Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Stand up, stand up for Jesus
Yes, Stuart.
From the viewpoint of philosophy, Jesus is so distinctive as a speaker that he cannot have been confused with anyone else. Apart from one brief passage in Aristotle's Nicomachaean Ethics, no speaker from ancient times addresses what modern students of relational dynamics consider to fall under the rubric of self-fulfilling prophecy theory, or self-reinforcement dynamics, or 'bootstrapping.' He very characteristically handles issues where circular dynamics are involved - in some cases explicitly, as in "I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away" (see the magnificent essay on this by Paul Tillich) and in other cases implicitly, as in "when salt has lost its savour, what shall restore it?"
In fact, those two quotes I've given are almost completely isomorphic in philosophical content, even though the literary approach differs radically.
Because no one in the ancient world understood what Jesus was on about most of the time with this theme, there was no way for anyone to cleverly interpolate any more of it into his text. Only in the 20th century did an inkling of understanding begin to emerge about recursive dynamics.
Commands of Jesus like 'if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the cheek, offer also the other; and from him who takes away your cloak, don't withhold
your coat also' only make sense from the perspective of recursive dynamics, basically 'what goes around, comes around' and vice versa. It's not about just getting slapped around passively by abusers. This part, people did generally understand in early Christianity, but they couldn't have mapped the direct links in recursive logic connecting it to the 'salt' statement or the statement about those who have something getting more of it. Our understanding of this topic, as far as I can see, really began with Tillich, and hasn't spread far since then. It didn't hit mainstream psychology until the 1980s, when people started studying things like how the use of more casual language with minority members by job interviewers could cause those minority members to look less educated. From those who have not, in situations of social bias, shall be taken away even the little that they have.
Other than that area, Jesus also had a distinctive sense of humour, juxtaposing the small with the large in a certain kind of satirical twist, as in the camel and the eye of the needle, and the splinter and the plank.
If you look into what is considered Aristotle and what isn't, you find out that much of the collected material was transcribed by students, and yet, there's a voice there of such vividly plainspoken reason that you can't help but develop a friendship with the man as you read. Jesus is much more coherent as intellect perceivable in literature than Aristotle is. Insofar as anyone can be testified to as a true historical individual purely by the distinctiveness of their collected transcriptions, he can.
If you want to read a much more developed version of this thinking process about Jesus, I refer you to my novel. It may be fiction, but it is specifically laid out to answer these types of questions in a fictional context. That's because many of the concepts are complicated and they are best illustrated by story lines and events. Otherwise, they become impenetrable, and not out of any love of obscure discourse or related nuttery. Circular logic by nature boggles the mind. That's why everyone in earlier times tended to avoid it, excepting the very most elevated minds. Now, do-loops are part of every computer program, but our everyday thoughts are still based on a pingponging model of cause and effect, with no recursion, and that's just wrong. Jesus knew better.
From the viewpoint of philosophy, Jesus is so distinctive as a speaker that he cannot have been confused with anyone else. Apart from one brief passage in Aristotle's Nicomachaean Ethics, no speaker from ancient times addresses what modern students of relational dynamics consider to fall under the rubric of self-fulfilling prophecy theory, or self-reinforcement dynamics, or 'bootstrapping.' He very characteristically handles issues where circular dynamics are involved - in some cases explicitly, as in "I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away" (see the magnificent essay on this by Paul Tillich) and in other cases implicitly, as in "when salt has lost its savour, what shall restore it?"
In fact, those two quotes I've given are almost completely isomorphic in philosophical content, even though the literary approach differs radically.
Because no one in the ancient world understood what Jesus was on about most of the time with this theme, there was no way for anyone to cleverly interpolate any more of it into his text. Only in the 20th century did an inkling of understanding begin to emerge about recursive dynamics.
Commands of Jesus like 'if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the cheek, offer also the other; and from him who takes away your cloak, don't withhold
your coat also' only make sense from the perspective of recursive dynamics, basically 'what goes around, comes around' and vice versa. It's not about just getting slapped around passively by abusers. This part, people did generally understand in early Christianity, but they couldn't have mapped the direct links in recursive logic connecting it to the 'salt' statement or the statement about those who have something getting more of it. Our understanding of this topic, as far as I can see, really began with Tillich, and hasn't spread far since then. It didn't hit mainstream psychology until the 1980s, when people started studying things like how the use of more casual language with minority members by job interviewers could cause those minority members to look less educated. From those who have not, in situations of social bias, shall be taken away even the little that they have.
Other than that area, Jesus also had a distinctive sense of humour, juxtaposing the small with the large in a certain kind of satirical twist, as in the camel and the eye of the needle, and the splinter and the plank.
If you look into what is considered Aristotle and what isn't, you find out that much of the collected material was transcribed by students, and yet, there's a voice there of such vividly plainspoken reason that you can't help but develop a friendship with the man as you read. Jesus is much more coherent as intellect perceivable in literature than Aristotle is. Insofar as anyone can be testified to as a true historical individual purely by the distinctiveness of their collected transcriptions, he can.
If you want to read a much more developed version of this thinking process about Jesus, I refer you to my novel. It may be fiction, but it is specifically laid out to answer these types of questions in a fictional context. That's because many of the concepts are complicated and they are best illustrated by story lines and events. Otherwise, they become impenetrable, and not out of any love of obscure discourse or related nuttery. Circular logic by nature boggles the mind. That's why everyone in earlier times tended to avoid it, excepting the very most elevated minds. Now, do-loops are part of every computer program, but our everyday thoughts are still based on a pingponging model of cause and effect, with no recursion, and that's just wrong. Jesus knew better.
Mark wrote: "Yes, Stuart.
From the viewpoint of philosophy, Jesus is so distinctive as a speaker that he cannot have been confused with anyone else. Apart from one brief passage in Aristotle's Nicomachaean ..."
Hmm ... you and I both know you didn't address the points raised in the topic.
You've dodged and deflected and ducked behind the smoke-screen of verbose "philosophy" - somewhat more sophisticated than the responses of the Sunday schoolers, but dishonest nonetheless.
You've reinforced my contention that certain Christians are the last people from whom to expect an honest answer about Jesus.
No matter what your preferred smokescreen, Jesus was not sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, on a Jewish virgin. It's make-believe.
And, since we're in the business of touting our own work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjVd2...
With other frankly honest videos.
From the viewpoint of philosophy, Jesus is so distinctive as a speaker that he cannot have been confused with anyone else. Apart from one brief passage in Aristotle's Nicomachaean ..."
Hmm ... you and I both know you didn't address the points raised in the topic.
You've dodged and deflected and ducked behind the smoke-screen of verbose "philosophy" - somewhat more sophisticated than the responses of the Sunday schoolers, but dishonest nonetheless.
You've reinforced my contention that certain Christians are the last people from whom to expect an honest answer about Jesus.
No matter what your preferred smokescreen, Jesus was not sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, on a Jewish virgin. It's make-believe.
And, since we're in the business of touting our own work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjVd2...
With other frankly honest videos.
