Jump to content

Losing Faith In Faith


Mighty AC

Recommended Posts

Very interesting discussion. I do not really want to interrupt it but there was a reference of how we ended up with a morality. I suggest that this may fit into the theory of evolution where those who were genetically predisposed to be cantankerous, violent and immoral did not live long enough to propagate their genetic disposition.

Those who were moral, followed a code which minimized confrontations and inequality, dominated the genetic pool and made us the wonderful people who we are to-day. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Historically they can prove that many people (especially in the New Testament existed) and various events (like Jesus' death) occurred. So unlike Santa, who has never had any glimpse of proof, it is very fair to say there is some truth...

The city of London and some of the land marks from Harry Potter actually exist, yet the story isn't true. I'm not a bible scholar and not really concerned with the actual existence of Jesus, though it appears that there is no actual evidence of his reality. His nonexistence is gaining momentum in the academic community. Still, his actual existence matters little. John Lennon, Malcolm X and Nixon were all real yet Forest Gump is still fake. Though that doesn't detract from the story itself.

Now as far as taking the stories literally....I would say that the stories were explained in the mindset of their timeframe. For example, when the Bible says that God flooded the world (Noah) that meant their world as they new it....which was the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates.

Thankfully, people are free to invent countless meanings and intentions for the biblical tales. If only an omnipotent being had the power to communicate it's wishes clearly.

You have evaded my question. Do you believe in consquences? Do you think that people should be accountable for their actions? Why fear eternal suffering if you live a good and honest life. Its kind of like worrying about getting a speeding ticket....don't speed and you'll be ok.

I do believe in consequences, yet I still speed on occasion. Maybe rape, death or eternal torture should be employed as a consequence? Would that be moral? Many Middle Eastern women know they will be beaten or killed for leaving the house unattended or without permission. If the consequence is known in advance, should it then be considered acceptable? I mean those women simply have to stay home to avoid such a fate, right?

Of course, I think that you exaggerate the amount of stories there are about such consequence versus the number of stories in Bible about love, forgiveness and good will. But I guess that's how you want to percieve things.

I think you should read it.

As it says...this one rule SUMS up the Law and the Prophets.

Do you want to be murdered....then don't do it to others.

Do you want to be raped....then don't do it to others.

Do you want to have your items stolen....then dont do it to others.

Again...the Golden Rule is the central message.

Do you want to avoid eternal torture...then just accept the existence of and warship the one true god, despite its immoral examples and lack of evidence. Anyway, as I said, I'm glad you feel the golden rule is the central message. The more we temper Christianity the less hate, discrimination and political interference on society. One day it will be akin to Feng Shui or belief in Karma. Still, I think you should read the Bible.

Yet the book has lasted centuries of critics both historical and modern. It has stories written by multiple people that all come back and say pretty much the same thing. Obviously there is a central message in there that is better than what you call poorly compiled fables.

Never underestimate the power of child indoctrination. Like racism, when taught young and reinforced it's a hard habit to break. Even when people stop believing they often stay in the closet to avoid clashing with their families and social circle. Still, religious adherence is at an all time low, especially among the young.

As for your attempt to show its not centered on the golden rule....I think you have failed. The golden rule is about consequence. Do unto others as you would have done to you. So these people that were getting raped, beaten, murdered....perhaps they had done it themselves and now it was being done unto them. Again...this is about consequence.

Read the book. It is filled with so many examples of innocent people being raped, tortured, murdered and sacrificed.

Its not about who had laws first....it about who had a consequence that people feared.

I simply showed that morality and codified laws preceded religion. I also showed how humans have had to temper religion to bring it more inline with secular morality. Interesting how are ethics and laws are superior to those of the gods.

I think those fundamentalist types are a major reason for the decline in relgion. It forces people to turn when they are claiming everything so literally and forcefully. At the same time, the whole idea of religion shouldn't suffer just because you base your opinion on these extremists.

In my opinion religious ideas, like all ideas, should suffer based on the lack of evidence. These extremists you refer to, simply follow religion more closely than someone like yourself. Less religion usually does equate to less crazy and less evil, so that's a plus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting discussion. I do not really want to interrupt it but there was a reference of how we ended up with a morality. I suggest that this may fit into the theory of evolution where those who were genetically predisposed to be cantankerous, violent and immoral did not live long enough to propagate their genetic disposition.

Those who were moral, followed a code which minimized confrontations and inequality, dominated the genetic pool and made us the wonderful people who we are to-day. :)

Dawkins referred to social ideas that evolve through society as memes. I think social evolution is certainly involved. As a social species we tend to prosper more from safe, peaceful, cooperative environments. When people are safe and free enough to trade and specialize their skills society as a whole benefits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city of London and some of the land marks from Harry Potter actually exist, yet the story isn't true. I'm not a bible scholar and not really concerned with the actual existence of Jesus, though it appears that there is no actual evidence of his reality. His nonexistence is gaining momentum in the academic community. Still, his actual existence matters little.

