Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1456 of 3694 (902848)
11-27-2022 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1455 by Percy
11-27-2022 9:07 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
if he served as the basis for the Pauline epistles and the gospels then he has been exaggerated and distorted out of all recognition.​
So as not to be the jesus of the bible at all.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1455 by Percy, posted 11-27-2022 9:07 PM Percy has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1457 of 3694 (902907)
11-28-2022 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1436 by PaulK
11-26-2022 1:37 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Not really. As I said Matthew's Gospel would be a source but hardly the only source.
PaulK writes:
Yes really. If the author of Luke is copying material from elsewhere then a difference is a change. Even if the author of Luke got it from some hypothetical alternate source. Moreover the fact that an event that did not happen is replaced with one that did is evidence of after-the-fact knowledge,
Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. Both of them spent time in Jerusalem with the disciples, quite possibly after Matthew, (possibly in its Hebrew form), assuming that there was an earlier Hebrew version), had been written. Luke and Paul would likely gotten a bit of a different take on things that what Matthew had when he wrote his Gospel. Also Paul would have had a effect on what Luke wrote. For that matter it might just be in the translations.
PaulK writes:
Only to someone who wants to throw it out. Obviously it is quite a significant difference - especially to anyone who tries to follow the advice, delaying the decision to flee by - in the event - years.
The point is simply to be careful and and be ready to head for the hills when it starts to look dicey. It is simply the writers putting their own words to what Jesus had said.
PaulK writes:
Not if you follow Luke. The revolt started in 66AD, the Roman response force arrived in 67AD and the Siege of Jerusalem began in 70AD. Do you really think people in Judea were safe right up until then?
It was an unsafe world in general. The point was to know that the whole thing would end badly, and so at some point you want to get to a place of safety at whatever time that it seemed prudent to the individual. There was really only two main points.
1/A Jewish revolt was going to end very badly.
2/Know point 1 and act accordingly.
GDR writes:
The Olivet Discourse is a warning about what the future will be as a result of violent revolution and Jesus is simply saying that it will be like the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple to the Babylonians except this time by the Romans.
PaulK writes:
Obviously that is your opinion, but that doesn’t really answer my point that the text does not support it. Neither Daniel 9, nor your Isaiah reference have any mention of the Babylonian siege. Nor is there any explicit reference. So where do you get this idea from?
The Isaiah passage was written prior to the Babylonian and would have been a warning about what would likely happen. Daniel was written about 4 centuries after the Babylonian destruction. The point is that both of these passages were written about major pollical and military upheaval. Matthew and Luke reference the apocalyptic wording of those books, making it clear that this is about an earthly event and not about end times.
PaulK writes:
So your basis for claiming that the text means that the Romans will destroy the Temple is that the Romans did destroy the Temple. Obviously if it is neither a supernatural prediction nor written after the fact that cannot be valid.
I keep repeating this but I do not claim that this was a supernatural prediction. It would be similar to me predicting that Canada will win the World Cup in 2026. (Jesus' prediction would have had a lot more to recommend it though. ) There were several factions advocating for a violent revolution to rid Israel of the Romans. No doubt Jesus wouldn't be alone in taking the usually unspoken view that a rebellion would not go well. Jesus was unafraid to voice that opinion which was just one of the ways that He was making enemies in that world.
PaulK writes:
You may believe that, but Daniel has the Temple reconsecrated (and sacrifices resuming) and there is evidence that Jesus did talk of rebuilding it, and there is nothing in the text of the Discourse that rules it out. It is only the Herodian Temple buildings that are to be destroyed.
Yes it was rebuilt by Herod and it was worse than ever. The point was that the Jewish belief was that the Temple was the dwelling place of God. Jesus claimed God didn't dwell in a building but in Him and in those that follow the Father's way.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1436 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2022 1:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1458 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2022 3:31 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1459 by Theodoric, posted 11-28-2022 3:58 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1458 of 3694 (902909)
11-28-2022 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1457 by GDR
11-28-2022 3:06 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. Both of them spent time in Jerusalem with the disciples, quite possibly after Matthew, (possibly in its Hebrew form), assuming that there was an earlier Hebrew version), had been written. Luke and Paul would likely gotten a bit of a different take on things that what Matthew had when he wrote his Gospel. Also Paul would have had a effect on what Luke wrote. For that matter it might just be in the translations.