The article you asked for comments on was about evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. I gave you evidence. The many unnecessary deprecations and accusations of bad faith inherent in your answer (dodged, deflected, ducked, verbose, scare quotes, stock accusation of immaturity, accusation of dishonesty, another one, accusation of self-interest -- you must have gone to insult school) can't obscure that fact.
You may not have been ready for the answer, since, though I have some hundreds of scholarly publications, I am not a quoted authority on this topic. Thus I'm sure my different perspective seems unsanctioned by poobahs. Nonetheless, I vouch for it.
I know full well that what you demand is a sampo, like the miraculous machine in the Finnish Kalevala that, against the laws of nature, continuously cranks out bread and money and thus always reveals its divine origin. (The gods that made it were not Yahweh) I can't give you one of those. That I won't be able to is explicit in our faith, which is called a 'faith' for exactly that reason. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.
Why would we hope for those things? I'll tell you if you'll be nice.
You may not have been ready for the answer, since, though I have some hundreds of scholarly publications, I am not a quoted authority on this topic. Thus I'm sure my different perspective seems unsanctioned by poobahs. Nonetheless, I vouch for it.
I know full well that what you demand is a sampo, like the miraculous machine in the Finnish Kalevala that, against the laws of nature, continuously cranks out bread and money and thus always reveals its divine origin. (The gods that made it were not Yahweh) I can't give you one of those. That I won't be able to is explicit in our faith, which is called a 'faith' for exactly that reason. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.
Why would we hope for those things? I'll tell you if you'll be nice.
I have neither the time nor the interest to debate this, though if you want to suggest read this guy's book or Ehrman's book on the subject, we could talk about that.My favorite quote from what you posted - all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity - which gives us reason to question them
I'm sorry, based on that logic I cannot trust this author for he appears eager to promote the idea that Jesus or God does not exist. Also, on that logic, feminists cannot be trusted on women's issues, African Americans on black issues or doctors on medical issues.
Stuart wrote: "An historical, son of the David god-kings, Jesus, is a possibility.A virgin-born son of the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus, is fanciful nonsense.
Does anyone have a single, factual resp..."
Stuart to me the lack of credibility of this article is encapsulated in one statement:
These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them.
The author is admitting:
(1) The early sources were compiled decades after the events. Doesn't Raphael Lataster realize that decades is incredibly close to the events? In many cases (for example for Alexander the Great's biography we're looking at hundred's of years after the events of his life and at secondary sources-writings by historians who have seen copies of the original histories which histories themselves have disappeared). So the gospels (admitted by Lataster in a back-handed way) have a much better a pedigree than other biographies (like Alexander's-which, by the way, historians accept with little argument).
(2) I just saw David's post and I was going to make the same point-discrediting the closest sources because they believed the evidence and became Christ-Followers is manifold bias against their evidence from my perspective (David you said it so much better than I).
So I'm supposed to ignore writers decades after the event who were convinced enough to put their lives on the line for what they had come to believe, but listen to an author looking at the evidence 2000 years later, who portrays himself as unbiased and detached yet wrote a book with the bombastic title There Was No Jesus, There Is No God. Really? I'm afraid I cannot give him or his summary any credibility.
Was that article written by a 1st year college student (president of the atheist-R-us club) and with a hate-on for all things truly Christian? Desperate to dig through all liberal wanna-be Bible scholars, who hate Core Christian truth throughout the ages, just to prove something to? Who exactly? Me? generic church goers? Who is this sad man's assumed audience? It sure seems that way.
It's amazing how many assumptions and biases are treated as scholarly criticism in that post. What do you expect from someone who bothers to mention Ehrman, Crossan, Carrier.
Stuart you really are scrapping the bottom of the toilet for material aren't you.
But for a factual response:
We have a world full of Jesus - and a world doing everything it can to discredit and confuse this Jesus. Just like the Bible said more than 1900 years ago. WE also have an amazing 1900 years of history since Jesus was here -- It proves everything Jesus spoke of was very applicable.
But Stuart i'm sure that is meaningless to you. I can't help you with that. You've CHOSEN. But thanks for playing: Please try again.
And still no one does offer a single scrap of independently verifiable evidence for a human Jesus.
And even less for a universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-born, death-defeating god-man.
It's make-believe.
If you had any evidence you'd trot it out in the first sentence.
You have none.
Senior priests, pastors and rabbis know Christianity is a fraud.
Believers have been brainwashed and stripped of alternatives, and are trapped in fraudulent system.
Young, educated folks are often strong enough to escape.
That's why Christianity is collapsing in advanced societies. Young people are intellectually strong enough to withstand the brainwashing of the superstition of the angels and virgins and talking donkeys - and everything else you cannot offer a shred of evidence to back up.
An alternative proposition is that many of the biblical writings were quite deliberately written as historical and political allegories.
For example: nowhere in Genesis do the writers make the claim that they are writing the "Word of God".
And even less for a universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-born, death-defeating god-man.
It's make-believe.
If you had any evidence you'd trot it out in the first sentence.
You have none.
Senior priests, pastors and rabbis know Christianity is a fraud.
Believers have been brainwashed and stripped of alternatives, and are trapped in fraudulent system.
Young, educated folks are often strong enough to escape.
That's why Christianity is collapsing in advanced societies. Young people are intellectually strong enough to withstand the brainwashing of the superstition of the angels and virgins and talking donkeys - and everything else you cannot offer a shred of evidence to back up.
An alternative proposition is that many of the biblical writings were quite deliberately written as historical and political allegories.
For example: nowhere in Genesis do the writers make the claim that they are writing the "Word of God".
Of course it's collapsing : people love their sin. Like all atheists: Stuart you have failed to look into the very heart of good & evil. That would guide you directly to Jesus.
The textual evidence I posted is all completely verifiable, Stuart.
In fact, the evidence of Yeshua's distinct sense of humour is trivial to verify. Look up all his jokes and you can immediately see they all play on big/small juxtapositions.
If you're not merely engaging in malicious trolling, consider saying something coherent and even-tempered about this.
If you'd like to cite similar jokes from Sumerian literature or the Greeks to make a case that such tropes were ubiquitous and nondescript in the ancient world, by all means, go ahead.
If you need help finding the jokes, let me know. I'm assuming you share our general knowledge base about this topic. Camel/needle, plank/splinter, camel/gnat.
Public record-keeping having been notoriously bad in 2000-year-old places that were sacked and destroyed by the Romans and other conquerors, we have to be realistic about our evidence standards. Textual identity isn't quite at the level of a whole genome sequence, but it's well thought of in investigations on ancient societies.
A comparison. Students of ancient Greek pottery painters have a concept of 'name vases' (e.g, see Mesogeia Painter), selected painted vases that show enough distinctive correspondences that they can be used to root the existence of an otherwise undocumented vase painter.
If you're the sort of person Diogenes would take an interest in, please give this methodology a fair and sober evaluation.
In fact, the evidence of Yeshua's distinct sense of humour is trivial to verify. Look up all his jokes and you can immediately see they all play on big/small juxtapositions.
If you're not merely engaging in malicious trolling, consider saying something coherent and even-tempered about this.
