Humanity of Jesus

[BJQ87]

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

[AnotherSillyAlias]

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

Hardly surprising that he seems human like, if he existed, (and I believe a charismatic person of some sort probably did), he was human so why wouldn't they write about him as if he was human?

Obviously they also through in a bunch of exaggerated and/or fanciful stuff to make their story so much better.

[T'ai Chi]

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

I think the human-ness of god(s) can be a hinderance and a help.

Hinderance:
Anthropomcentric(sp) hints at it all being made up for whatever reason

Help:
How else would god(s) present himself to us in a way that makes sense?

[cyborg]

Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

Humans with the ability to portray humanity whether or not a person actually existed? Nah. That would be silly.

[stamenflicker]

Help:
How else would god(s) present himself to us in a way that makes sense?

Sacrificially. And I agree its more of a helpt than a hinderance.

[T'ai Chi]

Sacrificially. And I agree its more of a helpt than a hinderance.

I like the parallels with Flatland (http://cowpi.com/journal/2004/07/time_prayer_and_the_body_of_christ_part_1.html) where the Sphere has to present himself a circle at a time.

[Bikewer]

In "Lost Christianities", the author points out that there was no consensus of belief as to the Divine nature of Jesus till orthodoxy reared it's head about 400 years later.
Various early Christian sects saw Jesus as totally divine, totally human, a disembodied spirit possessing the body of Jesus, and other ideas as well.

That's a fascinating book, and I never hesitate to reccomend it:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195182499/sr=8-1/qid=1141661306/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8445205-2939034?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[ruach1]

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?
You have just raised a Christological question. To me, Christology is like a turbine that can be turned endlessly to generate energy. However, that turbine does not end anywhere--it just keeps going--generating energy.

Here are a couple sites that, I think, may offer assistance to your questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

[ChristineR]

The very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God. There was a lot of stuff about divine spirit entering the body, but no identification of Jesus with Yahweh. That line of thinking really began with Paul, who never actually saw Jesus, but communicated with him through "appearances" (hallucinations). The Pauline branch eventually squelched the dissentors. U.S. fundamentalists mostly go to the furthest extremes and really never consider the implications of the whole thing.

[Tricky]

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?
What I think it points out is that the Biblical version of Jesus is most probably an amalgamation of several actual people with some legends thrown in. It almost seems that they threw together whatever anecdotes they had hanging around and attributed them to Jesus. And of course, most writers know that you need to give your protagonist a human side in order to make them more likable.

Unfortunately for Christianity, while it makes Jesus seem more like a regular guy, it makes the divinity of Jesus much harder to accept. He was supposed to be perfect, yet sometimes he could do miracles and sometimes he couldn't. Sometimes he did nice things like feed the masses and raise the dead, othertimes he withered inoffensive fig trees.

On the whole, it tends to support the idea that Jesus, or at least many aspects of him, were fictional.

[pgwenthold]

In order to consider the first question, you have to think, what would the response be if Jesus were NOT shown as having this "humanity"? Would the preacher go up and say, "The writers are clearly exaggerating because no one is this good" or would he say, "See, the bible describes Jesus as perfect, just as you'd expect from God"?

This is a case of the preacher starting with a conclusion and then using the text to create the argument. Had the text been a different way, he would have used a different argument to reach the same conclusion

[pgwenthold]

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

Another thing to add:

If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human.

[ChristineR]

Another thing to add:

If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human.

The key to understanding this is to realize that Yahweh was originally one of the Babylonian pantheon--a superpowered human among other humans, superpowered and not. For some reason Yahweh got it into his head to have a chosen people who were only allowed to worship him, and did it make all the difference. Monothesim is a huge improvement over polythesim from a moralistic point of view.

[BJQ87]

Sometimes he did nice things like feed the masses and raise the dead, othertimes he withered inoffensive fig trees.


the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel.

If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human.


This being because, as this same bible says, man was created in God's own image.

(yay for my 400th post)

[Ossai]

BJQ87
the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel. The texts also indicate that figs were out of season, Jesus knew they were out of season and so cursed the tree for following it’s nature.

How did you come up with the fig tree being a metaphor for Israel anyway? It sounds like more apologetics (i.e. we’ll add a story/bit outside the bible to kinda explain a story in the bible.)

Ossai

[pgwenthold]

The key to understanding this is to realize that Yahweh was originally one of the Babylonian pantheon--a superpowered human among other humans, superpowered and not. For some reason Yahweh got it into his head to have a chosen people who were only allowed to worship him, and did it make all the difference. Monothesim is a huge improvement over polythesim from a moralistic point of view.

I have no trouble understanding it, because its very common in mythology to give the gods human properties.

But that is sort of the point. Why should we be surprised if Jesus is given human properties by the bible writers? Shoot, the big G himself was given human properties by the bible writers, and he wasn't supposed to be human.

The problem was that human thinking was all they knew (not a surprise), so gods are described like people. They don't have to be god-made-flesh to have that property.

[ceo_esq]

The very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God. There was a lot of stuff about divine spirit entering the body, but no identification of Jesus with Yahweh. That line of thinking really began with Paul, who never actually saw Jesus, but communicated with him through "appearances" (hallucinations).

Since the very oldest Christian texts we know of are from Paul or (possibly) the Q gospel - and those attest to the belief that Jesus was God in some form or another - what is your basis for saying that "the very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God"?

[Tricky]

the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel.
I have to echo Ossai here. What indicates that it is a metaphor for Israel? It could be a metaphor for killing unproductive members of society.

I have seen this passage referred to as "the parable of the fig tree", yet it is not told as a parable at all, but as an actual historical Jesus moment. If this is a parable, then the whole story of Christ could be one, thereby requiring no authenticity at all. Only the "moral" would be important.

[ceo_esq]

Unfortunately for Christianity, while it makes Jesus seem more like a regular guy, it makes the divinity of Jesus much harder to accept.

On balance, so far as I can perceive, this does not historically appear to have been the case.

[pgwenthold]

On balance, so far as I can perceive, this does not historically appear to have been the case.

Baseless.

How does the acceptance of Jesus's divinity compare to what it would have been if he did not look "like a regular guy." Since we've never run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy, you have no grounds for claiming that history shows anything regarding the comparison of the two.

How do you know that a much larger fraction of the world's population would not be christian were the bible not so ho-hum on Jesus? It's not like christianity is even a majority in the world today, so there is plenty of room for improvement.

[ceo_esq]

How does the acceptance of Jesus's divinity compare to what it would have been if he did not look "like a regular guy." Since we've never run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy, you have no grounds for claiming that history shows anything regarding the comparison of the two.

I did not advance a claim about what history shows (such as demonstrating the opposite of Tricky's contention). I advanced a claim about its apparent failure to reveal something (namely, support for Tricky's contention), for reasons including the ones that you have now helpfully pointed out, presumably in case anyone was under the impression that we had "run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy".

[Belz...]

On the whole, it tends to support the idea that Jesus, or at least many aspects of him, were fictional.

Or at the very least, insane.

[Tricky]

I did not advance a claim about what history shows (such as demonstrating the opposite of Tricky's contention). I advanced a claim about its apparent failure to reveal something (namely, support for Tricky's contention), for reasons including the ones that you have now helpfully pointed out, presumably in case anyone was under the impression that we had "run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy".
This is getting too convoluted. My point was that a perfect person (as Jesus is sometimes described) with a direct link to God is unlikely to behave just like Joe Schmoe. Unless we simply have missed that chapter of the bible where Jesus is out in the well house with the apostles getting schnockered. ("Hey Jeshus! Howboucha turn shome more o' that water inta wine. hic ")

[BJQ87]

What indicates that it is a metaphor for Israel? It could be a metaphor for killing unproductive members of society.


It could be taken as both. Since Israel is unproductive. In a spiritual sense that is.

And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Luke 21:29-32

What stands out to me here is that he says "and all the trees". Leads me to believe that the fig tree is Israel, and "all the trees" is every other nation. As the bible also says that the gospel will be preached to every nation. Israel being the fig tree fits into Jesus' prophecy.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, as I pointed out to the Jevoah's Witnesses who came to my door on saturday, J was also a racist pig.

Matt 15:21-28:

21:Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

[CFLarsen]

OFFICIAL:
Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!
Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear,
even if they do say 'Jehovah'.
CROWD:
Ooooooh!...
[CROWD stones OFFICIAL]
WOMAN #1:
Good shot!
[clap clap clap]



Blasphemer!

[Iacchus]

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.Obviously there's more to this than meets they eye. Do you think Jesus may have been letting His guard down just a little, to let us know what His true purpose is? Then of course how do you explain the fact that His church was established with the gentiles (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html), rather than with Israel herself? Perhaps this is why the heathen (http://swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/hh36.html) are also accepted into heaven, without ever having heard of Jesus?

