H
happilycatholic
Guest
I thought only us southerners said, “grub”.
- Status
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
yes … because we have coins that show he existed and numerous accounts of his exploits (albeit they’re attenuated). That’s a pretty old and tired argument to be honest & the comparison is hardly a good one. For one thing no one avers Alexander the Great raised men from the dead, healed the sick, and so on (as the maxim goes … extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof). Moreover, there’s the obvious problems with contemporary theism. If god is really omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then where is he? Why is that every world religion always has a profound reason why god doesn’t show himself to modern man in a comprehensible and verifiable way? Is it mere coincidence that god left the stage of human history just as mankind began quantifying the natural world through the prism of science? I think the answers are simple enough …
Theists don’t have reason on their side (they never did … and even many Christian scholars will admit as much).
J
jpaul1953
Guest
Nebogipfel,
So this is your view? You must believe that the smartest self-proclaimed people in this world are not just the smartest in this world, but are the smartest in the UNIVERSE since they are able to out-think all the past great minds on earth that do believe in God so easily. Da, oh boy dey mut be reawee brwite.
Obviously you have never experienced the powers of the Spirit since we are just delusional and you guys are just genuises to the millionth power. How dumb can we believers be. Well you non-believers are in good company since all non-human creatures on earth don’t believe in God either.
jpaul1953
J
josie_L
Guest
Who said I wanted proof that Jesus was the Christ, I simply asked “did he exist”?
The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to various religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.
With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by a few scholars and historians, some of the earliest being Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[95][96][97][98]
Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians. Theologian James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a ‘thoroughly dead thesis’.[100][101][102][103]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Some argue that since no extra-biblical historian mentioned Jesus until 60 years after His crucifixion there is no good historical evidence to believe He ever existed. Is the 60 year gap at all significant? We must look at this from a historian’s perspective. How many men of antiquity do we have historical records of their life written while they were still alive, or immediately following their death? Not many. Consider Alexander the Great. The two earliest biographies of his life were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after his death, and yet no historian believes that he did not exist or that the biographies are legend. Why treat Jesus differently? Why do new standards of historical inquiry need to be adopted when it comes to Jesus?
We have to keep in mind that there was no media in the first century. There were no newspapers who reported on the daily life of Israelites in Palestine. There weren’t historians on every corner as we have today. The historians that did exist typically concerned themselves with imperial issues (ascensions of kings and emperors, wars, expansions of kingdoms, etc.). The fact that we have so much information about Jesus (and so much early information at that) is absolutely astounding from a historian’s perspective!
apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusexisted.htm
Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him.
Christianity is mentioned by the historian Tacitus in the early second century. But he talks about it only because Christians were unfortunate enough to be made scapegoats by the Emperor Nero for the great fire of Rome. Tacitus is interested in the Emperor, not his victims about whom he gives very limited information. Still, he does tell us that Jesus existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Jesus Mythologists counter this by claiming that he could have got his information from Christians which means his evidence is not independent. So, we have a very convenient situation for the Jesus Mythologists. Until Christianity had spread no one except Christians would be interested in Jesus but all later records are ruled out of court as they are tainted by association with Christianity. This sort of special pleading is one of the reasons that modern historians have no time for these theories as they are set up to be impossible to disprove. In fact, Christian evidence for a human Jesus who was crucified is trustworthy because it ran counter to the myths of the time and suggested that he had suffered a humiliating death. If they made it up and then suppressed the truth with clinical efficiency, why did they come up with a story which even the Christian apologist, Tertullian, admitted was absurd? It seems far more likely that they had a large number of historical facts that they had to rationalise into a religion rather than creating all these difficulties for themselves.
Sometimes Jesus Mythologists will produce long lists of writers none of whom have the slightest reason to mention an obscure Jewish miracle worker and somehow think this strengthens their point. In fact, it has all the relevance of picking fifty books off your local library shelf and finding that none of them mention Carl Sagan. Does that mean he did not exist either? Jesus was not even a failed military leader of the kind that Romans might have noticed - especially if he had been defeated by someone famous.
bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
to be continued . . .
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
there’s many more exceptions beyond just Price … but I’ll leave that alone (since I generally don’t dispute the historicity of Jesus).
of course a theologian would say such a thing (given he makes his living in, well, theology). Again … not an area I wish to dispute. My disbelief in the Christian religion is grounded on a much more practical and logical foundation. Whether or not a man named Jesus existed and carried out some sort of ministry in Roman Palestine is not particularly relevant to my own perspective (though it might be an important point of debate for other non-theists).
