| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2007 05:44:31 PM · #551 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's change gears a bit. I want to hear from the agnostics and atheists.
Where do you guys go in those dark moments when you are alone and in despair? Is it a stiff upper lip? or is there something you draw strength from. |
I can only answer this for myself – I don’t have a book of answers to point to.
I suspect that atheists draw strength in exactly the same ways and from the same places as believers in god or gods. The truth of this can be considered in the following way. It must be the case that some people believe in gods that don’t exist (I would posit that all of them believe in gods that don’t exist). Yet the believers in false gods and no gods find answers and strength from somewhere – that strength must reside within us all.
Taking the specific example of prayer, the meditative aspects of prayer are open to anyone whether they are a believer or not. The other element of prayer – the slightly naïve and childlike belief that if you want something hard enough that a supernatural being will make it happen – I don’t seem to fare too badly without that.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2007 05:52:27 PM · #552 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Mark were fictional, it would represent a quantum leap in artistry compared to any other Hebrew text of the time. |
The gospel of Mark (which was neither a gospel nor written by Mark. Discuss) is a fascinating document, and rather unique whether it was true or not. Similar tales of rabbis lives came later on. Maybe Mark was the first? The Louis Armstrong of hagiography? Who knows? But if you think making stuff up was never done until 80-something AD, then you got another thing coming to you. Carefully and factually reconstructing a story based on eyewitness testimony, however, was completely unheard of.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
Good, if it's just an example then I don't have to look it up, since you would just counter with other examples. But I've seen Mark and the other gospels deconstructed pretty well, with reasonable theories for each of these details, some of which, by the way, came from oral traditions which may have had something to do with the actual life of a teacher in Galilee. Not the Jerusalem stuff, though. Anything that happened in Jerusalem clearly had an agenda that had nothing to do with telling the truth (because the truth is trumped by the Truth).
Funny, but I don't see anybody in this debate as being "desperate", least of all people with no eternal salvation to lose. I just look at the text and read scholarship on the text and come to my own conclusions. If I read Mark and it "felt" like a coherent recreation of a life with details that just couldn't be made up, then I would agree with you. But I read it as a bold attempt to bring a sayings-source to life, a brilliant collage with its seams still showing. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 05:53:58 PM · #553 |
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. |
Nihilism is of course a loaded term. It has overtones of despair related to pointlessness.
An alternative view of atheism is that it is hedonistic – life is there to be enjoyed for what it is, not treated as a testing ground for entrance to a notional paradise, nor based around self loathing and the need to atone because we cannot meet some ancient, pointless, and self contradictory moral code of dubious authenticity.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2007 06:19:42 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
An alternative view of atheism is that it is hedonistic – life is there to be enjoyed for what it is, not treated as a testing ground for entrance to a notional paradise, nor based around self loathing and the need to atone because we cannot meet some ancient, pointless, and self contradictory moral code of dubious authenticity. |
That's SO not a valid definition of hedonism... sheesh...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2007 07:00:50 PM · #555 |
Interesting read to say the least.
Being born and raised a Catholic, I was told one version. That the old testament was questionable but was based on some truth of how to live. The new testament was verbatum of what the written word was. Growing up I couldn't understand why Moses lived for 600 years, and when I asked that question it was possible that years might have been really just loosly translated to months. So it begs the question all of teachings in the bible written about Christ are written 80-100 years after Christ died. How much telephone went on there? I mean after all I was taught this was the inherient flaw of the old testament, stories pasted down.
After I got confirmed, that was it, I decided church just wasn't the path for me... It wasn't because of the values or anything, just it seemed to be such a control or a reason for it all. I consider myself an Atheist, and have for a long time. But heres my thing, I don't want to preach or convert others to my point of view. I think everyone should find their own ways. My kids I bring to Awana every Wednesday, they ask questions and I give them something they can think about. After all free thinking is all anyone can ask. Each of comes to our own decisions, why not let that be? |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 07:08:46 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Matthew:
An alternative view of atheism is that it is hedonistic – life is there to be enjoyed for what it is, not treated as a testing ground for entrance to a notional paradise, nor based around self loathing and the need to atone because we cannot meet some ancient, pointless, and self contradictory moral code of dubious authenticity. |
That's SO not a valid definition of hedonism... sheesh...