[ChristineR]

Since the very oldest Christian texts we know of are from Paul or (possibly) the Q gospel - and those attest to the belief that Jesus was God in some form or another - what is your basis for saying that "the very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God"?

The Book of Acts, plus later historical records of the controversy. There were two early branches of Christianity, Paul's and Peter's. The Gospel of Mark appears to belong to the messianic/Jewish/Peter tradition rather than the descended divinity/revelation/Greek mysticism/Paul tradition.

Some people believe Sayings Thomas predates Paul. Of course they can't agree on the particulars like who wrote it down, who made the extant copy, what sort of editing has been done....

[ImaginalDisc]

Obviously there's more to this than meets they eye. Do you think Jesus may have been letting His guard down just a little, to let us know what His true purpose is? Then of course how do you explain the fact that His church was established with the gentiles (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html), rather than with Israel herself? Perhaps this is why the heathen (http://swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/hh36.html) are also accepted into heaven, without ever having heard of Jesus?

He agreed with her that she's a dog. Also, he made her wait, while her daughter lay dying. When there is a medical emergency, there is no time to mess around.

[ceo_esq]

The Book of Acts, plus later historical records of the controversy. There were two early branches of Christianity, Paul's and Peter's. The Gospel of Mark appears to belong to the messianic/Jewish/Peter tradition rather than the descended divinity/revelation/Greek mysticism/Paul tradition.

I'm trying to locate specific support in all this for your suggestion that the first Christians did not believe in Jesus' divinity, but I'm having trouble.

[Tricky]

It could be taken as both. Since Israel is unproductive. In a spiritual sense that is.

And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Luke 21:29-32

What stands out to me here is that he says "and all the trees". Leads me to believe that the fig tree is Israel, and "all the trees" is every other nation. As the bible also says that the gospel will be preached to every nation. Israel being the fig tree fits into Jesus' prophecy.
Okay, I stand corrected. There is a parable of the fig tree. But that passage has nothing to do with the withering of the fig tree which is in Matthew 21:18-21. Israel is not mentioned at all.

[ChristineR]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Let's face it, there are people who think that the whole story was made up by Mark and later attached to Paul. But if you accept that the early New Testament writings were basically historical (there was a carpenter from Nazarus who stirred up trouble with the Jews and was executed by the Romans and Mark wrote down what he heard about him) then you get a picture of a charismatic leader who was gradually given more and more supernatural powers until Paul turned him into a divinity.

[stamenflicker]

I think its pretty funny that you guys would even bother taking up for the innocent and defenseless fig tree. It was a tree. And in the context of the story, it was a teaching tool. Jesus also captured poor defenseless fish in more than one teaching moment.

Did I log into the EPA whacko message board by mistake today or what?

Flick

[stamenflicker]

He agreed with her that she's a dog. Also, he made her wait, while her daughter lay dying. When there is a medical emergency, there is no time to mess around.

Medical emergency? From who's perspective?

Also, "Do not give what it is holy to the dogs" is a very profound spiritual concept. Sort of like another, "Do not cast your pearls before swine."

Flick

[T'ai Chi]

I think its pretty funny that you guys would even bother taking up for the innocent and defenseless fig tree. It was a tree. And in the context of the story, it was a teaching tool.


It really figures. :D

[ceo_esq]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Let's face it, there are people who think that the whole story was made up by Mark and later attached to Paul. But if you accept that the early New Testament writings were basically historical (there was a carpenter from Nazarus who stirred up trouble with the Jews and was executed by the Romans and Mark wrote down what he heard about him) then you get a picture of a charismatic leader who was gradually given more and more supernatural powers until Paul turned him into a divinity.

I read Mark as consistent with belief in a divine Christ, though. And if there is anything at all to the notion of a Q that predates Paul, then I think it's probable that it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus before he did.

[CriticalThanking]

Obviously there's more to this than meets they eye. Indeed there is. The way I read it, Jesus was willing to let a kid suffer until he got a "good enough" answer from the parent instead of judging the kid for his/her beliefs (or acts, depending upon whether you think salvation is through one, the other, or some combination).

What was he waiting for - a demonstration of quick wit? Of faith? Of submission? "Bow down before me or I let your kids suffer."

CT

[ChristineR]

I read Mark as consistent with belief in a divine Christ, though. And if there is anything at all to the notion of a Q that predates Paul, then I think it's probable that it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus before he did.

I really don't read Mark as consistent with a divine Christ for the simple reason that Mark was Jewish. Some people find "coded messages" to that effect in Mark, but I'm not convinced.

In Matthew we find three things: stuff from Mark, stuff unique to Matthew, and stuff in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Save thing with Luke. So if you take the common stuff from Luke and Matthew not in Mark, what you get is essentially a bunch of sayings without much narrative. I don't find one bit of Paul's divine sacrifice, but to each his own opinion.

Reconstruction of Q (http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm)

[CapelDodger]

There were two early branches of Christianity, Paul's and Peter's.
Shouldn't that be Paul's and James's? We have an Epistle of James which is not at all Pauline, but was apparently well enough known that it couldn't be excluded from the Pauline canon.

[CapelDodger]

On balance, so far as I can perceive, this does not historically appear to have been the case.
I read Tricky's point as being that the divinity of someone demonstrably human is harder to accept than the divinity of a being demonstrably super-human. That seems to me to be a truism. There have been, in history, many demonstrably human people who have either declared themselves divine or had divinity thrust upon them by others. They've mostly had transitory success, if any.

Demonstrably super-human beings whose divinity has been rejected : nil. On balance, history favours divine beings who make a big noise about their USP (Unique Selling Point). It works every time.

[ImaginalDisc]

Medical emergency? From who's perspective?

Also, "Do not give what it is holy to the dogs" is a very profound spiritual concept. Sort of like another, "Do not cast your pearls before swine."

Flick

From everyone perspective. the girl was ill. Incidentally, caling someone a dog is hardly a parable.

[ChristineR]

Shouldn't that be Paul's and James's? We have an Epistle of James which is not at all Pauline, but was apparently well enough known that it couldn't be excluded from the Pauline canon.

Peter was known as the real driving force, apparently, but James and Peter belonged to the same branch. Incidentally, James may have been Jesus' brother, or half-brother--but the word "brother" was used as it is now in some churches "Welcome brothers and sisters!" I've always wondered why James doesn't feel the need to comment on how his half brother is the incarnation of Yahweh. My guess is that he never thought any such thing.

[Iacchus]

"Bow down before me or I let your kids suffer."Either that or the whole thing was there to help her confirm her faith.

[Iacchus]

From everyone perspective. the girl was ill. Incidentally, caling someone a dog is hardly a parable.He did not refer to her specically as a dog. And yes, it was a parable. Try reading it again ...

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. Now where does He refer to her specifically?

[Iacchus]

Besides, the man was a Jew, and the woman was a gentile, and it was customary for the Jews to look upon the gentiles as such. And then, for Him to turn around and bestow such a compliment? ...

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.What could it possibly mean?

[CapelDodger]

Peter was known as the real driving force, apparently, but James and Peter belonged to the same branch.
The way I read it (there is so much latitude available) Peter was no theologian, and Paul presents himself as having explained Jesus's meaning to Peter - who actually knew the guy. Peter was subsequently brought back into the Jerusalem Church's fold. The image presented by Paulines is of a biddable moron, which would be a preferred antithesis to James.
Incidentally, James may have been Jesus' brother, or half-brother--but the word "brother" was used as it is now in some churches "Welcome brothers and sisters!"
There's nothing substantial to support the metaphorical use of brother in that period, in that region. More likely, IMO, would be an equivalent of "comrade". This is a region that has 40 words for "cousin".

I've always wondered why James doesn't feel the need to comment on how his half brother is the incarnation of Yahweh. My guess is that he never thought any such thing.
It does shout "Well, Duh!", doesn't it?

To my mind, the divide is about faith and deeds. Behind which is the (Pauline) New Covenant, which requires only faith, and the (Judaic) Old Covenant, which requires observance of the Law as well. Behind which lies the USP. Paul's is that you can join without anybody taking a knife to your penis. James's is that you can't. One version sold well to male gentiles, one didn't.

[Iacchus]

Besides, the man was a Jew, and the woman was a gentile, and it was customary for the Jews to look upon the gentiles as such. And then, for Him to turn around and bestow such a compliment? ...

What could it possibly mean?Compare it to what He says here ...

5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. ~ Matthew 8:5-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=8&version=9)The man was a Roman for God's sake!

And then He goes on to say ...

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. ~ Matthew 8:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=8&version=9)So, what happened to the "children of the kingdom?" Is He referrring to Israel here?

[ChristineR]

The way I read it (there is so much latitude available) Peter was no theologian, and Paul presents himself as having explained Jesus's meaning to Peter - who actually knew the guy. Peter was subsequently brought back into the Jerusalem Church's fold. The image presented by Paulines is of a biddable moron, which would be a preferred antithesis to James.