If you'd like to cite similar jokes from Sumerian literature or the Greeks to make a case that such tropes were ubiquitous and nondescript in the ancient world, by all means, go ahead.
If you need help finding the jokes, let me know. I'm assuming you share our general knowledge base about this topic. Camel/needle, plank/splinter, camel/gnat.
Public record-keeping having been notoriously bad in 2000-year-old places that were sacked and destroyed by the Romans and other conquerors, we have to be realistic about our evidence standards. Textual identity isn't quite at the level of a whole genome sequence, but it's well thought of in investigations on ancient societies.
A comparison. Students of ancient Greek pottery painters have a concept of 'name vases' (e.g, see Mesogeia Painter), selected painted vases that show enough distinctive correspondences that they can be used to root the existence of an otherwise undocumented vase painter.
If you're the sort of person Diogenes would take an interest in, please give this methodology a fair and sober evaluation.
As for the point about evidence supporting God, God is in the same epistemological situation love is in.
Love can not only not be proven, either in single cases or in general - it can't even be reliably evidenced. All the gestures that are conventionally taken as evidence of love - smiles, appreciative looks, hugs, wedding rings, flowers, favours, gifts, tender sex, vows of faithfulness, statements of adoration - can all be given as fakes. In fact, all of these gestures ARE used to fake love, frequently, sometimes out of confusion, sometimes out of avarice. There isn't one single piece of evidence that can firmly attest to any one person loving any other person. People lie about the matter day in and day out, and in every possible way.
Love can only be known by faith. If you have the idea that someone loves you, you are going through the same mental lapses of evidential scrutiny that religious people go through with their faiths.
If you believe in love, though, Stuart, then prove that I love you.
Love can not only not be proven, either in single cases or in general - it can't even be reliably evidenced. All the gestures that are conventionally taken as evidence of love - smiles, appreciative looks, hugs, wedding rings, flowers, favours, gifts, tender sex, vows of faithfulness, statements of adoration - can all be given as fakes. In fact, all of these gestures ARE used to fake love, frequently, sometimes out of confusion, sometimes out of avarice. There isn't one single piece of evidence that can firmly attest to any one person loving any other person. People lie about the matter day in and day out, and in every possible way.
Love can only be known by faith. If you have the idea that someone loves you, you are going through the same mental lapses of evidential scrutiny that religious people go through with their faiths.
If you believe in love, though, Stuart, then prove that I love you.
Still not a shred of evidence for a human Jesus.
Still not a shred of evidence for a sired-by-Yahweh Jesus.
No, I'm not going to be lured into the cheap-trick distraction of Sumerian word-play jokes (about rib-women, or whatever) - keep the focus purely on Jesus (he wants you to) and offer up your direct Jesus-related evidence.
Or be honest enough to admit you have absolutely none.
Still not a shred of evidence for a sired-by-Yahweh Jesus.
No, I'm not going to be lured into the cheap-trick distraction of Sumerian word-play jokes (about rib-women, or whatever) - keep the focus purely on Jesus (he wants you to) and offer up your direct Jesus-related evidence.
Or be honest enough to admit you have absolutely none.
Thanks. I too was thinking about the comparison of love. Any evidence a Christian can bring will not fit in the atheists very small box.
We have 4 written accounts of Jesus. That'll do nicely.
Well, your open-ended request that nonetheless denies evidence that's normally considered acceptable baffles me. I'm reminded of a question posed in a book - I think it might have been 'Positioning - the Battle for Your Mind' by Ries and Trout:
How will you know when you get what you want?
Please specify what evidence you will deem acceptable. I'll endeavour to provide it as best I can and not go off on any other unapproved side trips.
And please knock off the spurious disenjoinments of my honesty. "Cheap trick" "be honest enough."
We're having a literary discussion, not divorcing. Everyone gets wound up on the internet. Death threats used to be exotic - now they're completely routine. Why should we let that mode of incomplete life overtake us?
How will you know when you get what you want?
Please specify what evidence you will deem acceptable. I'll endeavour to provide it as best I can and not go off on any other unapproved side trips.
And please knock off the spurious disenjoinments of my honesty. "Cheap trick" "be honest enough."
We're having a literary discussion, not divorcing. Everyone gets wound up on the internet. Death threats used to be exotic - now they're completely routine. Why should we let that mode of incomplete life overtake us?
Mark wrote: "Well, your open-ended request that nonetheless denies evidence that's normally considered acceptable baffles me. I'm reminded of a question posed in a book - I think it might have been 'Positionin..."
The "tell me what evidence you require" is yet another deflection trick.
You're playing a standard hand.
In the empty box below, place whatever independently verifiable evidence you DO have to validate the claims for the existence of a human Jesus, and a sired-by-Yahweh Jesus.
If the "Gospels" - from Annunciation to Ascension - are independently verifiable, please let me how it is done.
The "tell me what evidence you require" is yet another deflection trick.
You're playing a standard hand.
In the empty box below, place whatever independently verifiable evidence you DO have to validate the claims for the existence of a human Jesus, and a sired-by-Yahweh Jesus.
If the "Gospels" - from Annunciation to Ascension - are independently verifiable, please let me how it is done.
I wonder why you can't stop impugning my honesty. This is becoming quite pathological.
Again, the question I asked you is quite standard and respectable. Everyone who wants a certain standard of evidence is expected to say what will satisfy that standard of evidence. In experimental science, we ask that experimental results can be replicated by an independent laboratory. In ecology, this isn't possible, since nature never precisely duplicates itself, but we look for high levels of statistical overlap where appropriate, and otherwise seek consistency.
Refusing to enunciate your required standard and type of evidence is itself a deflection.
You've seen the famous Lucy vs. Charlie Brown football kickoff joke, I'm sure. Lucy gets Chuck to cue up to kick the football, pulls it away just as he kicks, and lands him on his ass.
In order to authenticate that you're not just doing an epistemological Lucy here -- nope, that's not evidence, you're on your ass again! nope! and that's not evidence either, haha, once again, ass in the dust! - you have to state what evidence will reasonably satisfy you.
Again, the question I asked you is quite standard and respectable. Everyone who wants a certain standard of evidence is expected to say what will satisfy that standard of evidence. In experimental science, we ask that experimental results can be replicated by an independent laboratory. In ecology, this isn't possible, since nature never precisely duplicates itself, but we look for high levels of statistical overlap where appropriate, and otherwise seek consistency.
Refusing to enunciate your required standard and type of evidence is itself a deflection.
You've seen the famous Lucy vs. Charlie Brown football kickoff joke, I'm sure. Lucy gets Chuck to cue up to kick the football, pulls it away just as he kicks, and lands him on his ass.
In order to authenticate that you're not just doing an epistemological Lucy here -- nope, that's not evidence, you're on your ass again! nope! and that's not evidence either, haha, once again, ass in the dust! - you have to state what evidence will reasonably satisfy you.
Mark wrote: "I wonder why you can't stop impugning my honesty. This is becoming quite pathological.
Again, the question I asked you is quite standard and respectable. Everyone who wants a certain standard ..."
These are the games believers invariably play when challenged to back up their beliefs in the fantastical, imaginary world of angels and gods and virgin-born god-men.