R. |
Well I wasn't trying to define hedonism - but the communal pursuit of pleasure is a slightly cheerier but intellectually defensible philosophy for life than despairing nihilism (which is the only philosophy that Dr_Achoo seems willing to admit for atheists).
|
|
|
|
12/15/2007 07:32:37 PM · #557 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... 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. |
You might read (or see) Agatha Christie's Witness For The Prosecution for a modern application of this strategy ...
Message edited by author 2007-12-15 19:33:14. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 07:55:04 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... 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. |
You might read (or see) Agatha Christie's Witness For The Prosecution for a modern application of this strategy ... |
and if I were being uppity I might ask why other gospel writers had different witnesses? |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 09:48:37 PM · #559 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
and if I were being uppity I might ask why other gospel writers had different witnesses? |
You'll have to clarify for me. The first witnesses in all the gospels are women.
John mentions Mary Magdalene
Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James
Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary the Mother of James
Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary"
Seems fairly consistent to me. I'm not fundamental enough to not allow for some factual error in the accounts. My point stands however, that women were the first to find the empty tomb.
I also find it hard to explain how the gospel of John arose within 20 years of Mark if the whole story is fictional and not based on a real life. John has different source material and is quite different from Matthew, Mark and Luke.
You mention that if there were no Jesus then the time the stories could have been formed could have been much longer. Why then does Luke try to write the story as having happened within a generation of when he wrote it (that date commonly accepted being likely somewhere from as early as 60AD to 90AD). There would easily be people alive that could have said the whole thing was a story and he never existed, yet we don't find anything of the like.
Ultimately we can both make our own choice. You will never convince me there was no historical Jesus and I still stand by my personal opinion that denying one is the least plausible argument in an atheist's arsenal.
Message edited by author 2007-12-15 21:52:35. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 10:31:11 PM · #560 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To explain a little more...all major world religions, with the exception of Christianity tie good works into your salvation. |
I've seen many evangelical/protestant types make this claim, as if this is somehow a "better" or more desirable eschatology than others, for some unexplainable reason. I've also read Revelation 20:12 which seems to disagree with the premise entirely.
Rev 20:12 KJV
"12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
Message edited by author 2007-12-15 22:31:45.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2007 10:56:34 PM · #561 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To explain a little more...all major world religions, with the exception of Christianity tie good works into your salvation. |
I've seen many evangelical/protestant types make this claim, as if this is somehow a "better" or more desirable eschatology than others, for some unexplainable reason. I've also read Revelation 20:12 which seems to disagree with the premise entirely.
Rev 20:12 KJV
"12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." |
Revelation is a minefield I am far from knowledgeable enough to tread. However, many scholars feel there are two judgements in Revelation. One to judge those who belong in heaven and one to judge their deeds. In other words, salvation, once again, is not dependent on your actions even though it appears you will be held accountable for them. Even the passage you mention says both "The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books." and "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." The "books" and the "book of life" were noted to be different in that paragraph.
Basically, all I'm saying is I'm well aware of the Great White Throne Judgement and it doesn't change what I'm saying.
I'm not saying this worldview is "better" than others, I'm just pointing out it is unique among world religions.
Message edited by author 2007-12-15 22:58:23. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 11:53:02 PM · #562 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...all major world religions, with the exception of Christianity tie good works into your salvation. |
James 2:17-26... "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
So much for not tying good works into your salvation. You might also note in there a parent killing his child because God said so... exactly the same situation I mentioned earlier that you labeled a snide remark. If Abraham were put on trial for murdering his son in 2007, I wonder how you might handle that as a juror? |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 12:42:35 AM · #563 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
and if I were being uppity I might ask why other gospel writers had different witnesses? |
You'll have to clarify for me. The first witnesses in all the gospels are women.
John mentions Mary Magdalene
Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James
Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary the Mother of James
Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary"
Seems fairly consistent to me. |
consistently different, yes.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also find it hard to explain how the gospel of John arose within 20 years of Mark if the whole story is fictional and not based on a real life. John has different source material and is quite different from Matthew, Mark and Luke. |
And I think that if it were based on a "real life" than it wouldn't be so different. To each his own.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You mention that if there were no Jesus then the time the stories could have been formed could have been much longer. Why then does Luke try to write the story as having happened within a generation of when he wrote it (that date commonly accepted being likely somewhere from as early as 60AD to 90AD). There would easily be people alive that could have said the whole thing was a story and he never existed, yet we don't find anything of the like. |
The gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple (which makes that 60ad figure pretty silly). One of the purposes of the gospels was to make some sense of that destruction. So the story was set in the days before that destruction. A certain king and prelate were mentioned, the dates don't quite match up, but it was close enough to create the proper setting, about a generation before the destruction of the temple. Maybe there was a Jesus known from those days, give or take a generation. I put the gospels around the 80s and 90s, possibly a little earlier for Mark.