Not only Jesus but the entire bible should be viewed critically. The circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly weighs in favor of the view that all Abrahamic religions (and non-Abrahamic religions such as Buddhism) are nothing more than ancient myths; no more true than Zeus, Odin, or Mithra.
You fail to understand … there must be a higher burden of proof when claims of ancient events are outlandish or defy the laws of nature (such as raising men back from the dead). Indeed how difficult would it have been to start a religion in the extremely superstitious ancient world? Not very since its inhabitants were already predisposed to believing in the supernatural (since they lacked scientific explanations for natural phenomena).
I don’t want to speculate on what the motives of men like Paul might of been (or whether or not Paul even existed). Frankly, I don’t need to. It’s enough to say if there truly ever was this all powerful god described by the bible … it doesn’t make sense that he would leave the stage of human history just as “coincidentally” we began understanding the real cause for natural phenomena.
there’s always an answer right.
whether or not he got his information from Christians, whether Tacitus was a fabrication by the church at Rome, or whether indeed Pilate did have a man named Christ executed is immaterial to me for the reasons cited above. As for the Jesus story running counter to mythology at the time … it ran counter to Roman mythology perhaps (though I would strongly argue Christianity has much in common with stoicism); however, Christianity wasn’t invented by Romans.
J
josie_L
Guest
So you were basically arguing with me because . . . .
People also make a living writing controversial Bull Sh*t so they can make lots of money.
The Bible has been critically analyzed, and it has weathered the storm. As for Jesus he did exist, that a bunch of atheists want to prove otherwise shows just how desperate they are to discredit Christianity. And Zeus, Odin and Mithra were never real to begin with.
Again, you make the false assumption that we are debating the theological Jesus rather than the historicity of Jesus. And God has been speaking to the world and those who believe in him but you refuse to see, hear and/or listen to him. Also, I AM A WITNESS TO HIS EXISTENCE and many others who have been touched by his presence.
You’re a lawyer and it’s your job to ferret the truth. That being the case shouldn’t you give the other side a chance to plead its case? Check out the miracles of the Church (the eucharistic miracles, the uncorrupted saints, the apparations of Mary, the miracle of Fatima, the shroud of Turin . . . ) but be fair about it. And if you would just put your heart (and mind) into it, you’ll discover the truth. “Seek and you shall find”.
And furthermore, it is man who left God not God who left man (we think ourselves so smart that our pride as gotten in the way of Truth).
Francis, I think you’re the type of man who wishes to seek out the truth and for that I commend you. But you are wrong in believing God does not exist.
P.S. I finally figured it out (refering to quotes). :doh2:
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
The Bible has been critically analyzed, and it has weathered the storm. As for Jesus he did exist, that a bunch of atheists want to prove otherwise shows just how desperate they are to discredit Christianity. And Zeus, Odin and Mithra were never real to begin with.
what are you talking about? The bible (and religion more generally speaking) isn’t something amenable to critical analysis. The fact is critical logical analysis does debunk religion (Christianity included) … but it remains because most people can’t imagine any alternative. We’re trapped into thinking we need false mythology to sustain an objective sense of morality, we fear death so we want to think there’s some mystical afterlife waiting for us, etc.
As far as atheists being “desperate” to discredit Christianity … the fact is it’s the other way around. We’re not the ones who believe in flying angels and talking snakes; so we’re not running around in dismay trying to prove snakes can’t talk and flying angels don’t exist. We know snakes can’t talk and flying angels don’t exist
J
josie_L
Guest
Have you ever heard of Biblical criticism?what are you talking about? The bible (and religion more generally speaking) isn’t something amenable to critical analysis. The fact is critical logical analysis does debunk religion (Christianity included) … but it remains because most people can’t imagine any alternative. We’re trapped into thinking we need false mythology to sustain an objective sense of morality, we fear death so we want to think there’s some mystical afterlife waiting for us, etc.
As far as atheists being “desperate” to discredit Christianity … the fact is it’s the other way around. We’re not the ones who believe in flying angels and talking snakes; so we’re not running around in dismay trying to prove snakes can’t talk and flying angels don’t exist. We know snakes can’t talk and flying angels don’t exist
Biblical criticism is “the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings.”[1] It asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition and the message it was intended to convey. It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, oral tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.
Have you ever heard of textual criticism? And what about redaction criticism? Do you know of the Jesus Seminar? And it goes on and on. The Bible has survived it all.
Furthermore, you cannot prove that these things did not happen, you can only surmise through “logic” (which can be limited in scope and understanding) that the events in the Bible did not take place.
P.S. They are desperate when they defy most of the historians/scholars who do not question the existence of the historical Jesus.
