| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2007 08:24:45 PM · #526 |
I can respect your search humous. In my opinion, the option that there was no historical Jesus is the least plausible of the typical atheist/agnostic's approach to him. The idea that such a rich tradition and framework about his life would arise within 60-80 years makes no sense to me. It also begs the question, "Was Paul also fictitious?" The idea that Paul would a) find it important enough to persecute believers of a nonexistant leader very soon after his mythical death and then b) become converted to their belief also makes little sense to me if Jesus did not exist.
Anyway, I understand that's not your own opinion (I think). My question to you is that while you like "Jesus'" message, what do you do about his own claims to divinity and salvation? Do you just dismiss them as added later? and wouldn't your theory then become self-reinforcing by simply discarding evidence that doesn't support your contention and playing up evidence that does? |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 10:32:14 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Christianity, at its core, is much more interested in our relationship with God as that will last for an eternity than with our relationship with each other (as that will be fleeting). |
"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." |
Most true. Fortunately Christianity is singular among world religions in that it discounts works as a means to achieve a relationship with God. |
This part is what I'm not sure I understand. It would seem to me that "good works" are certainly not contrary to a relationship with God. By saying Christianity discounts those good works it sounds rather selfish. I will say that I don't see this from some of my friends who are what I would consider "good Christians". One in particular is probably the best missionary I've ever met and that's not a job she's assigned - it's just who she is. The way she treats others, does things for others, is completely unselfish, is to me a testament of her faith. While I may not have what is commonly accepted as "a relationship with God", I do see how that relationship has positively affected some of the people I hold near and dear. Unfortunately, I also see all too often how the arguing over who has the right story and the right god significantly detracts.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
and wouldn't your theory then become self-reinforcing by simply discarding evidence that doesn't support your contention and playing up evidence that does? |
That's always true in any argument, assertion, debate or discussion. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 10:46:33 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by smurfguy:
God realizes that these things look like foolishness to the world. In fact it's by design. Why would He create something obvious? It would be like creating a being forced to love Him. Free will and worldly foolishness proves the love genuine. |
No, just the depthless gullability of people. |
Louis, as one who has taken offense at things people have said in these threads ("patently offended" I think I've heard you say more than once), how can you not think I am just as patently offended at such a remark? |
Yeah, I was waiting for this, I'm glad it came up. Leaving aside my own having taken offense for a second, which I'll deal with, why would you be offended? I have no quarrel with you personally, I have no idea who or what you are beyond whatever you present here, and my base assumption is that you're a decent human being who only wants the best for people, even complete strangers like me.
Smurfguy has presented a position that is apparently a basic ingredient of his beliefs. So I counter with what my opinion on that is. Sure, it's not dressed up with niceties and "everyone else but you"sss.ssseess..ss and caveats and so on, it's just what it is. People, in my view, are gullible, and swallowing the tenets of religion against all common sense is part of that gullibility. It has nothing to do with you or smurf or me or anyone else personally. It's merely my position and my point in the argument.
So, another issue is double standards. Everyone - virtually everyone without exception - rushes to the defence of someone who has been perceived as being slighted because of their religious views. It doesn't matter what outrageousness they've just spouted, or what unreasonable anti-human nonsense they've recently gouted out of their mouths, if anyone says anything contrary about their beliefs, there's a deafening hue and cry from all corners and forget debate. By way of example, smurf has just condemned most of humanity - most, mind you - to damnation and hellfire ("for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God"). See how much he cares for humanity? Why didn't you raise an objection, and suggest, as you previously have, that even non-believers, according to your belief, are not necessarily damned? Because the default behaviour is nuts to humanity, all glory to religion.
Now having said all this (as acidic as it sounds when read), I don't take offense with smurf personally. True, I find attaching oneself to that particular belief abhorrent, and unreasonable in the extreme, as I find so much in Christianity and religion in general. But I'm sure smurf's a perfectly wonderful indivdiual and I have no quarrel with him with anything else. I may think some person or other should have a little more capacity for critical thinking, but that's really none of my business at the end of the day. In a conversation like this, it's merely my duty to present my position to the best of my ability, and to point it out when I think I see fantastic flaws in other people's reasoning. It is absolutely nothing personal, and I have the utmost respect for you and anyone else willing to stick to a silly circular debate like this.
About my having been offended. What I actually said was that something someone said was as "patently offensive" as something equally objectionable coming from the opposing side. I never claimed to have been offended.