Well, this is a guy whose nickname was "Rock.: ;)

[CapelDodger]

Well, this is a guy whose nickname was "Rock.: ;)
And he cuts ears off people ... Maybe I'm profiling, but I see this guy as enforcement rather than policy. Which is not to minimise his importance in political terms. Having ear-cutters to hand never harmed anybody's theological argument

[ImaginalDisc]

Besides, the man was a Jew, and the woman was a gentile, and it was customary for the Jews to look upon the gentiles as such. And then, for Him to turn around and bestow such a compliment? ...

What could it possibly mean?

It means he healed her daughter after she agreed that she's a dog, and less worthy than israelites. Jesus was a racist pig.

[CriticalThanking]

Either that or the whole thing was there to help her confirm her faith.

Then Jesus tortures children to test parents. That was one of my points: J-man tortures innocents to test others. And if the mother's faith was found wanting? Too darn bad for the innocent. Thanks for confirming my lack of faith.

CT

[Belz...]

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence.

Same thing for Odysseus.

[BJQ87]

From everyone perspective. the girl was ill. Incidentally, caling someone a dog is hardly a parable.


Except from Jesus' perspective right? You don't mess around in an emergency, unless that is you have a specific purpose for what you are doing and know the outcome.

btw, calling her a dog was a parable.

[Ossai]

BJQ87
btw, calling her a dog was a parable.
You don’t like the implications of the passage, therefore it’s a parable. I call bullship.

Why, in other parts of the NT, does Jesus specify parables but not that one?

Ossai

[BJQ87]

here's the sermon (http://www.nwc.org/nwcmedia/Sermons/default.asp#) I was referring to. It may be like half an hour long or so though, he's one of the younger assistant pastors but he's pretty good, usually adds some historical insight to his message.

[ceo_esq]

Why, in other parts of the NT, does Jesus specify parables but not that one?

Sometimes the Evangelist specifies that something is a parable, but does Jesus usually specify it? I don't know the answer, I'm just asking.

[ImaginalDisc]

Except from Jesus' perspective right? You don't mess around in an emergency, unless that is you have a specific purpose for what you are doing and know the outcome.

btw, calling her a dog was a parable.

If calling gentiles dogs, and israelites children is a parable, what is the lesson? Is it perhaps that israelites are better than gentiles?

[BJQ87]

If calling gentiles dogs, and israelites children is a parable, what is the lesson? Is it perhaps that israelites are better than gentiles?


At this time the Israelites are God's sanctified holy people, the gentiles are wicked unbelievers. However, the gentiles recieved grace because of their humility and truthful heart, whereas many of the Israelites had neither of these things and rejected Jesus. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:31

[stamenflicker]

If calling gentiles dogs, and israelites children is a parable, what is the lesson? Is it perhaps that israelites are better than gentiles?

I would tell you, but it's a holy answer and you, well...

Kidding :)

Flick

[Iacchus]

Besides, the man was a Jew, and the woman was a gentile, and it was customary for the Jews to look upon the gentiles as such. And then, for Him to turn around and bestow such a compliment? ...

What could it possibly mean?
It means he healed her daughter after she agreed that she's a dog, and less worthy than israelites. Jesus was a racist pig.And did you even bother to read the post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1489636#post1489636) I posted after this one? And yes, it was a parable.

[thaiboxerken]

Christer apologetics are fun to read. The way they can stretch meanings, defintions, stories and words is amazing.

[ImaginalDisc]

And did you even bother to read the post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1489636#post1489636) I posted after this one? And yes, it was a parable.

Please outline, clearly, the criteria one may use to distinguish between biblical facts, and biblical parables.

[kurious_kathy]

At this time the Israelites are God's sanctified holy people, the gentiles are wicked unbelievers. However, the gentiles recieved grace because of their humility and truthful heart, whereas many of the Israelites had neither of these things and rejected Jesus. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:31
Hi BJQ, I wrote something in an e-mail I sent out over a month ago to friends and family that I think is closely related to what you just shared...

Are you ready for the wedding feast?

Matthew 22;1-14 Parable of the Marriage Feast
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. "Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."' "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. "Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' "Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' "For many are called, but few are chosen."

What did Jesus mean when he said the guest who was not wearing wedding clothes to the feast had to leave. This speaks to my heart of all those who haven't accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. True repentance is knowing and seeing our own sin on that cross. He died so we might live. So important that we all receive God's gracious gift of salvation only found at Calvary.

[thaiboxerken]

Biblical facts are those claims and stories in the bible that don't embarrass Christians. If it does, then it's obvious that it's not to be taken as literal truth or how it's read. What's considered biblical fact, parable or figurative changes from generation to generation.

[Iacchus]

Please outline, clearly, the criteria one may use to distinguish between biblical facts, and biblical parables.If He had called her a dog directly, without any reference to Israel, then yes, I would agree, it was not a parable.

[thaiboxerken]

I have to wonder if there are any true believers of Jesus in this thread. I doubt there are.

[thaiboxerken]

If He had called her dog directly, without any reference to Israel, then yes, I would agree, it was not a parable.

Are parables usually made up of a single question?!

Why should I have to deal with such retards on the internet? <-- a parable, not an insultive question aimed at Iacchus.

[Iacchus]

Are parables usually made up of a single question?!

Why should I have to deal with such retards on the internet? <-- a parable, not an insultive question aimed at Iacchus.Why does He happen to slam the Israelites here? ...

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. ~ Matthew 8:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=8&version=9)Could it be that "the bread" was not meant for the Israelites (specifically) after all? ... and really for anybody that was humble enough to ask?

[T'ai Chi]

Iacchus, don't feed *cough thaiboxkerken*, excuse me, the trolls. :)

[thaiboxerken]

So, then. He's not racist, just a superioristic jerk who thinks those who don't follow him are dogs? Or does he want people to beg like dogs for his help?

[Iacchus]

So, then. He's not racist, just a superioristic jerk who thinks those who don't follow him are dogs? Or does he want people to beg like dogs for his help?Hey, do you know what a parable is? ;)

[ImaginalDisc]

Hey, do you know what a parable is? ;)

Prove it's a parable. Show me what about it makes it definatively a parable.

[Iacchus]

Prove it's a parable. Show me what about it makes it definatively a parable.Well, the fact is, the Christian Church was established in Greece, not in Judea. So how He could specifically say the bread was "destined" for Israel (albeit like I said, He was a Jew), when in fact it wasn't?

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, the fact is, the Christian Church was established in Greece, not in Judea. So how He could specifically say the bread was "destined" for Israel (albeit like I said, He was a Jew), when in fact it wasn't?


Iacchus, he was *in* Israel, preaching to Israelites.

[thaiboxerken]

Hey, do you know what a parable is? ;)

I'm wondering if you do. One sentence doesn't make a story.

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, he was *in* Israel, preaching to Israelites.What, the same Israelites he's referring to here? ...

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. ~ Matthew 8:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=8&version=9)Or, whom do you think He was referring to?

[Iacchus]

I'm wondering if you do. One sentence doesn't make a story.Sure it does, if you understand the rest of the details.

[thaiboxerken]

Matthew 8:11-13 has nothing to do with the other verse in question.

[Iacchus]

Matthew 8:11-13 has nothing to do with the other verse in question.Well, there was either something universal about the teachings of Jesus (and not meant specifically for the Jews) or there wasn't. And that's really about as far as I can take it.

[thaiboxerken]

No, it could be specific to the people who he is talking about.
Your false dilemma's won't work on me.

[CFLarsen]

Iacchus, don't feed *cough thaiboxkerken*, excuse me, the trolls. :)
I thought you didn't approve of namecalling?

[Ossai]

ceo_esq
Sometimes the Evangelist specifies that something is a parable, but does Jesus usually specify it? I don't know the answer, I'm just asking.
Wait a minute. You’ve continually tried to re-interpret bits of the bible to fit your view, but you’re saying that you apparently haven’t even read the four gospels?

Yes, on a number of occasions Jesus specifies something as a parable.

Iacchus
And did you even bother to read the post I posted after this one? And yes, it was a parable. According to scripture, it was not a parable.


Ossai

[Iacchus]

Wait a minute. You’ve continually tried to re-interpret bits of the bible to fit your view, but you’re saying that you apparently haven’t even read the four gospels?That's a good one. And which view do you hold?

Yes, on a number of occasions Jesus specifies something as a parable. Yes.

Iacchus
According to scripture, it was not a parable. Well, maybe parable is not the correct word then? My point is that it doesn't make sense when contrasted with the words spoken to the Roman centurion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1489636#post1489636). When, Jesus in effect says the children of Israel are not the true inheritors of the kingdom.

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps it doesn't make sense, Iacchus, because it's just another inconsistency in the tall tales of Jesus.

[Iacchus]

Perhaps it doesn't make sense, Iacchus, because it's just another inconsistency in the tall tales of Jesus.Yet history tells us another tale. The Christian Church was not established in Judea. It was established with the Gentiles. This is why I am taking it to mean a "parable" or, something other than directly calling her a dog. If He really didn't care about this woman, why would He bother to help?