No, if Luke was copied from Matthew, as you believe, it was from a Greek copy of the Matthew we have. The rest doesn’t change that,
quote:
The point is simply to be careful and and be ready to head for the hills when it starts to look dicey. It is simply the writers putting their own words to what Jesus had said.
Do you really think that things only started “looking dicey” for the Jews when the Romans began to besiege Jerusalem? Because that is what you are saying.
quote:
t
It was an unsafe world in general. The point was to know that the whole thing would end badly, and so at some point you want to get to a place of safety at whatever time that it seemed prudent to the individual. There was really only two main points.
1/A Jewish revolt was going to end very badly.
2/Know point 1 and act accordingly.

So Luke would be giving very bad advice from your point of view.
quote:
The Isaiah passage was written prior to the Babylonian and would have been a warning about what would likely happen.
The Isaiah passage is expressly about God destroying Babylon. And using the Medes to do it.
quote:
Daniel was written about 4 centuries after the Babylonian destruction. The point is that both of these passages were written about major pollical and military upheaval. Matthew and Luke reference the apocalyptic wording of those books, making it clear that this is about an earthly event and not about end times.
No. Your point was that Jesus meant that the Romans would destroy the Temple and you “knew’ this because Jesus was somehow referencing the Babylonian destruction of the Temple. You insisted on that even after I pointed out that the references discussed so far do not include the Babylonian destruction at all. And it seems that you know of no such references.
quote:
I keep repeating this but I do not claim that this was a supernatural prediction
Which of course was part of my point
Since you don’t claim that it was a supernatural prediction, your argument that Jesus must have meant that the Romans would destroy the Temple because the Romans did destroy the Temple can’t be justified on that ground. Which leaves only the possibility that the claim originated after the destruction. Otherwise the fact that the Romans did destroy the Temple is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage.
So again, you have nothing to support the idea that Jesus meant the Romans or that he did not mean that the Temple would be rebuilt and restored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1457 by GDR, posted 11-28-2022 3:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1473 by GDR, posted 11-30-2022 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1459 of 3694 (902910)
11-28-2022 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1457 by GDR
11-28-2022 3:06 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Luke was a travelling companion of Paul.
Now we all know that this is tradition and there is absolutely no evidence for this. If you have it present it and you will be lauded the world over.
Both of them spent time in Jerusalem with the disciples
Ditto. There is no evidence to support this.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1457 by GDR, posted 11-28-2022 3:06 PM GDR has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1460 of 3694 (902911)
11-28-2022 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1423 by Phat
11-25-2022 2:55 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Phat writes:
You say that you *know* that God does not exist. Coming from you, I respect that conclusion as honestly saying that you don't have enough information.
The question of God existing or not isn't waiting more information.
That was done in the first 10 years of the question.
We are... thousands of years past that?
We've collected as much information as any question could ever have in order to obtain an answer.
It's analogies like this one: Message 3205 that keep re-enforcing the idea that we do, indeed, have all the information we'll ever need on God's existence.
And you were thinking of your family and the responsibility that you have in being a role model. You saw organized religion as first of all being hijacked by a conservative (some say spiteful) agenda and wanted your family nowhere near such a circus even if you may have hoped for God to be real. That was a tough decision to be sure.
I wasn't sure how to read this one.
When you said "you" were you attempting to address me? My family and I have never had anything but good experiences with organized religion.
Maybe the "you" was actually talking about yourself? It just doesn't seem to make sense with what I remember of your history, but maybe I'm just confused.
And as I have said before, I believe that God (if God exists) respects our honesty more than He does our allegiance.
I'm not honest in the hopes that some God might judge me this way or that way.
I'm honest because I took a look at myself, and the choices I have and I decided that I want to be honest because I thought it was right.
If an all-powerful God happens to agree - great. But, really, I don't care. I don't see "power" as something to respect in and of itself.
Hence agnosticism.
I think agnosticism is more for those who think it's unknowable to believe in God or not.
To say "God needs more time" to show His existence... and call that agnosticism seems like pushing the definition pretty far... in a consistent sense, anyway.