Your reasoning is deviating. First you use Santa Claus which has no existance and now you are using Harry Potter that has some existance in London. Having said that, various ancient historians who were non-biblical and had no ties to Jesus confirm his existenance and even details about his death. So your assertions about a lack of evidence are not correct.

John Lennon, Malcolm X and Nixon were all real yet Forest Gump is still fake. Though that doesn't detract from the story itself.

What does this have to do with anything. Seems like you are deviating your arguement again. No one is questioning the realness of Forrest Gump or Harry Potter, however there is ample evidence that Jesus walked the earth. Now...if you want to argue that he wasn't the son of God or that he actually didn't do what the Bible said he did then that's something else.

Thankfully, people are free to invent countless meanings and intentions for the biblical tales. If only an omnipotent being had the power to communicate it's wishes clearly.

I think the wishes are fairly clear its just us humans that make it unclear. Again...this goes back to the fundamentalists or extremists that interpret every word to the literal and exact meaning. Again...the main message is the Golden Rule which as I have shown is not just fundamental in Christianity but in almost every major religion. The rest is just details.

I do believe in consequences, yet I still speed on occasion. Maybe rape, death or eternal torture should be employed as a consequence? Would that be moral? Many Middle Eastern women know they will be beaten or killed for leaving the house unattended or without permission. If the consequence is known in advance, should it then be considered acceptable? I mean those women simply have to stay home to avoid such a fate, right?

And do you blame the police officer when you get a ticket? Or do you blame the other driver when you get in an accident because of your speed. Its find if you want to speed as long as you accept the consequences. And of course, the consequences should fit the action. So should you get raped for speeding? No...the consquence should never be more than the action. Even in Matthew 5, it states that one should turn the other cheek instead of taking an eye for an eye. The consquence is less.

As far as your Middle Eastern women example...I would assume they aren't following Christian guidelines so I don't know what they should or shouldn't do. I do feel that the Christian churches have come a long way in understanding the literal scriptures and how their meanings apply to today's world. The problem comes to the forefront when people take just one scripture and base their decision on that without using the other scriptures to weigh in on the decision.

I think you should read it.

I have...maybe not in its entirety but I have read most of it. Perhaps I remember the good things and focus on the important details.

Do you want to avoid eternal torture...then just accept the existence of and warship the one true god, despite its immoral examples and lack of evidence. Anyway, as I said, I'm glad you feel the golden rule is the central message. The more we temper Christianity the less hate, discrimination and political interference on society. One day it will be akin to Feng Shui or belief in Karma. Still, I think you should read the Bible.

The way I view it....I can choose to believe in a certain religion that has remarkable simialities to other religions and there would be two outcomes:

1. There truly is a God and I get to go to heaven

2. There is no God but I have now lived a live filled with morality, inspiration and well being for others. And as the Macleans article/study proved, I will have a better chance of overcoming life's vulnerabilities.

Conversely, if I choose to not believe then I get to live a life of believing there is nothing out there after so what does any of this matter anyway.

Even if my decision is a fairy tale, I would rather choose that then alternative.

Still, religious adherence is at an all time low, especially among the young.

And ironically, we are feeling more lonely than ever even though our technolgy has us more connected. Depression and suicide are increasing as we seem to be losing a connection with something greater than what's on Earth.

Read the book. It is filled with so many examples of innocent people being raped, tortured, murdered and sacrificed.

Give me an example of one of these stories showing that innocent people are involved. Prove to me these people were innocent.

In my opinion religious ideas, like all ideas, should suffer based on the lack of evidence. These extremists you refer to, simply follow religion more closely than someone like yourself. Less religion usually does equate to less crazy and less evil, so that's a plus.

There are also many strongly religious people that do many great things. But I guess that doesn't count right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting discussion. I do not really want to interrupt it but there was a reference of how we ended up with a morality. I suggest that this may fit into the theory of evolution where those who were genetically predisposed to be cantankerous, violent and immoral did not live long enough to propagate their genetic disposition.

Those who were moral, followed a code which minimized confrontations and inequality, dominated the genetic pool and made us the wonderful people who we are to-day. :)

Interesting. I guess that is a nature versus nurture type argument. Not sure if I agree with it but interesting nonetheless.

I certainly think that religion has created the backbone for the morals of our society. Its easy to speculate what we would be like without it but proving it is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably. Lots of independent peoples seemed to make up similar myths.

Your opinions on God are pretty common, I guess, but what about my question ?

We've always looked to something more/bigger than us. Turns out it is not God, but our universe. Religion has had to adjust it's vision when presented with new evidence. Like the earth being round, not flat. It's not a religion thing, but a reality thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reasoning is deviating. First you use Santa Claus which has no existance and now you are using Harry Potter that has some existance in London. Having said that, various ancient historians who were non-biblical and had no ties to Jesus confirm his existenance and even details about his death. So your assertions about a lack of evidence are not correct.

I recall that there's really only one contemporary historian, a Roman named Tacitus, who was discussing Christ, and he was not actually a contemporary, he was decades later, and he wasn't actually discussing Christ, but rather the existence of a cult who worshiped him.

