What is the role of credulity in religion and is it useful in promoting the message?

[Aloysium]

As for conscious awareness, I believe we’re talking even later.

actually we are talking about something that is primary from the beginning of life

it is the elaboration of that initial love-light-sound-touch-now emerging from God’s being as He creates us, that results in the complexity of this entire universe of experience that is our unique self-in-the-world

it is difficult to seriously talk to those who support abortion as an option, when they do not get the basics straight

 

[Portofino]

Here is a work that sheds light on the credulity of the masses in the Roman Empire. This piece was written by a PhD. in Ancient History at Columbia University:
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.htmlinfidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

"We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context. Yet it is quite enlightening to examine them against the background of the time and place in which they were written, and my goal here is to help you do just that. There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously.

If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson believed when he composed his own version of the gospels, Jesus may have been an entirely different person than the Gospels tell us, since the supernatural and other facts about him, even some of his parables or moral sayings, could easily have been added or exaggerated by unreliable witnesses or storytellers. Thus, this essay is not about whether Jesus was real or how much of what we are told about him is true. It is not even about Jesus. Rather, this essay is a warning and a standard, by which we can assess how likely or easily what we are told about Jesus may be false or exaggerated, and how little we can trust anyone who claims to be a witness of what he said and did…"

Sure – the Roman Epicurean poet, Lucian, had even written a work entitled “Alexander the False Prophet” (2nd century A.D.). The Epicureans were the great skeptics regarding miracles, in the ancient world, and the great champions of naturalistic explanations.

I readily will grant, in fairness to Christians, that the true charlatans in the ancient world tended to use their supposed abilities for material gain – for money, fame, profit.

I honestly can’t say that the early Christians, by my reckoning, were motivated by material gain or even by fame; nor do I think Jesus was a charlatan. I don’t perceive any ego in the man, nor in his earliest disciples, at least in the sense of wanting to be “rich and famous” (to the contrary).

On the other hand, is it likely that what we today call epilepsy, manic depression, schizophrenia were understood as being obvious cases of demonic possession? You bet!

 

[Portofino]

I have heard some such arguments - I don’t know exactly how common they are and exactly how seriously they would like to limit the population through contraception and abortion.
Part of the argument from economic viability (contraception and abortion save the state more money because less healthcare, education, etc. must be offered to poor children) is that all of the children contraceived or aborted would instead be born, and a condom or an abortion costs a lot less than raising a child. And yes, more children would be born - but the increase would not be equal to the current amount of abortions and contraceptions. What would happen is that people would stop having sex - which, I suppose, is a frightening prospect for many.

No abortion nor contraception – yes, that’s a tough sell, pragmatically speaking I know that a Catholic can’t, while condemning abortion, condone contraception, but I think (strategically) it may be more effective to focus on no abortions, as opposed to “absolutely no abortion and absolutely no contraception.”

It’s just that opposition to the latter – which is, indeed, not directly murder, in the sense that abortion would be – is bound to alienate people and may, by implication, be used to try to discredit the anti-abortion stance (not logically, by through association). Usage of condoms may be many things, but it is not murder (no more than an adolescent who masturbates is a murderer). In the most direct, pragmatic sense, there is no moral equivalency there (even if, on a more philosophical level, one could argue that the two feed into each other).

I get the logic interrelationship between the two, philosophically – and the consistency between the two stances, within the Catholic tradition – but there is also strategy to consider…

think that they do. As an atheist I nominally supported abortion and would say such things as “I don’t personally support abortion, but as a male it’s not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body.” I certainly did not think of a fetus as a human life and I did not consider it as having the rights ascribed to other humans - but when I actually did hear a strongly stated pro-life argument, I realized that I could not reconcile humanism and a pro-abortion stance.

It’s a mess of an issue, though this may be a cop-out on my part. If it is criminalized, will it happen anyway, and less safely for the women involved? Yes and yes. Will more women die? Probably – not that it is the moral responsibility of those who criminalized abortion; but, pragmatically, it is very likely that they will, and it’s quite likely that the majority of citizens (in the U.S., for example) would find that pragmatically unacceptable. Many men would be concerned about their women; many parents would be concerned for their teenaged daughters (including in cases where their daughter sought an abortion without their knowledge); women would be concerned for themselves.

 

[Portofino]

actually we are talking about something that is primary from the beginning of life

it is the elaboration of that initial love-light-sound-touch-now emerging from God’s being as He creates us, that results in the complexity of this entire universe of experience that is our unique self-in-the-world

it is difficult to seriously talk to those who support abortion as an option, when they do not get the basics straight

That is a beautiful and poetic way of describing ensoulment… I think the challenge is to take that into the public sphere, which is so much based on pragmatism. I suppose what it usually gets translated into it is that life begins at conception, even though a Catholic would very much want to be able to say (in a public forum) that a fetus is a creation of God and possesses a soul.

 

[polytropos]

No abortion nor contraception – yes, that’s a tough sell, pragmatically speaking I know that a Catholic can’t, while condemning abortion, condone contraception, but I think (strategically) it may be more effective to focus on no abortions, as opposed to “absolutely no abortion and absolutely no contraception.”