If someone is agnostic on God and "awaiting more information" they would also need to be agnostic on everything and "awaiting more information."
Even gravity.
There's always room for more information in the future.
There's something about gravity that will change in the future - it's guaranteed. Simply because we know we don't know everything about it right now. There are hints screaming at us that we don't know everything about gravity.
God's existence is even worse... there isn't even a hint that we don't know everything there is to know about God's existence.
The only possibility that exists lies in "we don't know everything."
But that's not a place for agnosticism... that's just a place for, well, everything.
No normal person would say that they are agnostic on gravity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1423 by Phat, posted 11-25-2022 2:55 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1461 by Theodoric, posted 11-28-2022 4:03 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 1461 of 3694 (902912)
11-28-2022 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1460 by Stile
11-28-2022 3:58 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Phat thinks every atheist has some sort of gripe with religion. He thinks atheist are like theos and need an axe to grind. He refuses to actually listen to what atheists actually tell him.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1460 by Stile, posted 11-28-2022 3:58 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1617 by Percy, posted 12-22-2022 10:31 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1462 of 3694 (902915)
11-28-2022 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1428 by GDR
11-25-2022 4:52 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
I've read your post over twice and frankly I may have lost the plot.
I rambled, a lot.
And in a few different directions.
In hind-sight, that post was more for me than anything else... I enjoyed writing it
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
However, evidence is usually a pretty big thing to an atheist.
Show evidence that a cosmic intelligence exists... and they'll believe it.
Show evidence that that the resurrection is historical... and they'll believe it.
Without such evidence... they likely will not believe it... but I don't see how that is a "bias" as opposed to just "being reasonable."

I suppose that I see an atheist as holding their beliefs the way I hold mine.
I'm not sure how to read that.
Do you mean "Stile's out to lunch... atheists hold their beliefs due to a personal conviction and would never change their thoughts."?
-in which case... I think you're wrong, for the vast majority of atheists
Or do you mean "Ah, I see now, I originally thought atheists held their beliefs the way I hold mine, but perhaps they don't..."?
I don't think that you'll agree with this but I see atheism as being synonymous with materialism meaning that there is nothing beyond the material.
Yes, many atheist-bashers seem to push this really, really hard. It's easier to hate on something if you cram a bunch of negative things into the same box/idea.
I don't see many atheists actually ascribing to this, though...
The closest I've seen is atheists actually saying they believe only the material exists... because nothing beyond the material has ever been shown to exist. Therefore, they tend to assume that all things have a materialistic-based answer... since those are the only answers that have ever worked for any question that's ever been answered before.
But I've never heard of an atheist that would deny something "beyond the material" if it were shown to be true.
This is the difference between evidence-based vs. personal-conviction-based.
Personal conviction says:
1. I believe THIS.
2. Nothing can change my mind.
Evidence based says:
1. I'll assume THIS based on what's previously happened.
2. I'll change my mind when you show me something different.
In day-to-day life, the two are almost identical.
The differences only pop up when something new appears and that "new thing" goes against their previous beliefs/assumptions, but not even in the beginning. Only later.
Evidence-based says: I wonder why that happened... what can I do to learn about it? I'm not changing my previous assumptions until I can show that something new really did happen.
Personal-Conviction-based says: I know why that happened. I'm not changing my beliefs.
At this point, the two are still acting exactly the same. Neither has changed their current course of actions.
It's only the reasoning that's different.
Once something's shown and identified, though... that's where the difference comes in:
Evidence-based says: Oops. Guess I was wrong about that, I'll have to change and account for this new information.
Personal-Conviction-based says: I know why that happened, this explanation doesn't make sense. I'm not changing my beliefs.
Is there evidence, (beyond that there is no evidence to support theism), in support of that position.
Evidence to support the position that there's nothing beyond materialism?
-there's the same amount of evidence for this that there is for Santa not being real
-everything we've ever learned about it says it's true
-all it takes is for one Santa to exist to overturn the assumption
-all it takes is for one thing "beyond materialism" to exist to overturn the assumption
It seems, by my experience here, that most atheists do seem to allow for the possibility of a higher power but due to a lack of evidence reject the idea.
Yes, this is what I see from most atheists as well.