[thaiboxerken]

I don't like streetbums, but sometimes I'll toss a coin at them.

[CapelDodger]

Well, there was either something universal about the teachings of Jesus (and not meant specifically for the Jews) or there wasn't. And that's really about as far as I can take it.
There was something universal about contemporay Judaism. It posited the People of Israel as the Champion of humanity. When the Champion achieved His Quest the Kingdom of God would begin, to the benefit of all humanity. Only the Champion could achieve The Quest.

Hence the dog/crumb parable, if such it be (frankly I doubt it). The bread must go to the Champion, since only He and His Quest are relevant. If there is an unavoidable, tiny wastage the bit-players might as well have it, but they are pitfalls set by Satan. Or possibly God. Whatever. Anyway, allowing pity to divert resources from The Quest is wrong-headed.

This is from my forthcoming book "Is God a Dungeon-Master?". I expect it to cause a bit of a stir in theological circles.

[Iacchus]

I don't like streetbums, but sometimes I'll toss a coin at them.I can see that you missed the point again.

[ImaginalDisc]

I can see that you missed the point again.

The what calling the what now what?

http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.gif

[thaiboxerken]

I can see that you missed the point again.

Not at all. In fact, tossing scraps to a dog is like tossing a coin to a bum. Jesus called that woman's daughter a dog, he didn't like her, but she convinced him that even those you don't like should get some "scraps". Jesus was racist, pure and simple.

[Ossai]

Iacchus
My point is that it doesn't make sense when contrasted with the words spoken to the Roman centurion. Gasp, could it be just another biblical contradiction. Oh no oh woe is you for having doubted your bibliotry.

Ossai

[kurious_kathy]

I have to wonder if there are any true believers of Jesus in this thread. I doubt there are.
Well I know that I am! And I know it is only because of God's grace that any of us are able to come to believe and follow Christ. I'm not perfect, but I know the One who is! Guess that's why people say faith is a gift, not all people have it but the ones that do are very thankful.

[Tricky]

Well I know that I am! And I know it is only because of God's grace that any of us are able to come to believe and follow Christ. I'm not perfect, but I know the One who is! Guess that's why people say faith is a gift, not all people have it but the ones that do are very thankful.
No you're not a true believer. I spoke to some Seventh Day Adventists and they told me they know that anybody who claims Sunday is the sabbath day is not a True Christian. They seemed rather certain about this. Isn't it funny what things people claim to "know"?

[Iacchus]

Just as with anything else, the worship of God is relative.

[Iacchus]

Gasp, could it be just another biblical contradiction. Oh no oh woe is you for having doubted your bibliotry.

OssaiNo.

[Tricky]

Just as with anything else, the worship of God is relative.
Absolutely not! Either you worship him the right way, or you're going to hell. The Bible says so.

[Iacchus]

Absolutely not! Either you worship him the right way, or you're going to hell. The Bible says so.No, it's very much like the blind men and the elephant (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53249).

[Iacchus]

Of course I would suggest that we need some guidelines, say like the ten commandments -- you know, "Thou shalt have no elephants before me ..." -- in order to keep it in context. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Well I know that I am!


Then you would qualify for the JREF prize if you can simply demonstrate that you are a TRUE believer, in accordance with the objective criteria set by Jesus of the traits of a TRUE believer.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." -- Luke 10:19



If you can't do all of the above, then you are just a pseudochristian, a wannabe punk.

[gypsynuke]

Well I know that I am! And I know it is only because of God's grace that any of us are able to come to believe and follow Christ. I'm not perfect, but I know the One who is! Guess that's why people say faith is a gift, not all people have it but the ones that do are very thankful.

So you're saying the only way to follow christ is if he let's us? If God doesn't give his grace we're not allowed to believe? I've never met anyone who's said faith is a gift. Faith is your ability to suspend reason.

[Iacchus]

Then you would qualify for the JREF prize if you can simply demonstrate that you are a TRUE believer, in accordance with the objective criteria set by Jesus of the traits of a TRUE believer.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." -- Luke 10:19 Neo, is that you?

If you can't do all of the above, then you are just a pseudochristian, a wannabe punk.As I understand, the "well of miracles" (as such) has pretty much run dry. As it does little more than focus on the state of the natural man, "in the flesh" (more so its glorification), and does very little to educate as to the nature of the spirit which, is maintained more by the faculty of reason. Sooner or later we all have to die, and this is when the true miracle takes place anyway.

[thaiboxerken]

As I understand, the "well of miracles" (as such) has pretty much run dry


So, your god has finite powers? Where in that Bible does it say "Jesus's words expire when the well runs dry"?

[Iacchus]

So, your god has finite powers? Where in that Bible does it say "Jesus's words expire when the well runs dry"?
I'm not sure that it does. However, if we do live in type of Matrix (there's nothing to suggest it's not possible), and were able to tap into it, then we could perform all sorts of similar miracles. Which, would explain why it would be a simple matter of "adjusting the program" so that people could no longer do these things. In other words we shouldn't discount the possibility (although it may appear unlikely) that these things could have happened.

[Ossai]

Iacchus
Gasp, could it be just another biblical contradiction. Oh no oh woe is you for having doubted your bibliotry.
No. Beep, wrong answer. It is in fact yet another biblical contradiction. Sorry you lose, but you get a copy of our home edition.

Ossai

[thaiboxerken]

However, if we do live in type of Matrix ...


But if we didn't live in a "Matrix" then your argument doesn't matter. There is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that we do live in a computer. You are simply making crap up now to justify your unsane beliefs. These arguments of yours depend purely on speculation and fiction, why is that?

[Iacchus]

But if we didn't live in a "Matrix" then your argument doesn't matter. There is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that we do live in a computer. So, then, it's purely a matter of belief either way?

[Iacchus]

Beep, wrong answer. It is in fact yet another biblical contradiction. Sorry you lose, but you get a copy of our home edition.

OssaiWrong.

[thaiboxerken]

So, then, it's purely a matter of belief either way?

Not at all, it's a matter of reasoning based on what we know.

[Ossai]

Iacchus
Beep, wrong answer. It is in fact yet another biblical contradiction. Sorry you lose, but you get a copy of our home edition.
Wrong.

While I appreciate your need to repeat what I’ve said, there really is no point. Everyone else understood it without your attempt at reiteration.

Ossai

[Belz...]

So, then, it's purely a matter of belief either way?

In your case, MAKE-believe.

[Iacchus]

In your case, MAKE-believe.Yes, I made the whole thing up. Even you.

[Belz...]

Yes, I made the whole thing up. Even you.

Did you make me up to snap you back to reality ?

[geetarmoore]

I have some things to add to this based on the research I've been doing lately.

Regarding Jesus, this historical figure, I can not see - based on what I have learned - how anyone could be any more than agnostic about his existence. None of the elements of the story and history add up.

What is known as the 'Q' document was most likely a set of sayings attributed to other prophets and wise men before they were ever attributed to Jesus.

Paul was the Christians first great writer, but Paul doesn't seem to know or understand that Jesus was ever a person who lived on the earth. He doesn't relate any stories about Jesus with the exception of the crucifixion and resurrection, and he doesn't place these events in any historic location or time frame. If a 'Q' document was circulating that was attributed to Jesus at the time of Paul's writings, Paul didn't know about it. Paul died in or about 67 CE.

The first Gospel of Mark comes up just pre 70 CE, and relates information about Jesus that had never been written about previously - 40 years after the supposed crucifixion. It is interesting to note that Paul wasn't around to confirm or deny these stories of the newly histocricized 'Jesus'. Mark didn't seem to understand that Jesus had a miraculous birth, or that he ever came back to talk to the Apostles (another group of mythesized figures).

Matthew and Luke are written at some time later (10 years), to tell the story from difference perspectives. Both Matthew and Luke use Mark as a starting point, mixing in 'Q' sayings along with additional info unique to both. They each add a (different) genecology, a different birth story, and a different passion/resurrection depiction. John? Total rewrite of the narrative by a theologian.

Some of the events in the writings would seem to tie Jesus into history - but these tie-in's never show themselves in the actual historical record. The 'slaughter of the innocents', for example, would have surely been documented by historians of the day, or of a later era documenting the brutality of Herod, but we see no such historical record.

The real clincher is that all of the 'story' of Jesus - all of the details of his life - fit extraordinarily well into the 'hero' archetype that was so frequently applied to historic and non-historic peoples alike in ancient times.

Of 22 specific archetypes, Jesus scores 19. Zeus, by comparison, scores 17, and Oedipus scores a PERFECT 22 of 22.

So, Jesus scores 19 of 22 in the 'typical archetype' for ancient heroes - and we're to believe that his story is true, and this is 'just a coincidence'? Hardly.

