently verifiable evidence. You have not offered it and here you have admitted it. I can only accept such a claim of a supernatural being under the scientific method.
To choose a more secular example, a court of law will accept evidence as to a person's character, by the testimony of another person. This is not verifiable, except by the judge and jury's determination of the truthfulness and ability to judge of a witness.
Poor analogy. No judge in this nation will accept this evidence of a person unverified to exist. As an example, try to testify in a court of law as to the character of Frodo Baggins. You'll be laughed out of court. The same applies to this question. Verify the existance of the one you wish to offer your character testimony. Once you can verify that one's existance, I'll be happy to listen to your character testimony.
By your logic, if someone said to you, "I love you," you'd demand independently verifiable evidence, rather than trusting your own judgement.
Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the pleasure receptors of the brain, not unlike the reaction caused by consuming large quantities of chocolate. These types of reactions are verifiable. There is also reproducable and falsifiable evidence to point to the truth of somebody's claim for love. I would look for these reactions through signals given in the mannerisms of the claimant, such as a smile on the face, the way they carry themselves.
Show me the smile of your alleged god.
You including Judaism in that?
It's not exactly mainstream Judaism, but I feel/yearn for a relationship with God, like that He had with Abraham and Jacob: Argumentative, questioning, occasionally exasperating to both sides -- but a relationship between two rational beings, one the teacher, the other -- not really a student, but a learner.
I certainly don't have with the strength that Abraham had. But I feel that I'm on the right track for me.
Yes Sir He did, and one must have the humility, desperation or just plain manners to approach the table.
The Christian walk is not an easy one, and with His light to our feet and a small amount of willingness to ask for help and obey
the difficulties are surmountable.
We are born sinners, have a sin nature, LOVE the darkness, all of us.
Non-Christians don't know they're sinners with a chance of redemption, we do.
We should thank the Lord every day for opening our eyes.
And that's my point. To change the emphasis, you write, "I require independently verifiable evidence.
Poor analogy. No judge in this nation will accept this evidence of a person unverified to exist. As an example, try to testify in a court of law as to the character of Frodo Baggins. You'll be laughed out of court. The same applies to this question. Verify the existance of the one you wish to offer your character testimony. Once you can verify that one's existance, I'll be happy to listen to your character testimony.
Wrong understanding of the analogy. I'm not talking about the person in the court taking on a persona of another person. I'm talking about them testifying as to whether an even occurred or a person exists.
Take the questions of the JFK assassination. Many people claim to have seen someone on the grassy knoll. There is a running debate as to whether or not there was or was not someone -- a second assassin -- there. We haven't yet verified whether such a person exists, but we are willing to consider evidence, based on eyewitness accounts.
Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the pleasure receptors of the brain, not unlike the reaction caused by consuming large quantities of chocolate. These types of reactions are verifiable. There is also reproducable and falsifiable evidence to point to the truth of somebody's claim for love.
And I assume you go about checking these, in such a case.
I would look for these reactions through signals given in the mannerisms of the claimant, such as a smile on the face, the way they carry themselves.
And I do the same with regard to those who tell me about God.
Show me the smile of your alleged god.
Take the person whose judgement, besides your own, you trust the most. Imagine that person tells you some day, "You're not going to believe this, but God revealed Himself to me. I'm a changed person. I've seen God; I've spoken directly with Him; I know He exists." Would you believe them? I'm sure we can come up with a thousand different explanations, but would you at least consider the possibility? Or would you reject the person, whose judgement you trust most, without further consideration, because it doesn't fit in with what you presently believe.
What you are expecting believers is exactly that: To reject the evidence of belief in their relationships. In some cases, you expect them to reject the evidence of their senses. Yes, for you, based on your relationships and experience, it is most likely the rational thing to not believe God exists. I accept that. But accept that other people with different sets of relationships and experiences, find it most rational to believe in God and/or Jesus and/or even "The Great Sky Fairy."
You are expecting people to abandon their judgement in favor of yours -- and yes, there are people in this debate, who are requesting the same of you, in the other direction. But in demanding they accept your judgement over others' you ask them to accept what is, far less verifiable evidence to them, than what they have now.
Which is precisely the point of logical discourse. The claimant with the initial positive assertion is under the burden or proof. Proof must consist of independently verifiable evidence. Thank you again for making my point.
Wrong understanding of the analogy. I'm not talking about the person in the court taking on a persona of another person. I'm talking about them testifying as to whether an even occurred or a person exists.
Read what I said once again. As an example, try to testify in a court of law as to the character of Frodo Baggins. I did not say to take on a different persona, I stated that you should attempt to testify as to the character OF Frodo Baggins. Since you can offer no corroborative evidence as to the existance of Frodo Baggins, even if you lined up ten thousand witnesses, the testimony would be inadmissable.
Take the questions of the JFK assassination. Many people claim to have seen someone on the grassy knoll. There is a running debate as to whether or not there was or was not someone -- a second assassin -- there. We haven't yet verified whether such a person exists, but we are willing to consider evidence, based on eyewitness accounts.
Please point to the court docket number for this case you apparently are citing.
Take the person whose judgement, besides your own, you trust the most. Imagine that person tells you some day, "You're not going to believe this, but God revealed Himself to me. I'm a changed person. I've seen God; I've spoken directly with Him; I know He exists." Would you believe them?
No.
I'm sure we can come up with a thousand different explanations, but would you at least consider the possibility?
Without corroborative evidence, no.
Or would you reject the person, whose judgement you trust most, without further consideration, because it doesn't fit in with what you presently believe.
I've had many people whom I know and trust tell me the same. I tell them, "present some independently verifiable evidence to support this assertion you are making and I'll believe you." The point is, I do not believe. Until I see some independently verifiable evidence, I cannot believe. I am incapable of believing in that for which there is no proof (one definition of faith).
What you are expecting believers is exactly that: To reject the evidence of belief in their relationships. In some cases, you expect them to reject the evidence of their senses. Yes, for you, based on your relationships and experience, it is most likely the rational thing to not believe God exists. I accept that. But accept that other people with different sets of relationships and experiences, find it most rational to believe in God and/or Jesus and/or even "The Great Sky Fairy."
I can accept that, all I expect in return is they reciprocate.
You are expecting people to abandon their judgement in favor of yours -- and yes, there are people in this debate, who are requesting the same of you, in the other direction.
This is an absolute falsehood. I expect nothing from those who believe except that when they make claims to me, they back them up with independently verifiable evidence or accept that I will never believe what they are pushing.
But in demanding they accept your judgement over others' you ask them to accept what is, far less verifiable evidence to them, than what they have now.
I'm not the one trying to convince anybody of anything. If you want to believe in Yahweh, Krsna, Yeshua, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or The Great Sky Fairy makes no difference to me. All I have been laying out is what I require to believe. I have made no positive assertions, ergo, I am under no burden of proof in this logical discourse. All I have done here, time and again, is lay out precisely what it will take to convince me and how the original analogy presented in this thread is false because of that. There is no banquet unless it is independently verifiable to those who do not believe wihtout proof (again, definition of faith).
The entire point of my entering into this discourse was to demonstrate that it is faith that is required. I have no faith, ergo, I have demonstrated the falsehood of the original analogy. I can even support myself through the Bible these people would have me believe. Doesn't that book state that faith is required?
The only way to convince those without faith is to present your independently verifiable evidence. We both know that is impossible. You cannot count the faithless as anybody who received an invitation to the banquet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.