You and I both know you don't have a single shred of anything to back up the belief that Jesus was sired by Yahweh.
As I said, if you did, you'd post it in the first sentence.
The Jewish deity Yahweh is as mythological as the imaginary super-being of any other culture.
However, it is good to see that you've finally poked your nose through the smokescreen of pretentious, bloviated language - and copying and pasting of your writings - and given us the real "on your ass" you.
Again, the question I asked you is quite standard and respectable. Everyone who wants a certain standard ..."
These are the games believers invariably play when challenged to back up their beliefs in the fantastical, imaginary world of angels and gods and virgin-born god-men.
You and I both know you don't have a single shred of anything to back up the belief that Jesus was sired by Yahweh.
As I said, if you did, you'd post it in the first sentence.
The Jewish deity Yahweh is as mythological as the imaginary super-being of any other culture.
However, it is good to see that you've finally poked your nose through the smokescreen of pretentious, bloviated language - and copying and pasting of your writings - and given us the real "on your ass" you.
You raise a good point Stuart (although poorly), that we need to make sure we are not following the same path of reason that a Muslim/Mormon/Buddhist is entrenched in (or atheists of course). Do you we believe nothing until it is plopped before us unquestionably?
No - or we would be hiding in a dark basement our short pathetic lives. We all follow clues and question what is proven to be false.
I have yet to meet an atheist who questions atheism. They don't know how or even where to begin (neither do they want to). But they boldly claim to know how to question everything else. This is the true heart of their flaw. Stuart show us 10 ways you've questioned Atheism and then we'll accept you as a Player... Cause you ain't even in the game Boy! You just sittin in the stands throwing popcorn.
You and I both know you don't have a single shred of anything to back up the belief that Jesus was sired by Yahweh.
Since you can give no idea what sort of evidence you would accept, I can't help you. Come back when you know what you want.
If you were a straightforward man like Prof. Dawkins, you'd simply come out and say that since the matter in question was miraculous and contrary to the known ambient of physics and thermodynamics, you would want me to in some way bring an equivalent miracle before your eyes. You don't have the courage to make such an obvious, logical request, and therefore obfuscate with a completely undefined usage of 'evidence.' You ignore the universal practice of ALL people who collect and evaluate evidence to establish and publish an explicit standard that that evidence must meet to be acceptable. I mentioned some of the scientific criteria, but the law also publishes evidence standards. You have no ethic of evidence evaluation.
If you want to continue this discussion in a productive manner, go on Twitter and ask Dawkins to join us here. Your carriage of the standard of atheism is, to be charitable, undistinguished.
Meanwhile, the answer to your implicit request for a miracle is that I don't grant such things. If I could have given you a miracle, I would indeed have done so in the first sentence.
Since you can give no idea what sort of evidence you would accept, I can't help you. Come back when you know what you want.
If you were a straightforward man like Prof. Dawkins, you'd simply come out and say that since the matter in question was miraculous and contrary to the known ambient of physics and thermodynamics, you would want me to in some way bring an equivalent miracle before your eyes. You don't have the courage to make such an obvious, logical request, and therefore obfuscate with a completely undefined usage of 'evidence.' You ignore the universal practice of ALL people who collect and evaluate evidence to establish and publish an explicit standard that that evidence must meet to be acceptable. I mentioned some of the scientific criteria, but the law also publishes evidence standards. You have no ethic of evidence evaluation.
If you want to continue this discussion in a productive manner, go on Twitter and ask Dawkins to join us here. Your carriage of the standard of atheism is, to be charitable, undistinguished.
Meanwhile, the answer to your implicit request for a miracle is that I don't grant such things. If I could have given you a miracle, I would indeed have done so in the first sentence.
We can demonstrate a human Jesus existed because ................................
We can demonstrate a sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh Jesus existed because ......................................
It's not difficult.
Unless you can't make such demonstrations.
And you know fine well you can't make them.
But you're caught in the mind-trap of the addiction of your belief system.
And you can only resort to dishonest deflection and distraction.
We can demonstrate a sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh Jesus existed because ......................................
It's not difficult.
Unless you can't make such demonstrations.
And you know fine well you can't make them.
But you're caught in the mind-trap of the addiction of your belief system.
And you can only resort to dishonest deflection and distraction.
I've already demonstrated to the satisfaction of any reasonable scholar of ancient literature that a consistent speaker designated Jesus by the writers existed. Your dissatisfaction with that evidence is pure avidya, that is, nescience.
I was an atheist myself for a decade or so, so the injunction that I have succumbed to a narcissistic epistemic mire is also completely scurrilous.
If you're curious why anyone would adopt a faith, or this particular faith, there is a problem, and that is that it involves matters that our culture lacks terminology for. That's not something we can address here.
Essentially, though, it's like getting together with a sweetheart. The person tells you that they have love for you and though you have no way of proving that they're not lying, you would very much like to believe them. You look around at the alternative possibilities and see that your boss, your postman, your neighbour, and so on - other possible faiths - don't seem to offer you the same quality of love. A scenario pops up in your mind of a kind of happiness that you wouldn't otherwise know, and the delusion involved - overlooking the problem that your sweetheart might be insincere - seems worth taking a gamble on. After all, just as there's no reason other than the need to accept a minimal deviation from parsimony (a situation ecologists take for granted, biology being most unparsimonious) to disbelieve that God COULD have created the universe, there's no reason other than the need to accept a bit of gooey incredulity to disbelieve that your sweetheart COULD love you forever til death do you part. That's even when you know that a faith like that left your divorced neighbour in the lurch -- apparently he chose wrong, though it's always possible that the whole unprovable exercise of love is misguided, as cynics are quick to say.
Just as love in a human relationship doesn't come without the unprovable commitment of a sincere lover, love from a putative creator doesn't come without the notion that that creator could create. Therefore, if the testimony of love, specifically attributed to a creator or his faithful scribes, comes with some allegations of further metaphysical creation, that only seems consistent. You can be fine with that alone, but perhaps, unlike in the domestic version of faith, you may eventually gain some experience of the miraculous. However, in doing so, you are well aware that the matter is by no means under your control, and hence, you can't manage it to produce a demonstration for another person.
I'm sure many of the folks here could tell you their miracle stories, but those are a bit like parents showing each other their baby photos - the uninvolved may easily look on and mutter to themselves, "It's just another friggin' baby."
In any case, those of us who have bought into the second, extra-human echelon of unprovable love are not really so much different from scientists who work via mathematical modeling rather than pure experimentation -- we have a scenario of how the cosmos works and we uphold it in the absence of anything better. If someone comes along and says, "you're just afraid of the dark. There's no love coming out of that place, you just imagine it," it's very much like hearing, "that woman is just after your money" or "honey, your so-called partner is a gay man - he can't possibly love you, he can only experience lust." Deny, deny - you speak in vain. Faith is a choice. I'm not inclined to deny this love until it denies me. That isn't a trap. It's just being stubborn in a productive way. As U2 sang, it's done "In the name of love."
If you can't disprove the universe was created by a loving creator, then it's futile to attack the later extensions of that same extra-physical power. The evidence that Jesus WASN'T produced as the hypostasis of God is ........... ?