Books like Acts were written well after the fact, in an attempt to fill in the gap of an early church history that was sorely lacking. As late as 130 CE.

There is no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, or anyone closely tied with his ministry. Not a shred. When combined with the extraordinary 'facts' of his story, the evidence points decidedly to the fact that there was no Jesus, and a historical Jesus began taking shape at the end of the first century, and wasn't codified until the end of the fourth century.

This is just the tip of the ice burg. There are many great and scholarly books on the Jesus Myth, these two have been great;

The Jesus Puzzle - Earl Doherty
Deconstructing Jesus - Robert Price

I just have to laugh when I hear people say "I believe that there was a Jesus, but he wasn't divine".... You only really believe that because it's what you have been told ;)

[DSE]

Snip

geetarmoore, I'm with you. I'm always surprised when skeptics accept the existence or Jesus as a given. I hadn't heard some of your arguments before, do you have some links or books for reference. I've been trying to put together a stronger case than I have now, but want to be able to back everything up.

[geetarmoore]

geetarmoore, I'm with you. I'm always surprised when skeptics accept the existence or Jesus as a given. I hadn't heard some of your arguments before, do you have some links or books for reference. I've been trying to put together a stronger case than I have now, but want to be able to back everything up.


The two books that I mentioned above are available from Amazon.

I also use the bible ;)

With a timeline and a bible alone you can really poke many holes into the Jesus story.

It seems to work like this;

Jesus lived and died -> Everyone forgot for 40 years -> then they remembered, a little at a time.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ;)

[CapelDodger]

The real clincher is that all of the 'story' of Jesus - all of the details of his life - fit extraordinarily well into the 'hero' archetype that was so frequently applied to historic and non-historic peoples alike in ancient times.

Of 22 specific archetypes, Jesus scores 19. Zeus, by comparison, scores 17, and Oedipus scores a PERFECT 22 of 22.Do me next! :)

Satan has always known the score and inspired these false heroes amongst pagans - easy targets for a duplicitous angel - to muddy the waters before the arrival of the True Messiah. Easy.

All the same, that's an excellent point. I don't recall seeing those scores before. Definitely Busted.

[geetarmoore]

If you are interested in the hero archetype, here it is.....

1) Mother is a virgin of royalty.
2) Father is a King.
3) Father related to Mother.
4) Unusual conception.
5) Hero reputed to be Son of God.
6) Attemp to kill hero at birth.
7) Hero is spirited away.
8) Hero is reared by Foster Parents.
9) No details of Childhood.
10) Goes to future kingdom.
11) Is victor over a King.
12) Marries a Princess.
13) Becomes King.
14) For a time, reigns uneventfully.
15) Perscribes laws.
16) Later looses favor with the Gods/His subjects.
17) Driven away from throne/city.
18) Meets with a mysterious death.
19) Often on top of a Hill.
20) His Children, if any, do not succeed him.
21) His body is not burried.
22) Has one ore more holy sepulchres.

Oedipus, 22 (this archetype is based on his story)
Theseus, 20
Jesus, 19
Romulus, 17
Hercules, 17
Perseus, 16
Zeus, 15
Jason, 15
Robin Hood, 13
Apollo, 11

[geetarmoore]

Do me next! :)

Satan has always known the score and inspired these false heroes amongst pagans - easy targets for a duplicitous angel - to muddy the waters before the arrival of the True Messiah. Easy.



That, amazingly enough, is the apologists excuse! Satan planted the stories ahead of time, along with them pesky dinosaur bones, I guess ;)

[Iacchus]

Dionysus was the King of Kings. ;)

[CapelDodger]

geetarmoore, I'm with you. I'm always surprised when skeptics accept the existence or Jesus as a given. I hadn't heard some of your arguments before, do you have some links or books for reference. I've been trying to put together a stronger case than I have now, but want to be able to back everything up.
I have Paul and Hellenism by Hyam Maccoby, and What Saint Paul Really Said by Tom Wright. Both seem scholarly and informative, and they're more or less diametrically opposed.

I'm with geetarmoore that Jesus as presented is an amalgamation of people, some real, some mythical. It may be that there's no hard centre to it, like Los Angeles - "when you get there, there's no 'there' there". My minimum for a historical Jesus is somebody who was crucified in Pilate's days following serious disturbances in Jerusalem in which they played an important part. I tend towards there being such a person.

Records for the period are scant, which is suspicious in itself. The Romans were very bureaucratic, and better records exist for the periods before and after. In The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (definitely worth a read) SGF Brandon mentions a book called "Acta Pilati" commissioned by Maximian to refute the Christian argument by reference to the official documents of the time. Neither book nor records survived Bishop Eusebius, it seems. We only know of Acta Pilati from the surviving attacks made on it by contemporary Christians.

Acta Pilati is a book I'd like to read. Who knows, maybe a copy will turn up one day.

[CapelDodger]

That, amazingly enough, is the apologists excuse! Satan planted the stories ahead of time, along with them pesky dinosaur bones, I guess ;)Bill Hicks, bless him, did a brilliant skit about creationists. "So ... God's f--king with my mind?!" "Have you noticed how creationists look unevolved?" I was rolling around. The tears ran down my trouser-leg. Loved that man.

[geetarmoore]

My minimum for a historical Jesus is somebody who was crucified in Pilate's days following serious disturbances in Jerusalem in which they played an important part. I tend towards there being such a person.


What specific pieces of evidence do you use to come up with this theory? I'm interested in learning more, and it sounds like you have something more than what I have so far come up with...

Thanks.

[Iacchus]

The Christian Church was established in Greece (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html).

[thaiboxerken]

The Christian Church was established in Greece (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html).

It was also established in LIES.

[Iacchus]

E-li-jah? Or, was that John the Baptist? ;)

[CapelDodger]

What specific pieces of evidence do you use to come up with this theory?
We're faced with fragmentary evidence, often contradictory. The best I can do is construct a vague narrative that's credible in what I know of the context. It's quite possible that the crucifixion is borrowed from, say, Judas of Galilee, the healing from Jewish charismatic healers of the period, the conjuring from contemporary scam-artists. There may be no solid heart of the matter.

On the other hand ...

Why the nonsense about Pilate traditionally releasing a terrorist each year at the behest of the mob? That's not how Rome ran an empire. The story becomes that the crowd bayed for Barabas, rejecting Jesus in their rejectionist Jewish way, but why bring the subject up and put incredible spin on it? The likelihood is, to my mind, that by the time the spin was being applied there was already a tradition of an anti-Roman mob calling for Jesus's release. A tradition that existed cheek-to-jowl with Pauline Christianity as it was emerging.

Bits and pieces like that suggest to me that there was a guy, entirely compatible with the circumstances of the time, who sparked off a hopeless revolt against the Romans, or had one launched in his name, during Pilate's tenure. Only 30 or 40 years later a major revolt really did break out. 60 years after that, another one.

It's just the impression I get. I think there probably was a person around whom coalesced the mythical Jesuses.

[DSE]

It was also established in LIES.
Sure, but lies in Greece.

[DSE]

It was also established in LIES.
To be fair, I don't think they knew it was lies then. In fact, there were some good ideas in the beginning there (along with some bad ones, and some bad execution). But still...

[T'ai Chi]

It was also established in LIES.

So what's the TRUTH?

You must know if you're able to tell us what LIES are.

[thaiboxerken]

Truth is, there are no gods.

[T'ai Chi]

Truth is, there are no gods.

Thanks for sharing your belief. That takes a lot of courage.

You must believe others will take that on faith, though, considering you have not surveyed all space and time to have the basis to make that statement.

Or do you believe that since you made a negative claim, that therefore you do not have burden of evidence because it is a negative claim? -that we can all go around making negative claims, and because they are negative claims we don't have to do any work?

[thaiboxerken]

No, T'ai Chi. It's not a belief, it's a conclusion based on the fact that there is NO evidence of any gods. I do not have a burden of claim since my statement "There are no gods" is simply a strong doubt of the claim that there are gods. Negative claims carry the burden of evidence if they go against established facts.

[T'ai Chi]

It's not a belief, it's a conclusion based on the fact that there is NO evidence of any gods.


Based on your finite experience, and the sum of finite experiences of others, that is your belief.


I do not have a burden of claim since my statement "There are no gods" is simply a strong doubt of the claim that there are gods. Negative claims carry the burden of evidence if they go against established facts.

Saying 'there are no X' is a negative claim about the existence of X.

A "strong doubt" about X, would be "I really doubt X exists".

You understand. They are quite different things. You might thing it is strong, but it is only strong in emotion, and weak in logic.

[CFLarsen]

Based on your finite experience, and the sum of finite experiences of others, that is your belief.

Excuse me? You just called scientific knowledge "belief".

According to you, is there no difference between knowledge and belief?

[CapelDodger]

There are no gods. Nor are there any elves or pixies, no invisible troll is sitting on my chimney when the fire smokes, and there definitely ain't no Sanity Clause. Why does any adult have a problem with that?