There seems to be widespread agreement that Jesus was a historical figure, but there also seems to be a lot of stuff in the gospels that doesn't jive with historical facts.

I think the wishes are fairly clear its just us humans that make it unclear. Again...this goes back to the fundamentalists or extremists that interpret every word to the literal and exact meaning. Again...the main message is the Golden Rule which as I have shown is not just fundamental in Christianity but in almost every major religion. The rest is just details.

It seems as if you wish to entirely disregard the Old Testament, which is *certainly* not about the Golden Rule. How is it possible to reconcile the loving father described in the New Testament with the raging psycho of the Old Testament? How could they possibly be the same guy?

And do you blame the police officer when you get a ticket? Or do you blame the other driver when you get in an accident because of your speed. Its find if you want to speed as long as you accept the consequences. And of course, the consequences should fit the action. So should you get raped for speeding? No...the consquence should never be more than the action. Even in Matthew 5, it states that one should turn the other cheek instead of taking an eye for an eye. The consquence is less.

Let's clarify this whole "consequences" idea. I think most people understand cause-and-effect. I break the law, I get in trouble. I pick a fight, I get punched in the nose. I drink too much, I wake up feeling like crap the next day. I don't think anybody here doubts those kinds of "consequences".

When it comes to some of these other kinds of "consequences" some religious people talk about, that's where things get a little sketchy. I work on the Sabbath, I spend eternity in a lake of fire. I have girl-on-girl sex, I spend eternity in a lake of fire. I don't accept that some middle-eastern guy got killed for me 2000 years ago, I spend eternity in a lake of fire.

There are mainstream religious and political figures who claim that things like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina and the Texas drought and wildfires and the Sandy Hook massacre are "consequences" of people not believing in the Bible. Are these the kinds of "consequences" you believe in?

The way I view it....I can choose to believe in a certain religion that has remarkable simialities to other religions and there would be two outcomes:

1. There truly is a God and I get to go to heaven

2. There is no God but I have now lived a live filled with morality, inspiration and well being for others. And as the Macleans article/study proved, I will have a better chance of overcoming life's vulnerabilities.

Conversely, if I choose to not believe then I get to live a life of believing there is nothing out there after so what does any of this matter anyway.

Nothing matters, unless you get to live in the sky with a bearded dude after it's all done?

Give me an example of one of these stories showing that innocent people are involved. Prove to me these people were innocent.

Didn't god wipe out Job's entire family just to prove a point to Satan? Wipe out everybody on earth except for Noah's family in the Great Flood? I think he commanded the Israelites to annihilate one of the Canaanite tribes right down to the last infant. I can't imagine what those infants and toddlers must have done to deserve that...

There are also many strongly religious people that do many great things. But I guess that doesn't count right?

Great people do great things. Bad people do bad things. There are lots of religious and non-religious people on both sides of that ledger.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've always looked to something more/bigger than us. Turns out it is not God, but our universe. Religion has had to adjust it's vision when presented with new evidence. Like the earth being round, not flat. It's not a religion thing, but a reality thing.

Ok, yes. Your views are shared by many others. My question is still hanging there, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall that there's really only one contemporary historian, a Roman named Tacitus, who was discussing Christ, and he was not actually a contemporary, he was decades later, and he wasn't actually discussing Christ, but rather the existence of a cult who worshiped him.

No...there were other sources including Pliny the Younger (Roman Governor), Josephus (Jewish historian), the Babylonian Talmud and Lucian of Samosata (Greek satirist). Would you not agree that even if Tacitus was dsciussing the cult who worshiped Christ that it strongly shows evidence that Christ exsited. Again....we're not debating if he is the son of God or even if he was anything special, rather if he actually walked on this earth as a human.

There seems to be widespread agreement that Jesus was a historical figure, but there also seems to be a lot of stuff in the gospels that doesn't jive with historical facts.

So you agree there is widespread agreement that he at least walked the earth. That's good. As for accuraccy we're not looking to prove every detail...just one.

It seems as if you wish to entirely disregard the Old Testament, which is *certainly* not about the Golden Rule. How is it possible to reconcile the loving father described in the New Testament with the raging psycho of the Old Testament? How could they possibly be the same guy?

The one thing I have learned is that you can't use today's moral basis to judge things that happened in history. Now...that's assuming that you believe every story in the Old Testament was true. If you do, then yes it certainly is pretty gruesome of the levels that God took to rid the world of evil. In all of these cases, these people who were being killed were evil and were justifyably suffering the consequences for their actions. Again...illustrating the consequences. If you don't beleive the stories to be true then you have to ask if it is the same guy or if the story is exaggerated to get the point across.

Overall, I guess if you don't believe these people were evil then he would appear to be a raging psycho but that would mean you are cherry picking your information and not reading the whole story.

When it comes to some of these other kinds of "consequences" some religious people talk about, that's where things get a little sketchy. I work on the Sabbath, I spend eternity in a lake of fire. I have girl-on-girl sex, I spend eternity in a lake of fire. I don't accept that some middle-eastern guy got killed for me 2000 years ago, I spend eternity in a lake of fire.