Your only evidence is your own notion of parsimony, which is tantamount to the belief that the one who offers you love is just a gold-digger looking to get your money. Or just a lust, a desire, a cultural capital-G Gigolo.
I was an atheist myself for a decade or so, so the injunction that I have succumbed to a narcissistic epistemic mire is also completely scurrilous.
If you're curious why anyone would adopt a faith, or this particular faith, there is a problem, and that is that it involves matters that our culture lacks terminology for. That's not something we can address here.
Essentially, though, it's like getting together with a sweetheart. The person tells you that they have love for you and though you have no way of proving that they're not lying, you would very much like to believe them. You look around at the alternative possibilities and see that your boss, your postman, your neighbour, and so on - other possible faiths - don't seem to offer you the same quality of love. A scenario pops up in your mind of a kind of happiness that you wouldn't otherwise know, and the delusion involved - overlooking the problem that your sweetheart might be insincere - seems worth taking a gamble on. After all, just as there's no reason other than the need to accept a minimal deviation from parsimony (a situation ecologists take for granted, biology being most unparsimonious) to disbelieve that God COULD have created the universe, there's no reason other than the need to accept a bit of gooey incredulity to disbelieve that your sweetheart COULD love you forever til death do you part. That's even when you know that a faith like that left your divorced neighbour in the lurch -- apparently he chose wrong, though it's always possible that the whole unprovable exercise of love is misguided, as cynics are quick to say.
Just as love in a human relationship doesn't come without the unprovable commitment of a sincere lover, love from a putative creator doesn't come without the notion that that creator could create. Therefore, if the testimony of love, specifically attributed to a creator or his faithful scribes, comes with some allegations of further metaphysical creation, that only seems consistent. You can be fine with that alone, but perhaps, unlike in the domestic version of faith, you may eventually gain some experience of the miraculous. However, in doing so, you are well aware that the matter is by no means under your control, and hence, you can't manage it to produce a demonstration for another person.
I'm sure many of the folks here could tell you their miracle stories, but those are a bit like parents showing each other their baby photos - the uninvolved may easily look on and mutter to themselves, "It's just another friggin' baby."
In any case, those of us who have bought into the second, extra-human echelon of unprovable love are not really so much different from scientists who work via mathematical modeling rather than pure experimentation -- we have a scenario of how the cosmos works and we uphold it in the absence of anything better. If someone comes along and says, "you're just afraid of the dark. There's no love coming out of that place, you just imagine it," it's very much like hearing, "that woman is just after your money" or "honey, your so-called partner is a gay man - he can't possibly love you, he can only experience lust." Deny, deny - you speak in vain. Faith is a choice. I'm not inclined to deny this love until it denies me. That isn't a trap. It's just being stubborn in a productive way. As U2 sang, it's done "In the name of love."
If you can't disprove the universe was created by a loving creator, then it's futile to attack the later extensions of that same extra-physical power. The evidence that Jesus WASN'T produced as the hypostasis of God is ........... ?
Your only evidence is your own notion of parsimony, which is tantamount to the belief that the one who offers you love is just a gold-digger looking to get your money. Or just a lust, a desire, a cultural capital-G Gigolo.
Stuart wrote: "An historical, son of the David god-kings, Jesus, is a possibility.
A virgin-born son of the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus, is fanciful nonsense.
Like I said at the start.
Not going to be lured into "friggin' baby", or any other "on your ass" (there's the real you again) distraction.
You have not a shred of evidence.
A human Jesus is a possibility.
A sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh Jesus, is primitive, superstitious make-believe - no matter how you try to disguise it under the bloated froth of "philosophy".
Educated people in advanced cultures recognise Christianity as primitive, superstitious make-believe - that is why they shake their heads and walk away from it. Not so they can indulge in "sin", but because Christianity is primitive, superstitious make-believe.
A virgin-born son of the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus, is fanciful nonsense.
Like I said at the start.
Not going to be lured into "friggin' baby", or any other "on your ass" (there's the real you again) distraction.
You have not a shred of evidence.
A human Jesus is a possibility.
A sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh Jesus, is primitive, superstitious make-believe - no matter how you try to disguise it under the bloated froth of "philosophy".
Educated people in advanced cultures recognise Christianity as primitive, superstitious make-believe - that is why they shake their heads and walk away from it. Not so they can indulge in "sin", but because Christianity is primitive, superstitious make-believe.
You have not a shred of integrity about what 'evidence' is. You're merely a zealot who can only support his position by using spurious pejoratives like 'primitive,' 'bloated froth,' 'superstitious,' 'make-believe,' etc.
As for 'educated people,' I've never met another person who was more educated than I am. Not that I've done anything extraordinary - it's just that once you've done 14 years of post-secondary education (inclusive of postdoc), written a couple of theses, taken a bunch of additional courses and tickets, done the compulsory continuing education credits in your profession, read like a fiend and learned the best part of a number of languages, there's not much more room left for education if you're to actually have some time available for doing things. Your own education is pretty spotty - I saw you the other day saying that Buddhists propound their own version of God, whereas EVERYONE knows that Buddhism is the 'middle way' - "to believe in God is one extreme view; to believe there is no God is another extreme view; Buddhism is the middle way." The whole shtick about Buddhism is to learn to do without epistemic presumption, or maya as they call it. You're completely sold out to your own maya, so I am reasonably sure you haven't the faintest notion of the core precept of Buddhism.
I don't shake my head, though. The cost of being open to learning is that you risk becoming culturally incomprehensible. In many ways, it's more adaptive to stick to popular memes and shake your head exactly when you see thousands of other people shaking their heads exactly the same way over exactly the same things. The skeptical 'prove it on me' attack on Christianity is a fad right now, a hula hoop of the economically jilted middle class. It soon gets into 'it's child abuse to raise children in that worldview' and then becomes a regular old mobbing.
I've been around long enough to see a bunch of these social passions come and go. It would be fun to get excited that this one was a sign of the coming Armageddon, but I think it's just another passing rage.
As for 'educated people,' I've never met another person who was more educated than I am. Not that I've done anything extraordinary - it's just that once you've done 14 years of post-secondary education (inclusive of postdoc), written a couple of theses, taken a bunch of additional courses and tickets, done the compulsory continuing education credits in your profession, read like a fiend and learned the best part of a number of languages, there's not much more room left for education if you're to actually have some time available for doing things. Your own education is pretty spotty - I saw you the other day saying that Buddhists propound their own version of God, whereas EVERYONE knows that Buddhism is the 'middle way' - "to believe in God is one extreme view; to believe there is no God is another extreme view; Buddhism is the middle way." The whole shtick about Buddhism is to learn to do without epistemic presumption, or maya as they call it. You're completely sold out to your own maya, so I am reasonably sure you haven't the faintest notion of the core precept of Buddhism.
I don't shake my head, though. The cost of being open to learning is that you risk becoming culturally incomprehensible. In many ways, it's more adaptive to stick to popular memes and shake your head exactly when you see thousands of other people shaking their heads exactly the same way over exactly the same things. The skeptical 'prove it on me' attack on Christianity is a fad right now, a hula hoop of the economically jilted middle class. It soon gets into 'it's child abuse to raise children in that worldview' and then becomes a regular old mobbing.