J
josie_L
Guest
Where would this objective sense of morality come from? And by the way the word “objective” refers to an absolute.what are you talking about? The bible (and religion more generally speaking) isn’t something amenable to critical analysis. The fact is critical logical analysis does debunk religion (Christianity included) … but it remains because most people can’t imagine any alternative. We’re trapped into thinking we need false mythology to sustain an objective sense of morality, we fear death so we want to think there’s some mystical afterlife waiting for us, etc.
As far as atheists being “desperate” to discredit Christianity … the fact is it’s the other way around. We’re not the ones who believe in flying angels and talking snakes; so we’re not running around in dismay trying to prove snakes can’t talk and flying angels don’t exist. We know snakes can’t talk and flying angels don’t exist
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
first … whether or not we can sustain an objective sense of morality without theism is not relevant to the question of whether or not Christianity is true. Moreover, there’s no such thing as objective morality (beyond a few very basic principals); and there never has been.
You can hardly say 12th century Christian morality (when it was perfectly acceptable to burn men at the stake for holding dissenting views) hasn’t changed quite a bit. So anyway you shake it morality is always subjective. Even the idea of natural law is flawed (or at a minimum misapplied). There’s a few natural laws right, like we’ll all die one day. However, even that’s not set in stone. What happens if science figures out how to cheat death one day (frankly they probably will)?
You might say it’s never been acceptable to kill another human being, save in very narrow circumstances like self-defense or defense of another (and some might oppose it even under those circumstances). However, this hasn’t always been the rule … indeed it hasn’t even always been the rule among Christians (as I pointed out above).
So then what the heck is objective morality? IMO it’s a fallacy & morality is something that is purely man made. We (just as all creatures do) act in our self-interest. Whether its in enriching ourselves or acting on behalf of our loved ones – self-preservation and gratification is perhaps the one single consistent rule of nature. However, our notions of morality evolve in rough correlation with the evolution of knowledge.
So objective morality … nahhh. I’d rather humanity become exceedingly MORE moral rather than remain stuck in time.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
of course most of this sort of criticism has only begun popping up over the past few decades, while Christianity has been around for over 1,800 years. Moreover, trying to prove a negative using methods like archeological studies (that so far hasn’t produced anything either way) is just stupid.
Simple logic debunks religion … so archeologists you can go back to more productive and interesting endeavors (like exploring under pyramids)
people are convicted with circumstantial evidence every day. In other words circumstantial evidence by itself can surpass the plateau of “reasonable doubt” & in the case of religion it does!
again why would non-theists be desperate about proving anything to anyone? We don’t believe in the idea of an eternal soul that will retain its identity and depart to a mystical afterlife if only we believe a certain way during our lives – so we have nothing to lose or gain. In other words only theists believe they have a stake in this debate.
After life mythology litters the history books … and it’s all been eventually debunked (and arguably Egyptian mythology stuck around longer than Christianity has … but still eventually wound up in the scrap heap of history).
J
josie_L
Guest
How do you know these very basic principals are objectively right/good? If these objective morals exist why can’t others? How can moral relativism and moral absolutism co-exist?
We are speaking of the natural moral law not the actions of men (therefore the Church has done wrong but the morals have remained the same).
So you think that we are more moral now then in the past? Yet you think that we are inherently selfish. How then do you account for all the selfless acts committed by many people throughout time and space. Why do we have perfect strangers put their lives at risk for others? Why do we feel the need to help our fellow man? How can someone even love if everything we do (or are) is motivated by self-interest?
But what is “moral”? Who gets to decide? Are you right or am I right?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
these basic principals (such as it’s bad to murder another) is insight gained through our collective experience throughout our existence. Some things become so ingrained and well settled that we can be confident they’ll always remain (notwithstanding occasional short periods of barbarism). However, as we move along new basic principals will evolve. In other words morality is something we learn through our experiences.
oh come on now Josie … that’s bumpkis. The church called it right when it was burning people at the stake, so that was its view of morality. You’re making a post hoc analysis, which is fallacious logic. We can say it was always wrong to kill others for mere disagreement – but that’s an idea that we learned through our collective experience. It’s not an idea that was always around … indeed just read the Old Testament (where god commands the Jews to essentially kill dissenters among them).
Today we are far more moral than any ancient deity has ever demanded of us.
I never said inherently selfish (though I should have qualified my earlier statements). Self-preservation and gratification are constant rules in human nature; it’s just that people achieve gratification in different ways (usually depending on how they were raised & a variety of other factors).
we all decide collectively. Good ideas stick, if they’re really good they stick around a little longer, if they’re great they stick around forever.