I guess you didn't read the part earlier where I posted the following:

1. I guess you forgot to read the lines immediately following the ones you posted. Here:

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Clearly this establishes a gradient of some sort showing that who ever practices these laws the LEAST will given lower status in Heaven and the one who practices the most will be great in Heaven. They do set a bar by saying you must be of a certain level to get in but that doesn't equate to the absolute all or none that you suggest.

As I said, earlier its not an all or none situation. Jesus says many times in the Bible that we are sinners and that we will sin. There are many passages talking about the ways to go about forgivess for the sin. With that said, the items above clearly are items that you view are not sins and therefore you don't think should even be on the table. I agree but I'm not the ultimate judge and neither are you. My thought on this is that if you live a good life and are good to others that you don't need to worry about if you sin even if you don't believe its a sin. Again...it all comes down to the Golden Rule and in the end its not an all or none thing. Just to be clear, I have sinned some pretty big ones but I don't feel that I will be living in the eternal firepit. I've done a lot of other good things too.

There are mainstream religious and political figures who claim that things like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina and the Texas drought and wildfires and the Sandy Hook massacre are "consequences" of people not believing in the Bible. Are these the kinds of "consequences" you believe in?

What have I said so far that would make you think I would believe that? Even Mighty AC has commented a few times that I am clearly a tempered down version of any normal religous person nevermind the zealots that you refer to. These people that you are talking about are allowed to have their opinions but I feel its people like this that scare away the logical people who normally would accept religion into their lives. At the end of the day, you need to formulate your own opinion of what religion or 'God' or whatever you believe is correct. I have often said that the Bible is not perfect since it was written by men. It has been translated and changed many times and with that it proves that its not perfect. The message however hasn't changed and to me is perfect. So if you want to believe something that man has created then there is a very good chance its not perfect.

Nothing matters, unless you get to live in the sky with a bearded dude after it's all done?

Again...I have started this conversation by saying that I don't necessarity believe in God (aka the bearded dude) but some higher power. I do believe there is something beyond what we have here...so I can't really imagine a life where this is our only stop. So yes...if we don't get another stop after this one, then nothing we do here really matters. For the vast, vast majority of us, we may be remembered by our kids or grandkids but after that what? I guess if you are some famous person then you can live on but the vast, vast majority of us won't be. So there is supposed to be some purpose in us just existing for 75 plus years on this rock just to wither away? Can't see it.

Didn't god wipe out Job's entire family just to prove a point to Satan? Wipe out everybody on earth except for Noah's family in the Great Flood? I think he commanded the Israelites to annihilate one of the Canaanite tribes right down to the last infant. I can't imagine what those infants and toddlers must have done to deserve that...

Yup. He did. Of course there is context to each of these stories that you seem to leave out. For example, the Canaanites regularily practices child sacrifices. I guess they didn't think much of these infants or toddlers either. They were also a violently, evil people (according to the Bible...which if you believe that God destroyed the Canaanites then you have to believe they were evil...no?) I see you get your info from the one line in Deuteronomy which demands the total destruction of Cananites but you mustn't have read the subsequent lines where it specifically mentions total destruction of Canaanite cities. There is a good summary on this here http://www.accessv.com/~rjchin/proof/canaan.htm

The article is interesting because it doesn't hold anything back and actually admits that God commits genocide with Noah, however it again explains the context which is always important.

Great people do great things. Bad people do bad things. There are lots of religious and non-religious people on both sides of that ledger.

Yup....that was my point to Mighty AC. Relgion has many people that have worked for the good of mankind and many that have done bad things. So you can't just look at the ones doing bad and say that all religion is bad.

Edited by Accountability Now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This weekend I had the opportunity to attend an atheism/skepticism/reason conference in the Southern US. I attend many work related conferences as both an exhibitor and delegate, so I expected a similar experience. However, this event felt more like a family reunion than a meeting of strangers. The most diverse group of people I have ever witnessed in one place, (in terms of age, race, sexual orientation, employment and gender) freely mingled and chatted openly, honestly and in an incredibly congenial manner on all topics both personal and public. The conference was full of outstanding speakers on a wide range of topics but that aspect almost paled in comparison to the countless conversations I had.

From these talks I learned how easy it is for me to be an atheist and how painfully hard it can be for those from strong religious families or in the US South in general. I spoke with countless Americans that have lost their jobs solely because they were not Christian. I listened to other heart wrenching stories of people that were ostracized by their family and social groups for simply stating that something is wrong with their belief system. Being an open atheist can be such a painful process for so many, especially in the South, that hotlines and groups of trained listeners exist to help provide support, prevent suicides and really just let people know they are not alone. http://recoveringfromreligion.org/It's amazing how many atheists are posing as believers just to avoid the pain of starting over socially.