I've been around long enough to see a bunch of these social passions come and go. It would be fun to get excited that this one was a sign of the coming Armageddon, but I think it's just another passing rage.
To quickly summarize the evidence that Jesus lived: We have four biographies of him that have come to be called "the Gospels". He is mentioned by several writers of his time or close to who pretty clearly did not believe he was the son of God but acknowledged that he lived, like Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Josephus, and Serapion. The fact that a church grew up around him that within 170 years of his death reached the imperial palace in Rome would indicate that there was SOMEONE and SOMETHING behind it.Of course, you can reject as untrustworthy any documents written by people who believed that Jesus existed, on the grounds that they are biased. If that's the criterion, I admit, I cannot prove that Jesus ever lived.
But by that criterion, I can't prove that George Washington ever lived either. There are all sorts of letters and other documents from the time that mention him. But they were all written by people who believed that he existed.
If you start with the assumption that any evidence presented by anyone who thinks that X is true must be discounted and ignored, and so we can only consider evidence presented by people who believe that X is false, it's hard to imagine what conclusion we could possibly come to other than that X is false.
Prove to me that Stuart exists by this criteria. Anyone who claims to have met Stuart is biased and we can't consider their testimony. Any written materials that are claimed to be from Stuart must be assumed to be forgeries written by people trying to convince us that he exists. Any legal documents -- birth certificates, drivers license, etc -- must be assumed to really be about some other person with the same name. If you introduce me to someone and claim that this is Stuart, prove that he is not an imposter just pretending to be Stuart. Now, given those preconditions, prove to me that Stuart exists.
Rod wrote: "You raise a good point Stuart (although poorly), that we need to make sure we are not following the same path of reason that a Muslim/Mormon/Buddhist is entrenched in (or atheists of course). Do ..."
Well said Rod. I especially appreciated your point that atheism seems to be mired in "one way scepticism." That is to say sceptical of other points of view to the nth degree, but visiting none of that scepticism on their own world view. It also looks that way to me from where I sit.
Thanks Peter. It's nice to see someone comprehend my thoughts on occasion. (... And Roberts always there for me like an old College drinking buddy.)It is amusing that atheists don't see the effort it takes to fully embrace God's Word. It's a lifelong challenge - with eternal and joyful benefits.
Stuart wrote: "An historical, son of the David god-kings, Jesus, is a possibility.
A virgin-born son of the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus, is fanciful nonsense.
Some respondents have addressed, as I said, the possibility of a human Jesus.
Everyone has kept their head in the burning bush when it comes to the impossibility of the universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-born, death-defeating, soon-to-return-with-armies-of-angels, sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus.
The silence is deafening.
And telling.
Now, on the question of honesty ....
A virgin-born son of the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus, is fanciful nonsense.
Some respondents have addressed, as I said, the possibility of a human Jesus.
Everyone has kept their head in the burning bush when it comes to the impossibility of the universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-born, death-defeating, soon-to-return-with-armies-of-angels, sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus.
The silence is deafening.
And telling.
Now, on the question of honesty ....
Stuart atheists are still in the fairy tale land of universes creating conscious life from Rocks and Matter. Then magically creating reproducing and somewhat opposite mates - then food and resources...Jesus being born from a virgin takes less faith than THAT.
The Bible explains perfectly how it all works - so we don't have to believe rebellious fairy tales.
the impossibility of the universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-born, death-defeating, soon-to-return-with-armies-of-angels, sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus.
How can that series of events be considered 'impossible?'
To begin with, 'virgin-born' is the normal condition of birth in dozens of species of parthenogenetic creatures. It always makes me laugh when people call this impossible. Even in a plant, all it takes is an extra DNA duplication. Sure, not a common event in heterozygous mammals, but to say it's impossible is ridiculous.
As a non-literalist, I don't take Noah's flood literally, but if you posit an entity that can alter the parameters of physics in our universe -- an idea that may be regarded skeptically but not legitimately as 'impossible' -- then such a temporary augmentation of the world's H2O content is conceivable. I don't literally believe in that flood, since I think the story is intended as a parable, and yet, I have no difficulty calling its literal details 'possible.' I just don't think God is very likely to be furtive enough to houseclean away all traces of the event from the affected land-masses. At least, not without telling us that this was done. I expect a certain level of disclosure about such things from someone kind enough to provide prophetic and saintly scribes.
It really all boils down to whether you have enough imagination to conceive of a slightly more complex cosmos than the most reduced version -- one that has an external architect and builder. What you lose in parsimony, you may, if you are correct, gain in true acquisition of wisdom and inspiration, perhaps even in useful humility.
One may develop the temperance not to call honest people dishonest. Internetters find crediting the honesty of people with differing viewpoints even more difficult than they find the idea of a man walking on water and calming the weather.
About the red herring of Yahweh's discourse having arisen among Hebrew speakers at first, bear in mind the passage from Romans "For when the people of nations that do not have the law by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." Knowledge of the essence of God's law is and always has been distributed worldwide. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is expressed in slightly different wording in various religions and books of wisdom. The Jewish conversation with God has not localized God as a kind of divine small-town mayor who was unaccountably construed later as the President.
Well, I say all this knowing that it will not favourably impress you.
So, happy Easterless reductive parsimony weekend to you!
How can that series of events be considered 'impossible?'
To begin with, 'virgin-born' is the normal condition of birth in dozens of species of parthenogenetic creatures. It always makes me laugh when people call this impossible. Even in a plant, all it takes is an extra DNA duplication. Sure, not a common event in heterozygous mammals, but to say it's impossible is ridiculous.
As a non-literalist, I don't take Noah's flood literally, but if you posit an entity that can alter the parameters of physics in our universe -- an idea that may be regarded skeptically but not legitimately as 'impossible' -- then such a temporary augmentation of the world's H2O content is conceivable. I don't literally believe in that flood, since I think the story is intended as a parable, and yet, I have no difficulty calling its literal details 'possible.' I just don't think God is very likely to be furtive enough to houseclean away all traces of the event from the affected land-masses. At least, not without telling us that this was done. I expect a certain level of disclosure about such things from someone kind enough to provide prophetic and saintly scribes.
It really all boils down to whether you have enough imagination to conceive of a slightly more complex cosmos than the most reduced version -- one that has an external architect and builder. What you lose in parsimony, you may, if you are correct, gain in true acquisition of wisdom and inspiration, perhaps even in useful humility.
One may develop the temperance not to call honest people dishonest. Internetters find crediting the honesty of people with differing viewpoints even more difficult than they find the idea of a man walking on water and calming the weather.
About the red herring of Yahweh's discourse having arisen among Hebrew speakers at first, bear in mind the passage from Romans "For when the people of nations that do not have the law by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." Knowledge of the essence of God's law is and always has been distributed worldwide. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is expressed in slightly different wording in various religions and books of wisdom. The Jewish conversation with God has not localized God as a kind of divine small-town mayor who was unaccountably construed later as the President.