And, if the evidence ever supported the idea... then most atheists would no longer reject the idea.
But this isn't really an "atheist" thing.
This is an evidence-based vs. personal-conviction-based belief thing.
It doesn't matter if one is atheist or not. Just turns out that way due to the nature of the question.
I find that our existence from a completely material source requires an outside intelligence.
You can find whatever you'd like.
The evidence paints a different picture.
There is nothing we know or identify about this existence that doesn't have a materialistic answer.
People have been pushing and pushing and pushing for non-material answers for thousands of years. But they're always shown to be wrong. Or else they just push to a smaller and smaller area of "we don't know yet."
At some point, if you're interested in "truth and knowledge," it's just reasonable to pick the side that's making the most progress in that field.
In the end it is all belief.
Well, except for when things are based on evidence.
Then it's all about facts and extrapolation using our tools with the best track-record of identifying the unknown.
One has a terrible track record for identifying truth and knowledge.
The other has a fantastic track record.
I don't really see it as much of a competition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1428 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 4:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1475 by GDR, posted 11-30-2022 7:05 PM Stile has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1463 of 3694 (902916)
11-28-2022 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1437 by Tangle
11-26-2022 3:33 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
Tangle writes:
I glad you noticed. I'm trying to show you that there are properly researched and evidenced alternative views available that form totally different but equally reasonable conclusions about the historicity of Jesus. You don't have to agree with them, I'm just trying to make the point that the historical evidence that Jesus actually existed at all is incredibly weak, it's certainly not anything like the certainty taught to the laity by their religious institutions.
Here is another overview on the historicity of Jesus. It pretty much deals with it. We are just going to disagree I guess.
New World Encyclopaedia on the Historicity of Jesus
Tangle writes:
By definition, there can not be a theist writer that does not believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can there?
Of course. Ever hear of Islam, Hindus and multiple other theistic beliefs.
Tangel writes:
Richard Carrier says exactly the same - almost everything in the literature written about Jesus as a myth is nonsensical, non-scholarly garbage. He claims that his book is the first peer reviewed work written by a real historian properly examining the evidence.

Whether you accept Carrier's arguments or not, if you read his books, no reasonable person could deny its scholarship.

This seems to be a reasonable summary of the state of play today

quote: The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory,[1][q 1] is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact".[2] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[q 2]

In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine, and that he was baptized and was crucified.[3][4][5][6][q 3] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith".[q 4]
Ok lets' use your site. You quoted Bart Ehrman. Just a note of interest. I agree that Jesus was not about forming a new religion but that it was His hope that He could reform Judaism.
From your site.
quote:
American independent scholar[309] Richard Carrier (born 1969) reviewed Doherty's work on the origination of Jesus[310] and eventually concluded that the evidence favored the core of Doherty's thesis.[311] According to Carrier, following Couchoud and Doherty, Christianity started with the belief in a new deity called Jesus,[q 14] "a spiritual, mythical figure".[q 15] According to Carrier, this new deity was fleshed out in the gospels, which added a narrative framework and Cynic-like teachings, and eventually came to be perceived as a historical biography.[q 14] Carrier argues in his book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt that the Jesus figure was probably originally known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture, which were then crafted into a historical figure to communicate the claims of the gospels allegorically. Those allegories were subsequently believed as fact during the struggle for control of the Christian churches of the first century.[312] Citing the methodological failure of the criteria of authenticity and asserting a failure of the "entire quest for criteria", Richard Carrier writes, "The entire field of Jesus studies has thus been left without any valid method."