The biggest opposition I have ever experienced as an atheist was the fact that my wife didn't want her parents' hardcore Baptist friends to know the nature of the conference I was attending. Coming out as an atheist is often more contentious than any other declaration. Though it can be far more difficult to proclaim one's homosexuality, nobody considers that to be a value judgement on heterosexuals. However, stating that I am an atheist is an automatic, unspoken declaration that I think theistic beliefs are fake and ridiculous.

Has anyone had or known someone that has had a noteworthy experience when leaving religion behind? Or would anyone have a problem if a son, daughter, spouse or any other family member or friend decided to tell you that they have lost faith in faith?

I belonged to a group of friends that passionately loved the NHL. We followed every game and, knew all the stats, etc... When I finally awoke and decided that planning my life around hockey was a waste, my friends called me a ***** and told me to *******. When I looked around, it was not just ex-superfans of hockey, look at football or NASCAR! Look at all the kids coaches, what a bunch of paedophiles! Look at all the riots! Look at the rape and blatant misogyny in sports! These organized sports leagues brainwash weak-minded individuals to donate money, or else they will not belong! Throughout it's history sports have oppressed homosexuals! How can we just sit back and watch our kids get indoctrinated into sports!

***

I recently read Sapiens by Yuval Harari. He shook up many of my beliefs including my definition of religion:

I don't think the book criticizes religion. Rather, it argues that religion is the most important human creation, and the key to our conquest of the world. But first, we should understand what religion is. Religion is not belief in gods. Rather, religion is any system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief in superhuman laws. Religion tells us that we must obey certain laws that were not invented by humans, and that humans cannot change at will. Some religions, such as Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, believe that these super-human laws were created by the gods. Other religions, such as Buddhism, Communism and Nazism, believe that these super-human laws are natural laws. Thus Buddhists believe in the natural laws of karma, Nazis argued that their ideology reflected the laws of natural selection, and Communists believe that they follow the natural laws of economics. No matter whether they believe in divine laws or in natural laws, all religions have exactly the same function: to give legitimacy to human norms and values, and to give stability to human institutions such as states and corporations. Without some kind of religion, it is simply impossible to maintain social order. During the modern era religions that believe in divine laws went into eclipse. But religions that believe in natural laws became ever more powerful. In the future, they are likely to become more powerful yet. Silicon Valley, for example, is today a hot-house of new techno-religions, that promise humankind paradise here on earth with the help of new technology.

http://www.ynharari.com/qa/questions-and-answers/

Harari argues that even Human Rights are simply an "imagined order" and therefore religious beliefs!

Edited by carepov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, various ancient historians who were non-biblical and had no ties to Jesus confirm his existenance and even details about his death. So your assertions about a lack of evidence are not correct.

There are more an more biblical historians who are now doubting the existence of a living Jesus. There is a paradox that Jesus did and taught all the amazing things Christians like to talk about yet no one heard of him outside his immediate cult for nearly 100 years. He wasn't mentioned by contemporaries, he didn't exist in any official records of any kind, etc. It's odd that no tax collector, census taker, witness of a sermon or miracle ever wrote down anything about him. If this subject is important to you check out some of the writings by Richard Carrier or David Fitzgerald. If you have less time here is a talk by Carrier that summarizes some of the main points from his books. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbTbEvFSSF8

I find it interesting that prior to the existence of Christianity there was belief in a nonhuman celestial being named Jesus. Jews of the time were familiar with these stories. Later we have writings that turn this celestial god into a human one.

I think the wishes are fairly clear its just us humans that make it unclear. Again...this goes back to the fundamentalists or extremists that interpret every word to the literal and exact meaning. Again...the main message is the Golden Rule which as I have shown is not just fundamental in Christianity but in almost every major religion. The rest is just details.

A. C. Grayling said something along the lines of debating religion is a little like boxing a blob of Jello. Christians have creative license to invent stories and apologies to explain away the gruesome, immoral, contradictory or plainly false tales in the Bible as simply parables, examples, stories that spoke to people of that time, etc. There are thousands of Christian sects that all interpret the scriptures differently and produce different apologies.

I have congratulated you for being someone that chooses a modern secular ethical view and bends the Bible into that model. This is certainly preferable to the types that are truer to the scriptures; however, it leads to the question of why believe at all? Considering the absence of evidence for gods or supernatural beings of any kind why leap to the assumption of their existence? When explaining away contradictions, obvious fallacies, immorality, shortsightedness of an apparently omniscient being, etc. doesn't it ever seem more plausible that as with the countless dead religions and the thousands of active ones you don't subscribe to, the scriptures are just man made stories?

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...there were other sources including Pliny the Younger (Roman Governor), Josephus (Jewish historian), the Babylonian Talmud and Lucian of Samosata (Greek satirist). Would you not agree that even if Tacitus was dsciussing the cult who worshiped Christ that it strongly shows evidence that Christ exsited. Again....we're not debating if he is the son of God or even if he was anything special, rather if he actually walked on this earth as a human.