[CapelDodger]

Sure, but lies in Greece.
The theology and stories behind Christianity are mostly Greek, but Greece came to the Middle East with Alexander. There must have been interaction between Greek and Jewish philosophy - why else was the Septuagint created? So Christianity might have been invented in the Middle East.

[elliotfc]

The theology and stories behind Christianity are mostly Greek, but Greece came to the Middle East with Alexander. There must have been interaction between Greek and Jewish philosophy - why else was the Septuagint created? So Christianity might have been invented in the Middle East.

Just as a point of order, and I'm not saying that you don't know this...but the Septuagint is the Old Testament, and not the New Testament.

As for the "why"...there was a large Alexandrian Jewish population, and you didn't have a higher population of scribes than you had in Alexandria, Greece. It's pretty obvious why the Septuagint took hold...because it was copied, and copied, and copied.

-Elliot

[CapelDodger]

Just as a point of order, and I'm not saying that you don't know this...but the Septuagint is the Old Testament, and not the New Testament.Its existence shows that there was interchange between Greek and Jewish philosophy for some time before Christianity.

As for the "why"...there was a large Alexandrian Jewish population, and you didn't have a higher population of scribes than you had in Alexandria, Greece. It's pretty obvious why the Septuagint took hold...because it was copied, and copied, and copied.
Shouldn't that be Alexandria, Egypt? As in "Philo of Alexandria"?

[elliotfc]

Its existence shows that there was interchange between Greek and Jewish philosophy for some time before Christianity.

Yes.

Shouldn't that be Alexandria, Egypt? As in "Philo of Alexandria"?

Of course, mea maxima culpa. Of course Alexander and Ptolemy spread Greek and Greek culture/ideas wherever they went.

-Elliot

[T'ai Chi]

There are no gods.
...
Why does any adult have a problem with that?

Forget 'adults', I think 'logic' has a problem with your belief. :D

You suddenly throw it out the window, with your statement of a universal negative (which you cannot prove) as some fact.

[thaiboxerken]

Based on your finite experience, and the sum of finite experiences of others, that is your belief.

Is there any other kind of experience? We can only draw conclusions based on facts that we know. Also, my statement is entirely falsifiable. All that has to happen is for a person to give evidence that a god exists. The claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, and thus immediately inherits all burden of evidence.


Saying 'there are no X' is a negative claim about the existence of X.

A "strong doubt" about X, would be "I really doubt X exists".

You understand. They are quite different things. You might thing it is strong, but it is only strong in emotion, and weak in logic.

Wrong. The statement "there are no X" is entirely dependant on the claim that "there are X". Without the initial, positive claim that "There are X" my statement that "there are no X" would never come about. It is because of this that my statement is one of doubt and not a position that has a burden of evidence, unless "there are X" has been established as fact.

"Negative" statements that have no burden of evidence are such as these:

There are no gods.
Superman isn't a real person.
Pixies don't exist.
Creationism isn't science.

"Negative" statement that have the burden of evidence are these:

Gravity doesn't exist.
2+2 does not equal 4
Apples are not a fruit.
The USA is not a country.

[T'ai Chi]

We can only draw conclusions based on facts that we know.


Could god(s) be in a different dimension? A bubble universe? Somewhere in this unverse that you haven't looked? Somewhere that you haven't thought of? Saying 'no god(s) exist' is a fact is premature. Of course, you really mean 'I believe no god(s) exist from what I've seen and understand'.


Without the initial, positive claim that "There are X" my statement that "there are no X" would never come about.


This coming from one who often claims that 'we are born atheists' is somewhat amusing. :) For that to be true, you now argue that first we are born not atheists?? Which is it?


"Negative" statements that have no burden of evidence are such as these:
There are no gods.


You've just restated your belief. You're basically trying to state your belief as fact, then claim that you have no burnen of evidence. You don't, but only if you toss logic out the window.

[thaiboxerken]

It is a fact that we are born without beliefs, including that of any gods. One cannot believe in any gods if one has no concept of such a being.

Again, logically, the burden of evidence always rests on the claim "there are gods" and not "there are no gods." I've explained to you why that is, but you could care less about explanations and logic, you just want to troll.

[Iacchus]

It is a fact that we are born without beliefs, including that of any gods. One cannot believe in any gods if one has no concept of such a being.

Again, logically, the burden of evidence always rests on the claim "there are gods" and not "there are no gods." I've explained to you why that is, but you could care less about explanations and logic, you just want to troll.And why does God necessarily owe anybody an explanation? To prove to you that He's not the creep that you think He is? Why should anybody have to explain themselves under such circumstances?

[Tricky]

And why does God necessarily owe anybody an explanation? To prove to you that He's not the creep that you think He is? Why should anybody have to explain themselves under such circumstances?
Even a small child deserves an explanation why they are being punished. The God you describe is not a loving parental god, but a uncaring tyrant. The only reason to worship such an entity would be out of fear.

[Iacchus]

Even a small child deserves an explanation why they are being punished. The God you describe is not a loving parental god, but a uncaring tyrant. The only reason to worship such an entity would be out of fear.Do you know what humility is? ... No, I didn't think so.

[elliotfc]

Even a small child deserves an explanation why they are being punished. The God you describe is not a loving parental god, but a uncaring tyrant. The only reason to worship such an entity would be out of fear.

I can come up with other reasons!

Loving, parental types ought to punish their children. As for explanations, they don't always come immediately, for various reasons.

Christians have theological reasoning behind all of this...if you except the theological reasoning, it makes sense. If you don't, then yes, you will see God in such a way, although uncaring tyrant might be a bit much given the person of Jesus.

-Elliot

[Jorghnassen]

It is a fact that we are born without beliefs, including that of any gods.

Nobody's born with critical thinking skills either ;).

[CapelDodger]

Forget 'adults', I think 'logic' has a problem with your belief. :D

You suddenly throw it out the window, with your statement of a universal negative (which you cannot prove) as some fact.
There are almost infinite ideas that the human imagination can come up with. Gods, naiads, brain-control rays from Rigel. The vast majority are ludicrous by obervation - the huge panoply of gods that have been imagined, for instance. Why should the ludicrous not be called ludicrous and dismissed out-of-hand? Adolescent sophistry apart, and there comes a time in our lives when we must put aside childish things.

[T'ai Chi]

It is a fact that we are born without beliefs, including that of any gods.


Then we're born lacking atheism as well because we are unaware of philosophy and worldviews.


Again, logically, the burden of evidence always rests on the claim "there are gods" and not "there are no gods."


You've claimed 'there are no gods, and that is a fact'. You belief is based on your and others' finite knowledge. For example, if god(s) exist in other dimension or universe, you'd have no clue, yet your belief, which you claim is a fact, doesn't reflect reality.

Truzzi, on pseudoskeptics, wrote
(bold mine)


Sometimes, such negative claims by critics are also quite extraordinary--for example, that a UFO was actually a giant plasma, or that someone in a psi experiment was cued via an abnormal ability to hear a high pitch others with normal ears would fail to notice. In such cases the negative claimant also may have to bear a heavier burden of proof than might normally be expected.

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence. Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause. Of course, the evidential weight of the experiment is greatly reduced when we discover an opening in the design that would allow an artifact to confound the results. Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was "air tight" against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim.

Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it. If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances. Admittedly, in some cases the appeal to mere plausibility that an artifact produced the result may be so great that nearly all would accept the argument; for example, when we learn that someone known to have cheated in the past had an opportunity to cheat in this instance, we might reasonably conclude he probably cheated this time, too. But in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations.

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

[T'ai Chi]

The God you describe is not a loving parental god, but a uncaring tyrant.


Based on your finite human understanding, perhaps. I, and you, certainly think things like disease, destructive weather, and human-made catastrophies are terrible, but we lack the foresight to see the whole picture that god(s) could see if they exist.

What you are doing, I'm afraid, is equivalent to criticizing a book that you are not able to read the whole way through.

[CapelDodger]

This coming from one who often claims that 'we are born atheists' is somewhat amusing. :) For that to be true, you now argue that first we are born not atheists?? Which is it?Your inference is hard to grasp. Born atheists - as we all are - would never say "there are no gods" until somebody imagined there were and said so. We skeptics wouldn't say "there are no alien abductions" without somebody claiming there are. We don't spend our lives imagining all the ludicrous ideas that people might imagine and pre-emptively denying them.

Without the claim, there is no denial. Without "There is X" there is no "There isn't X" response. Which is what thaiboxerken said.

There are no claims of brain-control rays from Rigel, by the way. I made that up. But then again, how do I know there aren't Rigelians who claim there are? It's all terribly confusing ...

[T'ai Chi]

Born atheists - as we all are - would never say "there are no gods" until somebody imagined there were and said so.