and now from Ehrman again from your site:
quote:
In his book Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman surveys the arguments "mythicists" have made against the existence of Jesus since the idea was first raised at the end of the 18th century. Regarding the lack of contemporaneous records for Jesus, Ehrman notes that no comparable Jewish figure is mentioned in contemporary records either and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the death of Jesus.[15] He adds that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul likely personally knew James, the brother of Jesus. Ehrman writes that although "our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems ... written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors", they "can be used to yield historically reliable information". He adds, "With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul)", which he says is "pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind".[374] Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were primarily influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones,[374][15] and repeatedly insisting that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered at all by historians or experts in the field.[15]
More from Ehrman from this site. Richard Carrier
quote:
New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman writes that Carrier is one of only two scholars with relevant graduate credentials who argues against the historicity of Jesus.[86] Discussing Carrier's theory that some Jews believed in a "humiliated messiah" prior to the existence of Christianity, Ehrman criticizes Carrier for "idiosyncratic" readings of the Old Testament that ignore modern critical scholarship on the Bible.[87] Ehrman concludes by saying "[w]e do not have a shred of evidence to suggest that any Jew prior to the birth of Christianity anticipated that there would be a future messiah who would be killed for sins—or killed at all—let alone one who would be unceremoniously destroyed by the enemies of the Jews, tortured and crucified in full public view. This was the opposite of what Jews thought the messiah would be."[88] Ehrman has also publicly addressed Carrier's use of Bayes' Theorem, stating that "most historians simply don't think you can do history that way." He said he only knows of two historians who have used Bayes' Theorem, Carrier and Richard Swinburne, and noted the irony of the fact that Swinburne used it to prove Jesus was raised from the dead. Ehrman rejected both Carrier and Swinburne's conclusions, but conceded that he was unqualified to assess specifics about how they applied the theorem. "I'm not a statistician myself. I've had statisticians who tell me that both people are misemploying it, but I have no way of evaluating it.
I am not a theologian, I'm not a historian or a scholar of any variety for that matter. In some ways this is like the theory of evolution. I believe it as the vast majority of those that study it do. In this case, although I have a pre-conceived bias, I see that the vast majority of those qualified reject the work of Carrier.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1437 by Tangle, posted 11-26-2022 3:33 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1465 by Tangle, posted 11-28-2022 6:01 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1618 by Percy, posted 12-22-2022 10:52 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1464 of 3694 (902928)
11-28-2022 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1440 by Percy
11-26-2022 12:40 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes:
But those people aren't making up stories of God-directed genocide, stoning and slavery. They're getting them from your book. You should create a new Bible called The Word According to GDR that gathers all the portions of the Bible you adhere to. It would be less than 10% as long as the actual Bible.
I'll try this again. Firstly I see the Bible as a 66 book library, written within different times and cultures, that taken together from a history of the progressive human understanding of God, with the narrative, up to then, climaxing in Jesus.
The early understanding was heavily influenced by the surrounding cultures and their deities. The Gospels were very much focused on the renewal of Judaism, the reformation of the Temple and Jesus' message of love and non-violent resistance in dealing with the Romans. The Epistles were about establishing the Christian communities and after the resurrection there was more focus on the next life than there had been.
I know you argue that that thinking is circular as the place I learn about Jesus is in the Bible. However, it isn't as I'm not using it to prove anything. I accept, at the very least, the essential message of love, forgiveness, kindness etc that Jesus espoused and I also believe that God resurrected Him.
Percy writes:
r what we believe about our faith.

You and Faith are both Christians in the way that Liz Cheney and Donald Trump are both Republicans.
Faith and I are a long way apart although I believe that she has a good heart and means well. I think the big difference is that her Christian focus is on an inerrant Bible while my focus is on Jesus as the one who has perfectly imaged God for us. I remember once writing on this forum, in a reply to her, quoting the "Sermon on the Mount" to oppose some OT position of hers. Her reply was "well, you would use the Sermon on the Mount" as a criticism.
Percy writes:
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.
Sure, but I would just argue that the "God meme' or "the still small voice of God" reaches out to all of us. That part has nothing to do with religion.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1440 by Percy, posted 11-26-2022 12:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1629 by Percy, posted 12-23-2022 9:51 AM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1465 of 3694 (902930)
11-28-2022 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1463 by GDR
11-28-2022 4:42 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Here is another overview on the historicity of Jesus. It pretty much deals with it. We are just going to disagree I guess.
You're not hearing what I'm saying. I'm not by any means convinced by the arguments I've read that the historical Jesus did not exist. Neither am I convinced by the arguments that he did. I think the evidence for both is totally lacking. It's not possible to form an evidence based conclusion from such a paucity of evidence. (Though I think the lack of evidence where there should be evidence is food for thought.) I'm pointing to the fact that perfectly valid arguments can be made by each side from those properly qualified to make them, but you're only reading one side.