It's easy to take offense (I have on occasion) because the stuff discussed here hits close to some deeply held convictions. But these are ideas we're discussing, not personalities. And certainly not any indivdual personalities. There is no reason to be offended, especially when you are deeply secure in your beliefs and have all the unshakeable confidence in them that one ought. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 10:49:56 PM · #529 |
| I've just been de-favourited once or twice! :-D Talk about taking things personally.. isn't that a tad childish? What does one's views have to do with one's photography (when it's not bleeding obvious that is)? |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 11:21:53 PM · #530 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Jason is right. Luke 14:26 says that our Earthly relationships, even our self love and preservation, should pale as hatred by comparison to our love for Him. |
No offense but, even if there was proof of the Christian God's existence, I still wouldn't worship him. That amount of selfishness makes me think it is really the devil in disguise. I should hope if there is a God that it is better than that.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 11:24:49 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I've just been de-favourited once or twice! :-D Talk about taking things personally.. isn't that a tad childish? What does one's views have to do with one's photography (when it's not bleeding obvious that is)? |
You should make a copy of your fav list that way you can make comparisions later. I'm pretty sure I've pissed people off before on things far less than religion. :P
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 11:37:25 PM · #532 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can respect your search humous. In my opinion, the option that there was no historical Jesus is the least plausible of the typical atheist/agnostic's approach to him. The idea that such a rich tradition and framework about his life would arise within 60-80 years makes no sense to me. |
Look up Earl Doherty. Notice the logical fallacy of what you just said. Within 60-80 years of someone who didn't exist. If He didn't exist, then the process could have been longer. And the gospels, the first records of a "life" are sketchy and contradictory.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It also begs the question, "Was Paul also fictitious?" |
Paul is partially a writer of letters and partially a fictional character created by Luke.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The idea that Paul would a) find it important enough to persecute believers of a nonexistant leader very soon after his mythical death and then b) become converted to their belief also makes little sense to me if Jesus did not exist. |
The theory of Jesus's nonexistence posits that Paul was not a follower of Jesus, but an earlier Christ cult. Notice that Paul's letters say very little about the life of Jesus. For him it's all about resurrection.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, I understand that's not your own opinion (I think). My question to you is that while you like "Jesus'" message, what do you do about his own claims to divinity and salvation? Do you just dismiss them as added later? |
Yes.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
and wouldn't your theory then become self-reinforcing by simply discarding evidence that doesn't support your contention and playing up evidence that does? |
No more than any other theory about Jesus. Check out the Jesus Seminar, where they grade the authenticity of all of the sayings of Jesus. His statements about his own divinity are the ones least likely to be said by him. As I said, I've done research. I'm not just making this stuff up. It's funny you should say "self-reinforcing" because that's exactly what the evidence *for* Jesus is, reinforced by people who desperately wanted to believe in him, and an apostolic succession to convey legitimacy to its bishops.
Now that I've said all that, I actually do believe Jesus existed, but almost the only thing we have from him are the wonderful amazing things that he said. "I am the Way the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father but through me." Blah. That just isn't up to his standard. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 12:16:29 AM · #533 |
(Side note on loss of favs - as people close their accounts, I think their favorites float off into the ether. I've never kept a printout but I lose one or two now and then.)
If there is indeed a god or gods, I'm going with benevolent over vengeance-seeking. And I believe that greed is the root of all evil. Greed we have plenty of. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 01:02:35 AM · #534 |
@Melethia - To explain a little more...all major world religions, with the exception of Christianity tie good works into your salvation. Allah judges people on their works and paradise is gained based on that, hinduism and reincarnation religions rely on karma to help you attain enlightenment, etc. While Christianity certainly is concerned with right behavior, it is not your means to salvation. We act according to God's precepts out of love and willingness and because it makes sense. We do not act good to get to heaven. Heaven is attained purely by Jesus' atoning death. ("For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.") Anyway, this aspect of Christianity is both enraging and freeing. People are enraged when they realize that their neighbor who doesn't take his trash cans in and cheats on his taxes is every bit as saved as you are. But it is freeing to realize that you do not walk a treadmill of salvation. Your salvation is not dependent on your effort.
@posthumous - really I still have a hard time buying this argument. Yes, I've read the Jesus Seminar. Personally I see very little of use in it. But back to his historicity. First, how can you say that Mark is "sketchy and contradictory". The gospel of Mark would stack up against ANY historical document of a character who lived a few millenia ago as far as fullness of detail, # of manuscripts available, and internal consistency.
I'm not sure how to really argue with you though because you are giving and argument you say you don't even buy (since you think Jesus really existed). But statements like "Paul is partially a writer and partially fictional" is a real nonstarter for me. How is he both? Does his own writing about himself not count? If he says he persecuted Christians and was converted to Christianity and this matches up with Luke's account of him, this is somehow suspect? I just 100% cannot fathom someone who would say Paul did not exist. And if you cannot say Paul did not exist, I do not know how you can say Jesus did not exist as a real, historical character. I've heard the arguments, I just find them extremely lacking and almost desperate in their denial of basic historical evidence which would be accepted without batting an eye for another person.