Says you. :) Since we are just telling stories here, one could equally imagine a chap, wondering about his orgins, first saying 'We must have just popped into being out of the dirt/we always existed/only chance and time created us/etc.', and then another chap said 'No, I think we were created by a higher being', thus an example of someone saying 'there are no gods' before someone said 'there are gods'.

Of course, your belief is self-defeating, because you possess two contradictory statements about the state of affairs. You hold that

1) we are born atheists, and
2) people imagined gods first, and then came along atheists to say there are no gods

at the same time. So, how exactly can both be true?


Without the claim, there is no denial. Without "There is X" there is no "There isn't X" response. Which is what thaiboxerken said.


I'm not sure where you are getting lost. :) It doesn't matter who said what first as far as burden of evidence is concerned. What matters is that some negative claims are claims that has a burden. See the Truzzi article. For someone to say that 'no gods exist, and that is a fact', that is an extraordinary claim and logic demands a demonstration of their amazing facts.

I personally think that if people like Ken are correct, then they must be in fact incorrect, and they are in fact gods since they've surveyed all of space and time in order to make their statement in the first place. Or, using Occam's Razor, they are just wrong.

[Iacchus]

The whole of human history is rife with tales of the supernatural. Of course is this just a by-product of sentience? Or, could sentience be a by-product of IT?

[thaiboxerken]

And why does God necessarily owe anybody an explanation?

I doubt that any gods exist, so I don't expect an explanation from any of them. It's the believers that need to provide evidence and explanations.

To prove to you that He's not the creep that you think He is?

Again, this is about whether gods exist or not. It's not about the personality of these beings. I think some gods would be great to hang out with, if they existed, such as Aphrodite, Odin and Thor. Loki might be a fun guy to go out partying with as well as Dionesis.

Why should anybody have to explain themselves under such circumstances?

N/A

[thaiboxerken]

Nobody's born with critical thinking skills either ;).

This is true, some people learn it from the environment and others are taught. Many, too many, simply don't gain these skills at all, a good example is T'ai Whodini.

[thaiboxerken]

Then we're born lacking atheism as well because we are unaware of philosophy and worldviews.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, it doesn't require philosophy and worldviews.


Truzzi, on pseudoskeptics, wrote
(bold mine)

Truzzi is simply an idiot and another woo-woo who attacks the skeptical position. Negative claims of things not factually established bear no burden of evidence.

[KelvinG]

I personally think that if people like Ken are correct, then they must be in fact incorrect, and they are in fact gods since they've surveyed all of space and time in order to make their statement in the first place. Or, using Occam's Razor, they are just wrong.

Ah yes. This again. I always have said that if the best argument in favour of God's existence is "Well, you can't prove he doesn't exist" then issue is hardly even worth debating. It's a pathetically weak argument.
There are many, many things I can't prove don't exist, but I don't waste valuable seconds of my life worrying about them.

[Iacchus]

This is true, some people learn it from the environment and others are taught. Many, too many, simply don't gain these skills at all, a good example is T'ai Whodini.Actually, he/she sounds to me like someone who's given it considerable thought.

[DSE]

The whole of human history is rife with tales of the supernatural. Of course is this just a by-product of sentience? Or, could sentience be a by-product of IT?
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's true. There are a lot of reasons why, given what early humans would need to survive, these stories would be created. It's not a by-product of sentience, just a by-product how humans without knowledge would create explanations about how the world works.

[DSE]

Says you. :) Since we are just telling stories here, one could equally imagine a chap, wondering about his orgins, first saying 'We must have just popped into being out of the dirt/we always existed/only chance and time created us/etc.', and then another chap said 'No, I think we were created by a higher being', thus an example of someone saying 'there are no gods' before someone said 'there are gods'.

Of course, your belief is self-defeating, because you possess two contradictory statements about the state of affairs. You hold that

1) we are born atheists, and
2) people imagined gods first, and then came along atheists to say there are no gods

at the same time. So, how exactly can both be true?
I think the timeline is more like this:

Humanity has very little understanding of the world and doesn't know why things happen (i.e., things just happen that way because that's the way they happen) - no gods / no understanding
Humanity develops more and is able to explain some things but not others, so some supernatural forces must cause them - lots of supernatural forces / some understanding
Humanity understands more and only very large questions are left - belief in gods / a good deal of understanding
Techniques and evidence build up to offer a view of the universe that doesn't contradict itself or require the belief in gods - no gods / lots of understanding


So when humans were first trying to understand how the world worked and why things happened, it was logical to assume supernatural powers were involved. But, many would argue that we now have enough understanding so that belief in the supernatural is not needed to explain the world.

So, with the scientific understanding we have now, a child who is not offered supernatural explanations would probably never see the need to create them.

[Iacchus]

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's true. There are a lot of reasons why, given what early humans would need to survive, these stories would be created.
Humanity develops more and is able to explain some things but not others, so some supernatural forces must cause them - lots of supernatural forces / some understandingSeems to have been a pretty widespread phenomenon.

[Iacchus]

It's not a by-product of sentience, just a by-product how humans without knowledge would create explanations about how the world works.Could you imagine two rocks sitting next to each other sharing a piece of folklore about the nature of their origin?

[Tricky]

Could you imagine two rocks sitting next to each other sharing a piece of folklore about the nature of their origin?
To an advanced intelligence, you might be considered no more intelligent than a rock. They wouldn't even have to be all that advanced.

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, he/she sounds to me like someone who's given it considerable thought.

So what? You're an idiot and your opinions don't really carry any weight.

[elliotfc]

So when humans were first trying to understand how the world worked and why things happened, it was logical to assume supernatural powers were involved.

You're imposing that word on them. Did they have any distinction between natural and supernatural? Based on my anthropological knowledge, I say *no*.

They had workable explanations. We have workable explanations. Their explanations were internally consistent and corresponded to the knowledge of the day. Same for us.

But, many would argue that we now have enough understanding so that belief in the supernatural is not needed to explain the world.

*Need* being the key word. We are driven by needs. A person who rejects *supernatural*, whatever the hell that word means, is also driven by a need, the need to reject *supernatural*. What we need is variable from person to person.

Some people *need* more in an explanation that what science can offer, so their beliefs embrace other things that are rejected automatically by materialists. It's pretty elementary, once you understand the partiuclar needs and a priori beliefs and sensibilities of people.

Since most materialists seem extremely aware of their, oh I don't know, intellectual superiority, whether or not they proclaim it to others matter of factly or with blunt force, it's as easy as assuming the mantle of materialism and assuming the nice feeling that goes along with it. And thinking you've freed yourself from the "need" of supernaturalism (whateve the hell that means), satisfying other needs in turn. This isn't difficult stuff. Anybody can believe anything. It's easy.

So, with the scientific understanding we have now, a child who is not offered supernatural explanations would probably never see the need to create them.

I would *never* place limits on the creative ability of children. Nor should any adult.

As for the needs of children, they can speak for themselves, until they are stifled by indoctrination, be it religious or materialistic.

-Elliot

[CapelDodger]

Says you. :) Since we are just telling stories here, one could equally imagine a chap, wondering about his orgins, first saying 'We must have just popped into being out of the dirt/we always existed/only chance and time created us/etc.', and then another chap said 'No, I think we were created by a higher being', thus an example of someone saying 'there are no gods' before someone said 'there are gods'.
"We just popped into being ..." is not a statement about gods. It can only be seen as implying that after the concept of a "higher being" is imagined and expressed.

Of course, your belief is self-defeating, because you possess two contradictory statements about the state of affairs. You hold that

1) we are born atheists, and
2) people imagined gods first, and then came along atheists to say there are no gods
I see no inconsistency. There were only athiests until somebody suggested the existence of gods. Those who hear the suggestion and remain atheists - or return to that state of grace when we put aside childish things - may well then say "There are no gods". They may well be rolling around laughing too hard to say anything, of course.

[CapelDodger]

I'm not sure where you are getting lost. :) It doesn't matter who said what first as far as burden of evidence is concerned.
It's easy to see where you wandered off the trail - you're confusing me with thaiboxerken. I haven't mentioned burden of proof.

I personally think that if people like Ken are correct, then they must be in fact incorrect, and they are in fact gods since they've surveyed all of space and time in order to make their statement in the first place. Or, using Occam's Razor, they are just wrong.That's a perversion of Occam's Razor. Shame on you.

[CapelDodger]

Humanity has very little understanding of the world and doesn't know why things happen (i.e., things just happen that way because that's the way they happen) - no gods / no understanding
"These berries are good, those berries are bad."
"Why?"
"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"
"OK".

A matriarchal family background never leaves you. The first "spirits", I suspect, represent dead scary (sic) grandmothers that have been imprinted on us.

[CapelDodger]

*Need* being the key word. We are driven by needs."Needed" as in "required" is the key word. "Need" as in "crave" isn't the same thing at all.