Of course. Ever hear of Islam, Hindus and multiple other theistic beliefs.
Oh please, we're talking about the Christianity.
I am not a theologian, I'm not a historian or a scholar of any variety for that matter. In some ways this is like the theory of evolution. I believe it as the vast majority of those that study it do. In this case, although I have a pre-conceived bias, I see that the vast majority of those qualified reject the work of Carrier.
I'll say this again and as often as you use this "argument". The overwhelming majority of writers on the historicity of Jesus are Christians. It is impossible for a Christian to come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist so any Christian writing about the historicity of Christ is not going to say he never existed now is he? This is not the case for atheists, an atheist can accept the existence of Jesus without accepting that he was anything to do with the supernatural. Erhman is is an atheist as far as belief goes.
Additionally almost all the writers on the historicity of Jesus are not historians - they're theologians, clergy and apologists. Most are preaching or doing literary criticism, not history.
​This is absolutely nothing like evolution - there is mountains of physical evidence for evolution, only fundamentalist religious nutters rail against evolution.
Ehrman, like almost every qualified scholar that has ever written on the subject comes down in favour of a historical Jesus. Carrier's view is a minority one - but it is very well researched, referenced and argued and he's qualified to make it. But unlike evolution arguments both sides are simply placing bets based entirely on marginal interpretations of the same tiny amounts of data - the arguments both ways are lacking almost all evidence necessary to form any real conclusion.
And please note that even granting a historical Jesus, Ehrman says that the New Testament is a fiction. His view on the resurrection, for example, is that Jesus was crucified, left to rot on the cross, cut down and thrown into a common grave as was routinely the case for Roman executions.
The more you read about how the bible was compiled, redacted, forged and generally interfered with over the years the more you realise how utterly preposterous the entire edifice of Christianity is. I've just been reading about Christians destroying embarrassing gospels in the Middle Ages, How can anyone take this stuff seriously, it's quite plainly a pure human construct?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1463 by GDR, posted 11-28-2022 4:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1476 by GDR, posted 11-30-2022 7:55 PM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1466 of 3694 (902987)
11-29-2022 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1307 by dwise1
11-07-2022 3:34 AM


Re: Camp Lake O' Fire.
dwise1 writes:
Getting into the "Good Place" depends on your overall score in which good actions gain you points and bad actions lose you points. Basically, everybody got the afterlife very wrong (about 5% right) except for this one guy, Doug, who one night was really high on mushrooms and scored 92% correct -- they idolize him in the afterlife and everyone has his picture on the wall.
But there's an episode, probably in the last season, where Eleanor and Michael track down the adult Doug who has become fixated on doing no harm and causing no offense to anyone or anything ever, including insects and the bicycled boy who insults and abuses him. They find that Doug has almost no points. This leads them to further investigation where they find a department in heaven that keeps records of who reached heaven. They discover that no one has gone to heaven in the past 500 years.
The reason turns out to be that modern life has become complicated and presents people with so many moral conflicts that there is never any correct choice, hence almost no one accumulates any points. So in the end they were wrong about Doug getting things right. He was right about the way they thought things worked, but things had stopped working because modern life had gummed up the works.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1307 by dwise1, posted 11-07-2022 3:34 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1468 by dwise1, posted 11-29-2022 1:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1467 of 3694 (902988)
11-29-2022 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1308 by GDR
11-07-2022 2:32 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
Maybe I should make something of a disclaimer here that you have probably picked up on. Coming out of high school I considered university and rejected the idea as I wanted a career as a pilot and I just didn't see university as an advantage and it would just delay my my purpose which might even be part of my "ultimate purpose". :-) As a result I don't have the ability to express myself with the competence that most of you here have.
This is off-topic, but I think you have a significant misimpression about yourself and about college. First, you express yourself extremely well. It's the thoughts and conclusions we're taking issue with.
Second, and this is just my opinion and it would be interesting to hear what others think, college doesn't improve anyone's ability to express themselves, except maybe English majors. Someone majoring in science and/or engineering will progress little from what they picked up in high school.
As a result though, I often struggle to come up with as coherent an argument as I would like to.