J
josie_L
Guest
What do you mean by logic? And what’s so simple about it? You can’t see multiple universes yet you believe they exist contrary to logic, as nothing can come out of nothing.of course most of this sort of criticism has only begun popping up over the past few decades, while Christianity has been around for over 1,800 years. Moreover, trying to prove a negative using methods like archeological studies (that so far hasn’t produced anything either way) is just stupid.
Simple logic debunks religion … so archeologists you can go back to more productive and interesting endeavors (like exploring under pyramids)
So innocent people are not sent to jail based on circumstancial evidence (that surpasses that imaginary and subjective point of reasonable doubt)?
Ideological power or cultural control? Possibly.
Yes, but this happened before the Enlightenment (so before textual, redantist, or any kind of criticism came into play). So what caused many of the old mythologies to die out? Was it replaced by an all-encompassing Truth?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’m not sure if alternate universes exist (it’s one of many competing theories in physics). However, the idea doesn’t defy logic (if you understand physics).
some have been … although some people have also been wrongly convicted using physical evidence. As a general rule all evidence is circumstantial (although technically direct evidence i.e. eye witness evidence – is not considered circumstantial).
And of course religion never struggles for cultural control. The truth is atheists aren’t sitting around conspiring how to gain the upper hand in cultural influence; we naturally dominate culture because religion is boring
nope … a new mythology simply replaced it (but like all the rest contemporary mythology will eventually die out).
J
josie_L
Guest
So basically what you’re saying is that our ancestors were murdering, thieving, lying adulterous SOBs as compared to the murdering, thieving, lying adulterous SOBs of today?
“Thou shalt not kill”. (as to whether these events really took place we are not sure, but let us suppose that they did, it may have been an act of defense as the Canaanites and the Amalikites were enemies of the Jews). And furthermore, they were repugnantly evil for they sacrificed their own children in fire for their “gods”.
The 20th century proves you wrong.
So then when will we reach a point collectively wherein morality will be the same for all of us? Because basically you’re saying that morality evolved. How that morality was evolved when we see that humans were good and bad in every century (although some centuries far worse than others), I can’t seem to grasp? And furthermore, how can you really love someone if self preservation and gratification are at the core of who we are? I won’t even get into how love originated?
The Germans “collectively” decided to kill the Jews (with the help of many abroad). And if good ideas stick around it’s no wonder the CC has survived this long.
N
Nebogipfel
Guest
Josie, do you see the difference between a scientific paper which has been peer-reviewed and published under an accredited name in a reputable journal on the one hand, and a group of websites which could be written by anyone, and contain any old stuff that someone heard that someone else had read somewhere?
The most that I can deduce about Callahan’s involvement with the tilma, is that he wrote a book (which is now out of print). Anyone can write a book - a quick glance at the “esoteria” section of your local bookshop will confirm that “anyone” does write books - whether they know what they are talking about or not. Erich von Daniken wrote half a dozen best selling books on the subject of ancient civilizations being visited by aliens, yet there was not one single solitary shred of hard, objective scientific evidence that supported his ideas.
Scientific research proceeds by making tests under carefully controlled, objective conditions, eliminating as far as possible the personal beliefs, hopes, fears, preferences of the experimenters, whose results must be checked and preferably duplicated by other experimenters. There doesn’t seem to be any record of this research being done to this standard on the tilma.
…plus some determination to think critically about what it is you’re reading.
N
Nebogipfel
Guest
Thank you for that eloquent and cogent response. I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere. By the way, appeal to authority, even to the authority of really smart people, is a logical fallacy.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I was sort of amused by your post here. Have you ever stopped to consider the psychological power of faith in a deity – particular god as described by Christianity (all powerful, all loving, all encompassing, etc.). I was a Christian for many years & remember feeling the psychological power inherent in the idea that there’s this all powerful god, who can do anything, who is present everywhere in the universe, etc. etc. but who takes the time out his busy day to love little ol’ me.
It’s psychological frenzy … or I guess delusion (since objective empirical analysis confirms religiosity is merely based on a collection of myths promulgated by superstitious and primitive men). If there is a god as you believe exists then where is he? Seriously … why hasn’t he shown himself in an objectively verifiable way ever in human history? Why is he completely absent from human history today?
You guys tout religion as if it somehow distinguishes you from other creatures … yet you refuse to look behind the thin veil and see what it’s really all based on. There is no critical analysis … just blind faith in fairy tales. What can I say – except I don’t share your faith & I think religion is merely left over mythology from our distant past.
J
josie_L
Guest
Well, if this is your idea of researching . . .
P.S. And trying to compare a man (with no scientific accreditation) who writes about aliens with a scientist of repute who has written many a peer-reviewed article is laughable.
- Status