Message edited by author 2007-12-15 01:04:01. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 01:17:39 AM · #535 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
@posthumous - really I still have a hard time buying this argument. Yes, I've read the Jesus Seminar. Personally I see very little of use in it. But back to his historicity. First, how can you say that Mark is "sketchy and contradictory". The gospel of Mark would stack up against ANY historical document of a character who lived a few millenia ago as far as fullness of detail, # of manuscripts available, and internal consistency. |
Yes, the gospel of Mark is a great historical document. An historical document of a story that Mark told. Yup, it sure is historically true that he wrote this story some time in the first century A.D. There's great evidence for that, which would stack up against ANY historical document. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with whether or not the story is true.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure how to really argue with you though because you are giving and argument you say you don't even buy (since you think Jesus really existed). |
I buy the basic premise that two or more different traditions were combined to create Christianity. I just don't think this precludes an "historical Jesus."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But statements like "Paul is partially a writer and partially fictional" is a real nonstarter for me. How is he both? |
Yes, life (and history) is complicated, I know. We have letters that Paul wrote. These are, in fact, the earliest Christian documents, earlier than the gospels. These letters form a subset of the letters that are claimed to be written by him. They contain only a tiny fraction of the biography that Luke created, and in fact don't always match up very well.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does his own writing about himself not count? If he says he persecuted Christians and was converted to Christianity and this matches up with Luke's account of him, this is somehow suspect? |
What Paul means by "Christian" and what Luke means by "Christian" might be two very different things.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just 100% cannot fathom someone who would say Paul did not exist. And if you cannot say Paul did not exist, I do not know how you can say Jesus did not exist as a real, historical character. I've heard the arguments, I just find them extremely lacking and almost desperate in their denial of basic historical evidence which would be accepted without batting an eye for another person. |
Apparently you can't wrap your head around the notion that "Christ" and "Jesus" might be two different things. Most people can't. That doesn't mean it isn't true. Christianity is based on certain mythical stories, just like any other religion. The difference is that Christianity tried to turn those stories into history. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 01:50:30 AM · #536 |
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."
Methinks if one boasts of one's works, then they lose the goodness of those works. But that's just me. And Karma is really a very sweet dog, even though she does tend to attack the television set during certain commercials. (Last aside is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.)
It strikes me as a rather selfish religion, Christianity. I can rest assured that I'm not going to heaven, because I have not been saved, nor do I think such a place exists. This does not mean, however, that I mock those that do - I do not. I heartily rejoice in their faith and their salvation from their viewpoint. It is not for me to persuade anyone otherwise, and I see no point in doing so. Which, I guess, means I really don't belong in this debate, huh? :-) Carry on. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 10:29:25 AM · #537 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
(Side note on loss of favs - as people close their accounts, I think their favorites float off into the ether. I've never kept a printout but I lose one or two now and then.) |
Oh. Well, that makes sense. Never mind. :-) |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 11:50:34 AM · #538 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
And Karma is really a very sweet dog, even though she does tend to attack the television set during certain commercials. (Last aside is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.) |
This made me snort out loud :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2007 12:07:47 PM · #539 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
It strikes me as a rather selfish religion, Christianity. |
Christianity certainly has its hard and bristly edges. It isn't all fluff and feelgood. That makes it more likely to be true (to me). When I look at the world, I don't see a lot of fluff and feelgood. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 12:12:59 PM · #540 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Yes, the gospel of Mark is a great historical document. An historical document of a story that Mark told. Yup, it sure is historically true that he wrote this story some time in the first century A.D. There's great evidence for that, which would stack up against ANY historical document. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with whether or not the story is true.
|
I only have time to respond to part of your post right now. Personally I think this is too large a leap and smack, again, of a desperate attempt at circumventing a historical Christ. If Mark were fictional, it would represent a quantum leap in artistry compared to any other Hebrew text of the time. It also is full of details that ask for some head scratching were it made up. As an example, why would a fictional author have three women as the first witnesses to the most critical point of the book (the resurrection)? Women were a) second class citizens and b) not considered witnesses in a court of law. If I were writing a foundational piece of fiction for a religion, I would certainly want reliable witnesses to find Jesus' tomb empty. It's just an example. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 12:18:51 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
It strikes me as a rather selfish religion, Christianity. |
Christianity certainly has its hard and bristly edges. It isn't all fluff and feelgood. That makes it more likely to be true (to me). When I look at the world, I don't see a lot of fluff and feelgood. |
It's very difficult to do good without some element of selfishness. Even if someone makes an anonymous donation to charity and doesn't tell anybody about it, they still derive some personal 'satisfaction'.
For example, today I opened a few doors for a man on crutches (see? already I'm boasting about it on the forums, how selfish!) - I mainly did it because I imagined myself in his position and hoped that someone would do the same for me someday (pay it forward). I wasn't really worried if God saw me do it or not.