[Iacchus]

"These berries are good, those berries are bad."
"Why?"
"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"
"OK".These berries are poisonous. Those berries are not. Why? ... There's one way to find out.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. ~ Genesis 2:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=9)

[DSE]

Seems to have been a pretty widespread phenomenon.
Sure, but that's the point I was trying to make. Just because it's widespread doesn't make it true.

[DSE]

Could you imagine two rocks sitting next to each other sharing a piece of folklore about the nature of their origin?
Nope. But I can imagine a sentient being that doesn't believe in supernatural powers.

[DSE]

A matriarchal family background never leaves you. The first "spirits", I suspect, represent dead scary (sic) grandmothers that have been imprinted on us.
Never really thought of my grandmothers as scary. They were more, you know, grandmotherly.

[CapelDodger]

Never really thought of my grandmothers as scary. They were more, you know, grandmotherly.
I'm not saying there isn't love and affection, but when the women in my family tell you off you stay told off.

[CapelDodger]

These berries are poisonous. Those berries are not. Why? ... There's one way to find out.I'd suggest a combination of chemistry and human biology.

[T'ai Chi]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, it doesn't require philosophy and worldviews.


*wink wink nudge nudge*

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis00.htm


Truzzi is simply an idiot and another woo-woo who attacks the skeptical position.

That's a cop out from you.

[T'ai Chi]

Actually, he/she sounds to me like someone who's given it considerable thought.

Shhsssh!! They don't wanna hear that!
:D

[T'ai Chi]

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's true.

Would you say that that is a popular saying? :D

[T'ai Chi]

I wrote


I personally think that if people like Ken are correct (who claim 'no gods exist and that is a fact'), then they must be in fact incorrect, and they are in fact gods since they've surveyed all of space and time in order to make their statement in the first place. Or, using Occam's Razor, they are just wrong.


and then


That's a perversion of Occam's Razor. Shame on you.

You should first be upset at Ken since he claims it is a fact. How is he all knowing suddenly?

[Iacchus]

Shhsssh!! They don't wanna hear that!
:DWell, you know how it is though. It's not one of those that is easy to grasp, since it's not of this world. ;)

[DSE]

You should first be upset at Ken since he claims it is a fact. How is he all knowing suddenly?
Ta'i, we've all heard this argument too many times. Yes, nothing can be known with 100% certainty. So when people say something is a "fact" what they mean is there is an immense amount of evidence to support an idea and no evidence to contradict it. I personally would have chosen a different word, simply because it can invite people to make the sort of arguments you just made, but the larger argument is still sound. There is evidence to support why humans would create the idea of a god when one didn't exist. There is evidence that shows that most of the ideas humanity has had about gods is not correct (I'm speaking specifically about how things work - e.g., how the sun moves across the sky or why it rains). And there is no evidence the indicates that there is any supernatural power in the world.

[Elind]

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

Why always talk about Jesus so much; as if he was the god?

It is just as easy to describe God as human-like (aside from the "fact" that human are "made in His image").

Sounds suspiciously like a projection of the self by the writers, doesn't it? God is kind of what "I" would be like if "I" were granted the powers "I" imagine He has. In other words, every schoolkid's daydream of being King of the Hill.

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, nothing can be known with 100% certainty.


Then someone saying it 'is a fact' really means 'I believe it to be a fact'.


And there is no evidence the indicates that there is any supernatural power in the world.

Have you surveyed all of space and time? Nope. You have to have a sliver of possibility somewhere in there to remain logical.

[Mercutio]

Then someone saying it 'is a fact' really means 'I believe it to be a fact'.As long as you do not then say "...and all beliefs are on equal footing", I would agree. But of course, there are beliefs that are supported with evidence, beliefs that are independent of evidence, and beliefs that are contrary to evidence. Would you contend that all are of equal weight?

[DSE]

As long as you do not then say "...and all beliefs are on equal footing", I would agree. But of course, there are beliefs that are supported with evidence, beliefs that are independent of evidence, and beliefs that are contrary to evidence.
Exactly

[thaiboxerken]

*wink wink nudge nudge*

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis00.htm



That person is simply wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief. Lacking belief requires no philosophy.


That's a cop out from you.

No, it's not. Truzzi is a fool and a bleever bent on spreading lies and igorance. He's just like the quacks who call all those that doubt homeopathy "ignorant" and the like. Skepticism is the philosophy of doubt, it requires looking for evidence or logic before drawing conclusions. The fact is, there is no evidence of a god OR a logical reason to believe in one.

[thaiboxerken]

Have you surveyed all of space and time? Nope. You have to have a sliver of possibility somewhere in there to remain logical.

Then I can simply state that you are a foolish idiot that is bent on world destruction, according to your logic, and be completely logical.

[T'ai Chi]

As long as you do not then say "...and all beliefs are on equal footing", I would agree.


And I did not say that. So.. ?

[T'ai Chi]

That person is simply wrong.


Sure. *wink*

I can find dozens more examples. They're all wrong too. Basically anyone who disagrees with you believe is wrong.


Truzzi is a fool and a bleever bent on spreading lies and igorance.


Anyone have a translator handy?


The fact is, there is no evidence of a god OR a logical reason to believe in one.

No evidence that you've seen, that is. Your finite mind and resources can't possibly tell you facts about the non-existence of god as you have no way of possibly knowing this. You're commenting on a book that you haven't read entirely. As far as logical reasons, many take the complexity, improbability, and fine-tuning as logical reasons to believe.

[T'ai Chi]

Then I can simply state that you are a foolish idiot that is bent on world destruction, according to your logic, and be completely logical.

You have quite an active imagination! A peace group I'm part of will be very surprised to hear that I'm actually trying to destroy the world. Please don't mistake my destroying your arguments for destroying the world. ;)

Anyway, in response to


Have you surveyed all of space and time?


your answer is "No".

So you do not know if there is no god(s) for a fact.

[thaiboxerken]

I can find dozens more examples. They're all wrong too. Basically anyone who disagrees with you believe is wrong.

No, anyone who holds such fallacious positions as you are wrong. You are guilty of appealing to false authorities in this case.


No evidence that you've seen, that is. Your finite mind and resources can't possibly tell you facts about the non-existence of god as you have no way of possibly knowing this. You're commenting on a book that you haven't read entirely. As far as logical reasons, many take the complexity, improbability, and fine-tuning as logical reasons to believe.

This is simply a giant appeal to ignorance. If you have evidence of any gods, feel free to fess them up.



You have quite an active imagination! A peace group I'm part of will be very surprised to hear that I'm actually trying to destroy the world. Please don't mistake my destroying your arguments for destroying the world.

An imagination is all that's needed to make a claim. Simply having a claim doesn't make that claim logically sound, which is what you are trying to convince everyone in the room of. It is not upon the skeptic to disprove such claims, it's upon claimants to prove the claim. There are no gods, I say that because there is no evidence of such being AND as a statement of doubt. It's not a belief of mine, it's a lack of belief that brings me to this conclusion.

So you do not know if there is no god(s) for a fact.

It is a fact that there are no gods, just like it's a fact that pixies and firebreathing dragons don't exist.

[Iacchus]

As long as you do not then say "...and all beliefs are on equal footing", I would agree. But of course, there are beliefs that are supported with evidence, beliefs that are independent of evidence, and beliefs that are contrary to evidence. Would you contend that all are of equal weight?Quite possibly. People used to contend that the sun revolved around the earth. And, there was plenty of evidence to suggest that it did ... that is, until somebody came up with evidence to the contrary.

[CFLarsen]

And I did not say that. So.. ?

No, you didn't. You are very careful not to state clearly what you mean.

You are, however, quite adept at making vague statements, which people ask you to clarify, whereafter you mock them for not understanding.

I personally think that if people like Ken are correct, then they must be in fact incorrect, and they are in fact gods since they've surveyed all of space and time in order to make their statement in the first place. Or, using Occam's Razor, they are just wrong.

That's not what Occam's Razor says.

[CapelDodger]

You should first be upset at Ken since he claims it is a fact. How is he all knowing suddenly?
Did Ken abuse Occam's Razor. The "Or, using Occam's Razor, they are just wrong" appears, at first glance, to come from you. Perhaps I've misinterpreted.

There are no desert planets called Arrakis where giant worms burrow through the sands producing a spice called melange. True, I haven't scoured the Milky Way to check, let alone all the other galaxies, but I'm quite sure it's a product of Frank Herbert's imagination. The only difference between Arrakis and the vast panoply of gods is that we don't have the names of the gods' authors. Not all of them, anyway - L Ron Hubbard is one exception.

[Iacchus]

There are no desert planets called Arrakis where giant worms burrow through the sands producing a spice called melange. True, I haven't scoured the Milky Way to check, let alone all the other galaxies, but I'm quite sure it's a product of Frank Herbert's imagination. The only difference between Arrakis and the vast panoply of gods is that we don't have the names of the gods' authors. Not all of them, anyway - L Ron Hubbard is one exception.Monsters from the id.

[Tricky]

Monsters from the id.
Déjà woo.