Well, I say all this knowing that it will not favourably impress you.
So, happy Easterless reductive parsimony weekend to you!
"As a non-literalist, I don't take Noah's flood literally"
There we are - picking an choosing which bits of "God's Word" we accept.
As I say, to be a good Christian, you need to be a bad atheist.
"It really all boils down to whether you have enough imagination ..."
Yes indeed it does.
There we are - picking an choosing which bits of "God's Word" we accept.
As I say, to be a good Christian, you need to be a bad atheist.
"It really all boils down to whether you have enough imagination ..."
Yes indeed it does.
I always say that atheists are all 16th-century Catholics at heart. You all want the paintings with the demons and the little round haloes over people's heads. I accept the Noah story as God's word - I just don't take it literally. It's a story. Just like the Good Samaritan. Do I need to believe there was literally a Good Samaritan as soon as Yeshua utters the story, just because it's the Word of God?
I'm sorry to impinge on your lovely 16th century dramatic foil.
I'm sorry to impinge on your lovely 16th century dramatic foil.
About faith and imagination, I have the most fascinating blog posts that you possibly won't want to read :P
Everything said there goes as much for secular folks as religious, but I think they give a perspective on religion you won't have seen before.
Post 1 is a short preamble about the fundamental act of faith. It's what we science people generally call 'bootstrapping' but here it's called something else.
Post 2 is the main piece that links a string of faith topics together - reliability, love, self-confidence, religion, and the habit of not littering the streets - all in a story of a young royal prince and his girlfriend problems.
Imagination. What a suspicious thing to use. Yet it has some merit.
Happy Easter, y'all.
Everything said there goes as much for secular folks as religious, but I think they give a perspective on religion you won't have seen before.
Post 1 is a short preamble about the fundamental act of faith. It's what we science people generally call 'bootstrapping' but here it's called something else.
Post 2 is the main piece that links a string of faith topics together - reliability, love, self-confidence, religion, and the habit of not littering the streets - all in a story of a young royal prince and his girlfriend problems.
Imagination. What a suspicious thing to use. Yet it has some merit.
Happy Easter, y'all.
Stuart wrote: "An historical, son of the David god-kings, Jesus, is a possibility.A virgin-born son of the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus, is fanciful nonsense.
Does anyone have a single, factual resp..."
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Is a good start...
I'm glad you are participating Ariela. Good luck with Stewie!
Please, tell me that you'll be helping me out, every now and then, Rod!! Looks like I'll sure be needing it!:)
Hello Ariela - you've probably figured I'm the sin-soaked, evil atheist in the midst (and I only gave up Christianity so I could indulge in more sin! Just ask Rod and Robert.). However, if I were ever to return to the imaginary world of gods and angels and resurrections, I would prefer my fantasy figure to be female - it makes a pleasant change from the wrath and jealously and genocidal smiting. Besides, it's all been a bit too blokey in here.
Yeah, yeah, Isaiah 7:14 - it's almost convincing isn't it when you look at it as saying what you want the OT to be saying? However in a broader perspective - and taking careful note of the tense used by the writer/s (who wasn't Yahweh, because Yahweh is mythological, from Young's Literal(ish - when it suited him) Translation:
10And Jehovah addeth to speak unto Ahaz, saying: 11‘Ask for thee a sign from Jehovah thy God, Make deep the request, or make [it] high upwards.’ 12And Ahaz saith, ‘I do not ask nor try Jehovah.’ 13And he saith, ‘Hear, I pray you, O house of David, Is it a little thing for you to weary men, That ye weary also my God? 14Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel, 15Butter and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good. 16For before the youth doth know To refuse evil, and to fix on good, Forsaken is the land thou art vexed with, because of her two kings.
OK, I'm going to let you chew that over for a bit and see what you make of it.
Always happy to consider good hard evidence - and NEW speculative ideas. Pretty sure I've heard most of the old stuff churned over and over.
Might be helpful to look at the "Who are You Calling a Virgin?" topic.
Yeah, yeah, Isaiah 7:14 - it's almost convincing isn't it when you look at it as saying what you want the OT to be saying? However in a broader perspective - and taking careful note of the tense used by the writer/s (who wasn't Yahweh, because Yahweh is mythological, from Young's Literal(ish - when it suited him) Translation:
10And Jehovah addeth to speak unto Ahaz, saying: 11‘Ask for thee a sign from Jehovah thy God, Make deep the request, or make [it] high upwards.’ 12And Ahaz saith, ‘I do not ask nor try Jehovah.’ 13And he saith, ‘Hear, I pray you, O house of David, Is it a little thing for you to weary men, That ye weary also my God? 14Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel, 15Butter and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good. 16For before the youth doth know To refuse evil, and to fix on good, Forsaken is the land thou art vexed with, because of her two kings.
OK, I'm going to let you chew that over for a bit and see what you make of it.
Always happy to consider good hard evidence - and NEW speculative ideas. Pretty sure I've heard most of the old stuff churned over and over.
Might be helpful to look at the "Who are You Calling a Virgin?" topic.
Hello Stewart,Good Morning! Happy Easter!BTW
Just a quick note before I go and 'chew' on the rest of your info.
First of all, we are all sinners, regardless of what some of us might think themselves to be. We all come short of the Glory of God...no matter how hard we try!! (I had a close encounter with Him and I still sin, so that makes me the worst of all sinners!!) That's an interesting subject worthy of further discussion(at a later time, perhaps!)
Second-The attributes of God (and I'm sure you know them all:)) are feminine atributes! Heartbreaking Compassion, Infinite Mercy, Unconditional Love and Unmerited Grace are feminine attribtes! He covers us with His wings. Only a mother can love her child with true unconditional love, only the female of the species covers Her chicks with her wings. Only a mother can love a son who is a hardened criminal or a daughter who is drug dealing prostitute with the blind love of a mother and with true unconditional love.(also worthy of further discussion)
Thirdly-
The virgin birth MUST be a matter of FAITH( I know, I know...the uneducated and opium of the masses....good old fashioned variety of it.) Sorry I had to bring it up. Just to know that there really was an Albert Einstein, for example, I must believe what the history books are saying...since I never had the honor of meeting him in person.(definitely worthy of further discussion!)
I was also a sceptic, like yourself, of all these 'blind faith' issues until I had a close encounter with the Author of All Faith!!
Many who don't believe in hell...will believe in it when they get there...problem is it doesn't have an exit door.(I know, I know...ridiculous un educated masses ghosts and goblins stuff!!) Yet actually Jesus (this mythical character, as you say) preached more about hell than He did on heaven! We cannot understand the need for a Savior...unless we understand exactly what it is that we all need to be be saved from!! (most worthy of further discussion!)
Have a great rest of your weekend!
Nice meeting you!
Ariela
Good stuff Ariela. God the Father has ALL attributes - male and female. But He chose for us to call him Father ( so it's best we stick with that, or just focus on Jesus : 100% male)
Biblical prophecy is fascinating and specific - God never said it was easy, or even comprehend able to atheists or false religions.
Ariela we won't change Stewie's heart: but those reading along May benefit. Please go the distance.