There is evidence that Josephus didn't write about the biblical Jesus either. Josephus writes about mundane events in elaborate detail, yet then includes one tiny passage that mentions the (very common) names Jesus and James. Unfortunately, the brief mention is of James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus. The passage simply states that this particular priest was named a Jewish high priest during a period of political infighting. One would expect that more would have been said about a miracle performing messiah that was resurrected only +/- 35 years before the birth of Josephus.

Also, Philo the preeminent political writer in the region, who was actually alive at the supposed time of Jesus mentioned the Christ a grand total of never! The man wrote roughly 850,000 words on the politics of the region and never once mentioned the biblical Jesus.

Again...I have started this conversation by saying that I don't necessarity believe in God (aka the bearded dude) but some higher power. I do believe there is something beyond what we have here...so I can't really imagine a life where this is our only stop. So yes...if we don't get another stop after this one, then nothing we do here really matters.

I take the opposite view. If this is our only stop then what we do here matters infinitely more. If you're immortal, then time is unimportant; however, this is our one kick at the can so our limited time is our most valuable commodity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are more an more biblical historians who are now doubting the existence of a living Jesus. There is a paradox that Jesus did and taught all the amazing things Christians like to talk about yet no one heard of him outside his immediate cult for nearly 100 years. He wasn't mentioned by contemporaries, he didn't exist in any official records of any kind, etc. It's odd that no tax collector, census taker, witness of a sermon or miracle ever wrote down anything about him. If this subject is important to you check out some of the writings by Richard Carrier or David Fitzgerald. If you have less time here is a talk by Carrier that summarizes some of the main points from his books. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbTbEvFSSF8

I'll give the video a watch but won't be able to right now. I still think the vast majority of historians and scholars on the topic agree that a man named Jesus walked the earth. You will always have skeptics that think certain things didn't happen...like man walking on the moon for example. Its not really something thing that we will be able to prove unless they dig up some holy ground and find an artifact either proving it or disproving it.

A. C. Grayling said something along the lines of debating religion is a little like boxing a blob of Jello.

I agree with the jello comment but I think atheists have this upper hand because when it comes down to it, they just say 'prove it' and we can't. As such the arguement goes nowhere. All that people have are beliefs and faith which don't align with proof (actually the proof is couterintuitive to faith).

Christians have creative license to invent stories and apologies to explain away the gruesome, immoral, contradictory or plainly false tales in the Bible as simply parables, examples, stories that spoke to people of that time, etc. There are thousands of Christian sects that all interpret the scriptures differently and produce different apologies.

I find it interesting to break down those differences and to see how they arose. For example, we have the Anglican church today simply because the King of England want to divorce his wife so he made a new church that would allow it. Man...not God...created did this. I strongly believe that most of the misconceptions, misinterpretations and causes for misunderstanding were from human involvement in religion. If you are able to break away from those things then you start to see some similarities that are quite intriguing. For examples, I don't believe the God in Christianity is any different than the God in Islam or Buddism or any other religion. There is one God or creator or ultimate being. We just understand the God of Christianity because that was the way it was spoken to us. Similar to how our language isn't better than other languages....in the end they all mean the same thing when translated properly.

I have congratulated you for being someone that chooses a modern secular ethical view and bends the Bible into that model. This is certainly preferable to the types that are truer to the scriptures; however, it leads to the question of why believe at all? Considering the absence of evidence for gods or supernatural beings of any kind why leap to the assumption of their existence? When explaining away contradictions, obvious fallacies, immorality, shortsightedness of an apparently omniscient being, etc. doesn't it ever seem more plausible that as with the countless dead religions and the thousands of active ones you don't subscribe to, the scriptures are just man made stories?

Like I said above, I think the thousands religions I don't subscribe to are pretty much the same as mine but written in a language that I don't necessiarly understand. I guess ulimately my reason for believing is the fact that I know as humans we are so far away from knowing everything. There is so much more to this universe than we can even grasp and I can't imagine that we are just floating out here with no connection to anything else. Perhaps that sounds desparate but my mind literally can't comprehend there not being something out there that expands on what we are doing here. I have no problems debating on Christian parables or facts because there is a good chance there are things that I am wrong about or could learn or even possibly sway me to ultimately a different way of viewing things (which is why I think I'm more relaxed than other relgious characters) however I don't think I would ever bend on my belief that there is something beyond this rock. With that said, I have no disrespect for those who disagree especially when they attack the arguement on a logical level like you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give the video a watch but won't be able to right now. I still think the vast majority of historians and scholars on the topic agree that a man named Jesus walked the earth. You will always have skeptics that think certain things didn't happen...like man walking on the moon for example. Its not really something thing that we will be able to prove unless they dig up some holy ground and find an artifact either proving it or disproving it.

Typically, we don't accept ideas without evidence and then claim 'well, you can't disprove it.' That's the problem I have with taking ideas on faith. Do you think you would find Christian beliefs to be credible if you didn't first have faith in the idea of a god?