As to those people still alive, I'm not sure how many septuagenarians were around back then, and even so... how can you come forth as a witness to a non-happening. "I saw the crucifixion not occur! I saw Jesus never teach!" By the time the gospels were written, there was a strong strain of belief and worship of this great teacher that had come along a couple of generations earlier. That's why they were written. I personally think there really was a teacher who had excited some of this foment. Whether he was crucified, I have no idea. Whether he was born in 4bc or 40bc, I have no idea. I think he had nothing to do with the historical Paul. I think after the fall of the Temple, the needs of Judaism changed, and so Jesus changed. He was combined with Paul's Christ and replaced the Temple as the center of worship. There is no historical record of a census at the time of Jesus's birth. There is no record of the sky going dark for three days at the time of Jesus's death. Nor is there any record of Jesus in his lifetime. Every single historical record that is anywhere near the supposed time of Jesus's life comes from Christians proclaiming someone who had already become a figure of worship. Admittedly, it's not exactly expected that someone crucified as a common criminal would be recorded anywhere, but it is one less reason to believe it, and those two bookend events I mentioned should have been recorded somewhere had they happened.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ultimately we can both make our own choice. You will never convince me there was no historical Jesus and I still stand by my personal opinion that denying one is the least plausible argument in an atheist's arsenal. |
Btw, I ain't no atheist.
Message edited by author 2007-12-16 00:47:33. |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 12:54:28 AM · #564 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So much for not tying good works into your salvation. You might also note in there a parent killing his child because God said so... exactly the same situation I mentioned earlier that you labeled a snide remark. If Abraham were put on trial for murdering his son in 2007, I wonder how you might handle that as a juror? |
Wouldn't the charge be thrown out since he didn't kill him? :/
Check out Romans 4.
1 What then shall we say that Abraham, the forefather of us Jews, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." [a]
4 Now to anyone who works, their wages are not credited to them as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. ...(snipped for brevity)... 13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. ...(snipped again)... 22 This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23 The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Keep reading Romans. Chapters 6-9 lay out as clearly as can be that we are justified by faith.
@posthumous - The only evidence that the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple is to a priori assume that Jesus was not aware of the future. That assumption makes sense in a secular world, but makes little sense if he is God incarnate.
Message edited by author 2007-12-16 00:59:14. |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 01:57:21 AM · #565 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Keep reading Romans. Chapters 6-9 lay out as clearly as can be that we are justified by faith. |
Romans Chapter 2 is pretty clear, too... "[God] will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life... glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good..." |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 02:27:38 AM · #566 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Keep reading Romans. Chapters 6-9 lay out as clearly as can be that we are justified by faith. |
Romans Chapter 2 is pretty clear, too... "[God] will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life... glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good..." |
You have to understand that is part of a much larger argument. Paul spends the whole books of Romans basically saying that the Law was the old way to be justified, but now it is by faith. While he says "to them who by patient continuance...eternal life" (what translation is that dude?), he goes on in the very next chapter (3:23) to say "all have fallen short".
If you want to find scripture that supports your case, you had best stay away from Paul. He, above all, felt we were justified by faith.
I think at this point we can stop arguing nuance of Christianity and agree that this wouldn't even be a topic of conversation in another religion.