Faith is a tool given from God, we shouldn't use it blindly. (Don't use power tools without all your senses)
Thanks Rod! Agree on all points. All very true, indeed!Thanks for your input!
For me it's as of the hidden Torah within the Torah is a poetic Love Affair with God! This is why the first most important commandment asks us to love God with all of our hearts, mind and strength. This type of love is passionate love. Lukewarm love is worse than no love from God's perspective. Jesus taught that the entire Jewish Scriptures all hung on those very important first two commandments. So, it REALLY is all is about love! It is clearly evident in the harmony and perfection of all of creation!
God did not choose to come into the world through the knowledge and wisdom of men...but through the womb of a fifteen year old Jewish country
girl! Because the foolishness of God is greater than the 'wisdom' of men!
God created all things in ascending order of importance...creating women last. She was given a special place of honor since through childbirth...she becomes co-creator with God.
Indeed, thank God for women. Just Adam & the animals would have gotten awkward after a while.
I'd like to go back to this conversation about feminine/masculine attributes. It seems to me that those things are GOOD but the only thing "feminine" about them is that our culture(s)/society ascribe them as such. I would argue that compassion, mercy, and love aren't exclusive to a gender and to make it that way is to create false dichotomies. In fact, there have been lots of fathers who have showed these attributes to their children in thesame way you say mothers do. I don't think we do any favors when we exclude people from certain attributes based on gender.
I'm glad you said that Wesley. I've met some bad mothers and feminists over the years.
Stuart wrote: "Everyone has kept their head in the burning bush when it comes to the impossibility of the universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-born, death-defeating, soon-to-return-with-armies-of-angels, sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus. The silence is deafening."Well, maybe people don't bother to answer because, (a) You asked two questions and we started by answering the first before getting to the second. (b) It's all been said a hundred times already. Do we need to repeat it here? And (c) You have already said that you do not accept any evidence that comes from people who take a position different from yours. You have ruled out all contrary evidence as inadmissible before the discussion begins. So why should we bother? You've flat out said that you are not interested in examining the evidence, you just want to ridicule people who disagree with you.
You refer to a universe-creating, etc, Jesus as "impossible"? Right off the bat, you've said that you've already drawn your conclusions before looking at the evidence, I presume for ideological reasons.
But, sigh, okay. I'll toss out a line of argument or two.
Here's one for starters: The eleven disciples (not counting Judas of course) all claimed that they had seen Jesus come back from the dead. Some have said that it was probably all a scam, that they set out to create a new religion so they could get rich and famous and get girls and so on. But ... 10 of the 11 were killed -- most of them tortured to death -- for making that claim. If they had started such a scheme, when the first one (James) was killed, don't you think they would have started to reconsider? After 3 or 4 were killed, surely the rest would start saying to each other, "You know, maybe this wasn't such a good idea. Maybe we should try a pyramid scheme or insider trading instead." But all 11 stuck to their story until their deaths.
Some say this proves nothing, because people have given their lives for many religions and philosophies. That's true, but there's a difference. When some cultist invents a new religion, when they claim that God spoke to them or whatever, they may convince people that they are telling the truth. In some cases those people may even be willing to die for them. But those people don't know from personal knowledge that it is a lie. They don't claim to have seen God: it's the cult leader who makes that claim. It is rarely the person who claimed that God spoke to him who is willing to die for his phony religion. He gets others to do that, while he sits back and takes their money, sleeps with the women, etc.
But in the case of the disciples, if it was a lie, if Jesus never came back from the dead, they knew full well that it was a lie, because they were the ones telling everyone that they had seen him after his resurrection.
How many people are willing to die for some great moral principle? Not many, but some. But how many people are willing to die for something that they know is a lie? I'd think just about none. Hard to believe that out of this group of 11, all 11 would do that.
"If the "Gospels" - from Annunciation to Ascension - are independently verifiable, please let me how it is done."But they are independently verified. Mark was verified by Matthew; Matthew and Mark by Luke; and Matthew, Mark, and Luke by John.
Are you saying that you want a FIFTH source that confirms the same events? But even if we gave you that, would you not than demand yet another source to verify that, and another to verify that, etc? How many sources do we need before you will consider them adequately verified?
Four separate biographies of someone who lived thousands of years ago is more evidence than we have for almost any other ancient person. On top of that you'd have to add all the surviving letters and books from "church fathers" who claimed to have known the disciples, and thus are second-hand witnesses. How many surviving biographies do we for most of the Roman emperors? I bet it's less than four for almost all of them. (Anybody have statistics on this?) Do you doubt that Pompeii lived because he's only mentioned in two or three surviving source and there is no independent verification?
Mark wrote: "Stuart wrote: "Everyone has kept their head in the burning bush when it comes to the impossibility of the universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-born, death-defeating, soon-to-return-with-armie..."
Your (c) is utter nonsense.
Neither you nor anyone else has - or ever has - offered a shred of independently verifiable evidence for either Human Jesus or Magic Jesus.
Playing the silly circle game of Jesus' early followers verifying each other is not independent - it's also silly.
Human Jesus, as I've said, is a possibility.
Magic Jesus is an impossibility because the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh is not "God".
Yahweh is very much a newcomer to the business of being a fictional lowercase "g" god. The idea of "God" was imagined thousands of years before the Jewish priests imagined their imaginary Yahweh.
Imaginary deities do not sire death-defeating god-men.
Christianity looks to me like political spin-doctoring put on the failure of another would-be Jewish messiah.
If you had a shred of genuine evidence for Human Jesus or Magic Jesus you would trot it out in the first sentence.
You don't.
You need to examine how honest you are being with yourself and others.
Your (c) is utter nonsense.
Neither you nor anyone else has - or ever has - offered a shred of independently verifiable evidence for either Human Jesus or Magic Jesus.
Playing the silly circle game of Jesus' early followers verifying each other is not independent - it's also silly.
Human Jesus, as I've said, is a possibility.
Magic Jesus is an impossibility because the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh is not "God".
Yahweh is very much a newcomer to the business of being a fictional lowercase "g" god. The idea of "God" was imagined thousands of years before the Jewish priests imagined their imaginary Yahweh.
Imaginary deities do not sire death-defeating god-men.
Christianity looks to me like political spin-doctoring put on the failure of another would-be Jewish messiah.
If you had a shred of genuine evidence for Human Jesus or Magic Jesus you would trot it out in the first sentence.
You don't.
You need to examine how honest you are being with yourself and others.
Stewie we have two main religions that point to him clearly: Judaism and Christianity.WE have many religions that make use of him later: Islam, Mormonism, J.W.'s.
WE have a church founded in his name by the time of his death: that has now gone on to billions of people.
Not only do we have Gospels and other writings soon after Jesus death - we have apparently 100's of pseudo-gospels as well...and false religions within a few years of His death.
His disciples are known in history and have established churches throughout parts of the world.
Apparently you won't be happy till we dig up some bones and put them in a box for you. Follow the story line Stewie.
A virgin-born son of the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, Jesus, is fanciful nonsense.
Does anyone have a single, factual response to this article?
https://believervsnonbelievers.wordpr...