Many historians do claim belief in a historical Jesus but very few have seriously investigated the evidence. When analyzed there isn't any. Often the gospels themselves are included as evidence despite the fact that they have been shown to be false. There are additional gospels that were cut from the Bible and even historical evidence of a gospel that was in the process of being created. The first 5 minutes of this talk discusses that: https://youtu.be/CeUFZ1IHz9k?t=2191

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically, we don't accept ideas without evidence and then claim 'well, you can't disprove it.' That's the problem I have with taking ideas on faith. Do you think you would find Christian beliefs to be credible if you didn't first have faith in the idea of a god?

Many historians do claim belief in a historical Jesus but very few have seriously investigated the evidence. When analyzed there isn't any. Often the gospels themselves are included as evidence despite the fact that they have been shown to be false. There are additional gospels that were cut from the Bible and even historical evidence of a gospel that was in the process of being created. The first 5 minutes of this talk discusses that: https://youtu.be/CeUFZ1IHz9k?t=2191

Yes...I do. A friend of mine who is atheist believes very strongly in Christian beliefs but just not in God or Jesus. His approach is that if you live life according to those beliefs then you will live a heavenly life and if you live against the beliefs then you will live a hellish life. Either way to him, you are worm food afterwards and that is it.

Many historians have seriously investigated becasue there is really nothing to look into. How many historians continue to seriously look into Columbus landing in America or the fall of Rome. There might be misconceptions about some of the details but we are certain that a guy named Columbus came to America.

Food for thought....given the fact that Christians endured wild persecution from the time of Jesus death right through the days of Charlemangne, don't you think that a 'myth' like Jesus would have been much easier to squash? Or that people would have been more willing to discount his presence on earth. Lots of fear mongering for a guy who didn't even exist...wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought....given the fact that Christians endured wild persecution from the time of Jesus death right through the days of Charlemangne, don't you think that a 'myth' like Jesus would have been much easier to squash? Or that people would have been more willing to discount his presence on earth. Lots of fear mongering for a guy who didn't even exist...wouldn't you say?

The stories were written well after the supposed death, none of the followers the cult gained met the man so why do you think the actual existence of a hippie street preacher would make the story any more or less durable? Even writings by guys like Paul only refer to revelations received from a celestial Jesus. I'm not sure why this particular cult or any cult survived. Despite stories that are even more ridiculous than Christianity and with the set back of being created in modern times where people are educated and literate, Mormonism and Scientology have been able to thrive. Some BS just sticks. Like Carrier mentions in his talks in modern times, tinfoil and sticks found in Roswell gave birth to the idea that aliens have visited the earth. Within 30 years the story went from tinfoil, to spacecraft wreckage, to an entire flying saucer containing aliens that have been autopsied by the government. The fact that people believe in a thing does not count as evidence of said thing.

The average lifespan 2,000 years ago was maybe 40-50 years, life was difficult and brutal, maybe the hopeful message of a new personal saviour god made people more willing to buy in. Who knows?

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stories were written well after the supposed death, none of the followers the cult gained met the man so why do you think the actual existence of a hippie street preacher would make the story any more or less durable? Even writings by guys like Paul only refer to revelations received from a celestial Jesus. I'm not sure why this particular cult or any cult survived. Despite stories that are even more ridiculous than Christianity and with the set back of being created in modern times where people are educated and literate, Mormonism and Scientology have been able to thrive. Some BS just sticks. Like Carrier mentions in his talks in modern times, tinfoil and sticks found in Roswell gave birth to the idea that aliens have visited the earth. Within 30 years the story went from tinfoil, to spacecraft wreckage, to an entire flying saucer containing aliens that have been autopsied by the government. The fact that people believe in a thing does not count as evidence of said thing.

The only story that seems to be written later is the book of Matthew which there is much debate on. The rest however were written during and shortly after. Again....the books were not released or widely spoken of due to fear of persecution.

I understand that you are mostly stating your opinion and trying to pass it off as fact however the reality is that many scholars spend their entire lives trying to figure out some of these answers and the vast majority agree that Jesus walked the earth and a good portion of them agree that these gospels were written by people who knew him. With that said, I am quite certain that you and I won't solve this simply by stating our opinions and beliefs.

The average lifespan 2,000 years ago was maybe 40-50 years, life was difficult and brutal, maybe the hopeful message of a new personal saviour god made people more willing to buy in. Who knows?

Again....you keep looking at history with a modern perspective. We think it was difficult and brutal only compared to what we now know. For those people they didn't know any different. That was the life they lived and that was that. The only factor that came into play once they heard about Jesus was whether they should follow him or not. If they chose to follow him then there was the fear of persecution....a real fear. It was much easier to not follow and to continue to live the life they knew....which is what many did including Judas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I refer to myself as a Christian Atheist.

I find myself becoming less believing in God as described by the Bible but something greater than us. I trust that is still a step away from an atheist but definitely closer than a full on Christian.

EDIT...I had put more or less when I just meant to say less.

Edited by Accountability Now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought....given the fact that Christians endured wild persecution from the time of Jesus death right through the days of Charlemangne, don't you think that a 'myth' like Jesus would have been much easier to squash? Or that people would have been more willing to discount his presence on earth. Lots of fear mongering for a guy who didn't even exist...wouldn't you say?