When I got back to my seat I commented to my wife; "So, does that mean I'm going to Heaven?" |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 12:34:36 PM · #542 |
| I think there's a difference between boasting and mentioning. And I think the pay-it-forward thing has personal satisfaction, yes. I think that's a cool thing. It may never come back to you, but it needn't. It just needs to continue. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 12:38:08 PM · #543 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I were writing a foundational piece of fiction for a religion, I would certainly want reliable witnesses to find Jesus' tomb empty. |
Choosing witnesses that can't be disproven has its advantages, too... particularly if they help the humble and "all-inclusive" nature of the story. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 12:40:55 PM · #544 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I think there's a difference between boasting and mentioning. And I think the pay-it-forward thing has personal satisfaction, yes. I think that's a cool thing. It may never come back to you, but it needn't. It just needs to continue. |
So which is more selfish; The Theist good samaritan who's hoping to notch up brownie points with God. Or the Atheist good samaritan who's paying-it-forward and getting some personal satisfaction from it?
eta: there is no 'right' answer here, I just think you raised an interesting point talking about selfishness.
Message edited by author 2007-12-15 12:46:56. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 01:03:21 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To explain a little more...all major world religions, with the exception of Christianity tie good works into your salvation. |
You have said this a couple of times, but it is my understanding that this depends on your own particular blend of Christianity. Catholicism has historically required good works in order to get to heaven. These came in the form of repentence (hail mary's), donations to the church, intercessionary prayer etc. These things (mostly involving the enrichment of the church) and in particular the sale of indulgences first prompted Luther to write the 95 theses, which form the basis of protestantism but also influenced the development of Catholicism.
So the modern church may be less focussed on the need for good works but that is not some fundamental of the religion because it is not common to all Christians.
As a consequence of the modern stance, the church nowadays somehow has to justify to itself the moral incongruity that a murderer who undergoes a death bed conversion will get to heaven while the innocent and wholly selfless Buddhist monk will go to hell.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2007 01:54:56 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... right behavior, it is not your means to salvation. We act according to God's precepts out of love and willingness and because it makes sense. We do not act good to get to heaven. |
I think this describes the point of view of many atheists quite well -- all that not killing and not stealing and not lying makes sense if you want an orderly civilization, regardless of whether "the word" comes from God or the City Council. Atheists do not need the reward of Heaven or the threat of Hell (though prison comes close) to "act right" ... |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 03:32:35 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... right behavior, it is not your means to salvation. We act according to God's precepts out of love and willingness and because it makes sense. We do not act good to get to heaven. |
I think this describes the point of view of many atheists quite well -- all that not killing and not stealing and not lying makes sense if you want an orderly civilization, regardless of whether "the word" comes from God or the City Council. Atheists do not need the reward of Heaven or the threat of Hell (though prison comes close) to "act right" ... |
Neither do Christians since "acting right" has nothing to do with your salvation.
My beef here, and we've had this conversation many times, is that I think that an atheist who is not also a nihilist is just an atheist who hasn't thought long enough about his/her worldview. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 03:43:48 PM · #548 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I think that an atheist who is not also a nihilist is just an atheist who hasn't thought long enough about his/her worldview. |
Perhaps ... from that article I might describe my attitude on the matter as asymptotic -- there may be no perfect, ideal state of civilization or universally-shared objective moral statute, but we can edge ever closer, and the very attempt to do so can provide sufficient "purpose" in and of itself to meet the needs of most people. Rather than require a theology as incentive to right behavior, I think I'm OK with adopting the classic mountaineer's answer as to why they do what they do ... |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 04:31:50 PM · #549 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I think that an atheist who is not also a nihilist is just an atheist who hasn't thought long enough about his/her worldview. |
Perhaps ... from that article I might describe my attitude on the matter as asymptotic -- there may be no perfect, ideal state of civilization or universally-shared objective moral statute, but we can edge ever closer, and the very attempt to do so can provide sufficient "purpose" in and of itself to meet the needs of most people. Rather than require a theology as incentive to right behavior, I think I'm OK with adopting the classic mountaineer's answer as to why they do what they do ... |
Until the moment someone says they disagree. Then you are left with no traction in arguing your point. You and the person who disagrees with you are left on level ground with nobody able to gain the upper hand in proving their point. So, yes, you have just as much right in saying "because it's there" as anybody else, but it is no better than someone who claims a strong form of nihilism and say there is no purpose to "right" behavior at all.
Message edited by author 2007-12-15 16:32:30. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 05:41:25 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I think that an atheist who is not also a nihilist is just an atheist who hasn't thought long enough about his/her worldview. |
Funny, I think anybody who isn't an agnostic hasn't spent enough time thinking about their worldview objectively. I can see how one might believe in a god in the abstract, but what escapes me is how one gets to the point where they have all the answers (or most of them) in fine details no less. That just seems like the result of cultism to me. |
|