Message edited by author 2007-12-16 02:35:19. |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 03:13:02 AM · #567 |
| This is a really interesting thread and I'm glad it's being discussed. Though I haven't be able to read it in its entirety I do want comment on a post pages and pages and pages ago regarding Christians not protesting and vilifying homosexuals. The Westboro Baptist Church owns and operates a website called //www.godhatesfags.com Not only do they protest the funerals of murdered gays and lesbians but also the funerals of our Iraqi war veterans . . . the list goes on. Anyways, I'm going to get caught up on this thread and come back later with a more in depth response to the topic at hand. |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 03:30:07 AM · #568 |
| Hey, wait a minute... While this is being discussed, there are Heaven and Hell challenges going on... how about a "Atheism" challenge? Show us that we go into "nothingness" after days are over :P |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 03:53:46 AM · #569 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Hey, wait a minute... While this is being discussed, there are Heaven and Hell challenges going on... how about a "Atheism" challenge? Show us that we go into "nothingness" after days are over :P |
Or at the very least a thread about Atheism in Christian societies because this one most decidedly isn't it.
Message edited by author 2007-12-16 03:54:32.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2007 10:40:29 AM · #570 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Hey, wait a minute... While this is being discussed, there are Heaven and Hell challenges going on... how about a "Atheism" challenge? Show us that we go into "nothingness" after days are over :P |
Or at the very least a thread about Atheism in Christian societies because this one most decidedly isn't it. |
I was just gonna say... |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 03:36:50 PM · #571 |
| I found this God FAQ really useful. I hope it helps |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 04:16:11 PM · #572 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's change gears a bit. I want to hear from the agnostics and atheists.
Where do you guys go in those dark moments when you are alone and in despair? Is it a stiff upper lip? or is there something you draw strength from. |
I can only answer this for myself – I don’t have a book of answers to point to.
I suspect that atheists draw strength in exactly the same ways and from the same places as believers in god or gods. The truth of this can be considered in the following way. It must be the case that some people believe in gods that don’t exist (I would posit that all of them believe in gods that don’t exist). Yet the believers in false gods and no gods find answers and strength from somewhere – that strength must reside within us all.
Taking the specific example of prayer, the meditative aspects of prayer are open to anyone whether they are a believer or not. The other element of prayer – the slightly naïve and childlike belief that if you want something hard enough that a supernatural being will make it happen – I don’t seem to fare too badly without that. |
This got lost up above, but I thought it worth following up on. Can you explain a little more? It sounds like you are saying that since there is no God that simple meditation works for the atheist the same way prayer or whatever works for a theist. But I would counter that even if we leave the truth of whether God exists or not, the belief that there is a higher power with your best interest in mind is a powerful boon to those who need help.
I'm not talking about situations where you run out of gas and, oh darn, it's an incovenience, but rather those moments when your life seems to be falling apart. Does simple meditiation suffice in these situations? And what does meditation without having something to meditate on mean?
I'm curious about this. I personally believe that the power available through belief in a supreme being would be a strong point for the theist (derogatory term = "crutch" but who cares?) that the atheist does not have access to. Atheism is a manly creed, but may not give aid when aid is needed. |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 04:20:56 PM · #573 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I personally believe that the power available through belief in a supreme being would be a strong point for the theist (derogatory term = "crutch" but who cares?) that the atheist does not have access to. Atheism is a manly creed, but may not give aid when aid is needed. |
O Lord! Why have you forsaken me?
--Paul Simon, Blessed |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 04:44:05 PM · #574 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would counter that even if we leave the truth of whether God exists or not, the belief that there is a higher power with your best interest in mind is a powerful boon to those who need help. |
One wonders why priests and monks head for the basement when a tornado approaches, and the Pope rides in a bulletproof car. If stranded on an island, I'd have a lot more confidence in someone who assumes nobody is coming to help and takes action to save himself than one who prays really, really hard for rescue. Without exception, the most devout believers I know are also the most miserable and desperate in their respective situations.
Message edited by author 2007-12-16 16:49:01. |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 04:52:35 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not talking about situations where you run out of gas and, oh darn, it's an incovenience, but rather those moments when your life seems to be falling apart. Does simple meditiation suffice in these situations? And what does meditation without having something to meditate on mean?
I'm curious about this. I personally believe that the power available through belief in a supreme being would be a strong point for the theist (derogatory term = "crutch" but who cares?) that the atheist does not have access to. Atheism is a manly creed, but may not give aid when aid is needed. |
So you're saying you can only meditate successfully if you focus on the super natural? What about the concept of positive thinking? I think you are selling those who don't subscribe to a supernatural belief a little short. Almost every poll that comes out shows atheists as the most distrusted group. Seems to me they better have a mechanism for dealing with all the bigotry (direct and indirect) around them.
|
|