Perhaps you are exaggerating the persecution of early Christians:

“In the 300 years of the crucifixion of Christ to the conversion of Emperor Constantine, polytheistic Roman emperors initiated no more than four general persecutions of Christians. Local administrators and governors incited some anti-Christian violence of their own. Still, if we combine all the victims of all these persecutions, it turns out that in these three centuries the polytheistic Romans killed no more than a few thousand Christians. In contrast, over the course, of the next 1,500 years, Christians slaughtered Christians by the millions, to defend slightly different interpretations of the religion of love and compassion.”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6846009-in-the-300-years-of-the-crucifixion-of-christ-to

The key to Christian "success" was Constantinople:

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320hist&Civ/chapters/13XITY.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only story that seems to be written later is the book of Matthew which there is much debate on. The rest however were written during and shortly after. Again....the books were not released or widely spoken of due to fear of persecution.

The gospel of Mark refers to the destruction of the second temple which is known to have taken place in 70 AD during the siege of Jerusalem, hence that would be the earliest it could have been written. The writer of Matthew copies the greek writing of Mark almost verbatim and the writer of Luke also borrows from Mark, hence they came afterwards. These were not documents written by people that knew "Jesus". That's not my opinion, these are the findings of mainstream Bible historians.

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read Sapiens by Yuval Harari. He shook up many of my beliefs including my definition of religion:

I don't think the book criticizes religion. Rather, it argues that religion is the most important human creation, and the key to our conquest of the world. But first, we should understand what religion is. Religion is not belief in gods. Rather, religion is any system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief in superhuman laws. Religion tells us that we must obey certain laws that were not invented by humans, and that humans cannot change at will. Some religions, such as Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, believe that these super-human laws were created by the gods. Other religions, such as Buddhism, Communism and Nazism, believe that these super-human laws are natural laws. Thus Buddhists believe in the natural laws of karma, Nazis argued that their ideology reflected the laws of natural selection, and Communists believe that they follow the natural laws of economics. No matter whether they believe in divine laws or in natural laws, all religions have exactly the same function: to give legitimacy to human norms and values, and to give stability to human institutions such as states and corporations. Without some kind of religion, it is simply impossible to maintain social order.

I will check out Sapiens, thanks.

I agree with your post here, except the last line I quoted. Though, that may have been true for most of human history I don't think it is anymore. Religions with their associated sticks and carrots and only a handful of people qualified to wield their power are extremely useful to maintain order or generate wealth. However, I would argue that, at least in the west, our knowledge and understanding of 'life, the universe and everything' has progressed to the point that when coupled with culture and laws, social order and sound decision making is better handled by evidence based thinking.

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are exaggerating the persecution of early Christians:

No...I'm not.

The anti-Christian policies or persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire occurred intermittently over a period of about three centuries until the 313 Edict of Milan issued by Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius, when Christianity was legalized. Christians were persecuted by local authorities on a sporadic and ad-hoc basis, often more according to the whims of the local community than to the opinion of imperial authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire#Duration_and_extent_of_the_anti-Christian_policies

The Roman governments were just part of the issue. For the most part they were being perseucted by local authorities on the whim of the local community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gospel of Mark refers to the destruction of the second temple which is known to have taken place in 70 AD during the siege of Jerusalem, hence that would be the earliest it could have been written. The writer of Matthew copies the greek writing of Mark almost verbatim and the writer of Luke also borrows from Mark, hence they came afterwards. These were not documents written by people that knew "Jesus". That's not my opinion, these are the findings of mainstream Bible historians.

You claimed that none of the followers of Jesus ever met him. A number of the writers did. Perhaps some of the later writers did not but there certainly were some that did. The reason for the delay in writing also had to do with the fact that the need for the written word wasn't brought forward until the word started to spread past their immediate area. Most people in that area had either seen Jesus or had heard the stories on first hand accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will check out Sapiens, thanks.

I agree with your post here, except the last line I quoted. Though, that may have been true for most of human history I don't think it is anymore. Religions with their associated sticks and carrots and only a handful of people qualified to wield their power are extremely useful to maintain order or generate wealth. However, I would argue that, at least in the west, our knowledge and understanding of 'life, the universe and everything' has progressed to the point that when coupled with culture and laws, social order and sound decision making is better handled by evidence based thinking.

Kind of, except that given the definition that carepov used... "religion is anything that establishes/promotes a set of values and establishes stability". In that sense, science and reason, a quest for social/economic/technological progress, a desire to understand the universe and use this understanding to better the human condition, etc, is just another flavor of religion.

Of course, I think the definition is overly broad, as is illustrated by the fact that the definition also catches Nazism and Communism as religions, which does nothing but confuse the issue

I would have rephrased carepov's last sentence to say that "without some minimum set of common values/ethics, it is simply impossible to maintain social order". But, that set of values/ethics does not have to constitute a religion.

I would say that for something to be a religion, in addition to the other aspects of the definition discussed above, it should include some supernatural elements. If these supernatural elements are missing, then it is not a religion but a philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...