It certainly does make construction of a sentence easier when the thoughts expressed are consistent, rational, and based upon reality. The lack isn't in your skill at expression but in the incoherency of the ideas you're trying to express. Your paragraphs that followed are a perfect example.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by GDR, posted 11-07-2022 2:32 PM GDR has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1468 of 3694 (902989)
11-29-2022 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1466 by Percy
11-29-2022 12:59 PM


Re: Camp Lake O' Fire.
Spoiler! Now you've ruined the surprise for those who haven't seen it yet.
But still, it's a hoot to read which actions gain or lose you points and by how much. That only happens a few times in the show, the first time being the orientation meeting in the amphitheater to introduce the new arrivals to The Good Place.
Kind of like in that episode of Firefly, "Our Mrs. Reynolds", where Shepherd Book warns Mal to not take advantage of "that poor innocent child" (who's actually plotting against them):
quote:
If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1466 by Percy, posted 11-29-2022 12:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1469 of 3694 (902991)
11-29-2022 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1311 by GDR
11-07-2022 5:04 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
So you want me to read an entire book by Carriere who is hardly impartial but yet you ignore the wiki article I sent you that does shows that Carrier's views are outside the norm for historical scholars.
Carrier's views are outside the mainstream of *Christian* scholars, not historical scholars. There are very few non-believing historians making Christ the focus of their studies. My guess is that a very high percentage of historians making Christianity central to their work are Christians.
Even when researchers are all studying the same thing they make significant errors. Wegener's continental drift theories were rejected for decades. Alvarez's asteroid collision theory was also rejected for a very long time. In both cases scientists clove to traditional views because of the absence of evidence to the contrary, not because of positive evidence.
That is to say that the absence of evidence means the conclusion should be, "I don't know," not "I adhere to the same views as my predecessors," which is a form of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
I don't think you should read a book by Carrier. First of all such a request runs against the Forum Guidelines, but more importantly I think those here who hold the same or similar views are having little difficulty expressing them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by GDR, posted 11-07-2022 5:04 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1470 of 3694 (903024)
11-30-2022 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1313 by GDR
11-07-2022 7:57 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
I don't form my beliefs on particular passages but I try and understand it holistically. Sure there are passages or even verses such as the one in my signature that seem to succinctly summarize my beliefs. Mind you, I think that all of the Bible has things to teach us as long as we don't try to read it like a text book, a newspaper or a set of laws.
You just restated, though at greater length, your approach of only accepting the parts of the Bible you like. I know your answer is that you accept both the good and the bad of the Bible, but you have not been able to defend this claim, and you have often explicitly rejected bad parts of the Bible, e.g., from Message 27:
GDR in Message 27 writes:
When the Bible said that Yahweh committed and commanded genocide and public stoning I believe that the motivation in writing that was self centred and wrong.
Moving on:
You seem to believe that the whole point of religion, and specifically Christianity, is to wind up in the good place.
The entire emphasis of Christian thought throughout history has been on the afterlife.
I suppose that is important but IMHO that is not at all the main point of Christianity. Christianity is a calling on our lives to live lives based on love of the other, or the Golden Rule works fine.
"Christianity according to GDR" is not a Christianity that many Christians would recognize.
The thing is yes, you don't need Christianity but, I know that in my pre-Christian days my priority was, (aside from my family which came first), promotion, getting an increase in pay, a better house, parties etc. That was what I got from the secular world.
I do find that as a Christian I'm less self focused, (got a long way to go though), than I had been. I am involved in projects with both my time and money that I wouldn't have been in without Christianity.
The people I know who are involved with Goodwill and soup kitchens aren't particularly religious.
Just because Christianity was your path to what you feel is a better place doesn't mean that Christianity is everyone's path to a better place. You're looking for universal truths, but all you're finding or will find is GDR truths, things that are true for you and work for you.
As you seem to be focused on what happens next I do accept the possibility the belief that new creation is for all creation but, that does not mean that this life does not have an impact on our lives to come. I have no idea what that might look like.
You have no idea what that might look like because you have no evidence. The "lack of evidence" theme runs strongly through almost all your ideas.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1313 by GDR, posted 11-07-2022 7:57 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1477 by GDR, posted 11-30-2022 8:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024