It’s just that opposition to the latter – which is, indeed, not directly murder, in the sense that abortion would be – is bound to alienate people and may, by implication, be used to try to discredit the anti-abortion stance (not logically, by through association). Usage of condoms may be many things, but it is not murder (no more than an adolescent who masturbates is a murderer). In the most direct, pragmatic sense, there is no moral equivalency there (even if, on a more philosophical level, one could argue that the two feed into each other).

I get the logic interrelationship between the two, philosophically – and the consistency between the two stances, within the Catholic tradition – but there is also strategy to consider…

Indeed, the outlawing of both abortion and contraception is very hypothetical. I am doubtful that abortion will be outlawed (although it seems possible). I am just about certain that contraception will never be outlawed.

But the strategy definitely is to target what can fall. Even in the case of abortion, it makes a lot of sense politically not to oppose abortion in the case of rape and incest because it sours the rest of the argument in the public eye. Those cases are still, in my opinion, murder, but at the very least there is a whole other set of counterarguments that proponents of abortion can make against them.

It’s a mess of an issue, though this may be a cop-out on my part. If it is criminalized, will it happen anyway, and less safely for the women involved? Yes and yes. Will more women die? Probably – not that it is the moral responsibility of those who criminalized abortion; but, pragmatically, it is very likely that they will, and it’s quite likely that the majority of citizens (in the U.S., for example) would find that pragmatically unacceptable. Many men would be concerned about their women; many parents would be concerned for their teenaged daughters (including in cases where their daughter sought an abortion without their knowledge); women would be concerned for themselves.

I don’t think that there would be “coat-hanger” abortions in dark alley ways, but there would probably be a lot more illegal clinics like Kermit Gosnell’s. I imagine there would be doctors who would go on practicing them.

 

[clem456]

It’s like being in love.

I can tell you why I’m in love with my wife, but it won’t make you fall in love, but when you do fall in love with someone, you will see the truth of my love, as well as your own.

I love this.
So often discussion about faith is discussed as if it were some sort of formula or logical construct. Faith cannot make sense without accepting that it is a relationship with a personal God. This is why trying to convince atheists of the logic of God’s existence is usually fruitless. Faith is primarily relational, involving trust and other hard to define things, and then it can also be reasonable. But if faith is not seen as a relationship with someone other than yourself (God), no amount of convincing will suffice.

 

[clem456]

Here is a work that sheds light on the credulity of the masses in the Roman Empire. This piece was written by a PhD. in Ancient History at Columbia University:
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.htmlinfidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

"We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context. Yet it is quite enlightening to examine them against the background of the time and place in which they were written, and my goal here is to help you do just that. There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously.

If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson believed when he composed his own version of the gospels, Jesus may have been an entirely different person than the Gospels tell us, since the supernatural and other facts about him, even some of his parables or moral sayings, could easily have been added or exaggerated by unreliable witnesses or storytellers. Thus, this essay is not about whether Jesus was real or how much of what we are told about him is true. It is not even about Jesus. Rather, this essay is a warning and a standard, by which we can assess how likely or easily what we are told about Jesus may be false or exaggerated, and how little we can trust anyone who claims to be a witness of what he said and did…"

So, in other words, the author will assume that any history about Jesus is invalid, because the author accepts other history as valid that tangentially argues against miracles, that quacks etc abounded in Jesus’ times. And he knows that for sure cause well, he says so, or someone he knows says so, or he researched it somewhere. But the events of Jesus’ life, which shaped history more than any other events ever in the history of mankind? No, he can’t accept those as true.

 

[Portofino]

But the strategy definitely is to target what can fall. Even in the case of abortion, it makes a lot of sense politically not to oppose abortion in the case of rape and incest because it sours the rest of the argument in the public eye.

Yes, it’s a common strategy – “this guy wants to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest, or to save the life of the mother!”

It seems as if the pro-life lawmakers are focused on trying to introduce more practically-minded limitations to abortion (waiting period; not after 20 weeks; requirement to view an ultrasound). This pragmatism is understandable; it is comparable to the pragmatism of pacifists, who – accepting that they cannot abolish wars entirely – at least want to try to make it as humane as possible. Henry Dunant, the Founder of the Red Cross, was – if I’m not mistaken – a great influence on the Geneva Convention, and participated in caring for wounded soldiers regardless of the uniform they wore. But some pacifists felt that he was harming the cause of pacifism, by accepting war as a reality and focusing on trying to improve the conditions under which it is waged.

I agree that contraception probably will never become illegal in the U.S. or in Europe; it would be almost like a society that makes it illegal to commit sin, period (which is, in its own way, what seems to be the conception, no pun intended, in places like Iran).

From what I understand, even for Paul VI to allow “natural family planning” was considered an acknowledgement of “contraceptive practices” (deliberately engaging in intercourse with the intention of trying not to get pregnant, even though one is open to the possibility that it could happen anyway). I do realize that the phrase “artificial contraception” is used very deliberately, in distinction to the “natural contraception” of abstinence and the rhythm method. Unlike with the abortion debate, though, there were actually voices within the Vatican itself, who advocated for coming to terms with the “reality of artificial conception.” And there are many more Catholic couples that have used artificial birth control – at one time or another – than have had an abortion.

 

[nmgauss]

So, in other words, the author will assume that any history about Jesus is invalid, because the author accepts other history as valid that tangentially argues against miracles, that quacks etc abounded in Jesus’ times. And he knows that for sure cause well, he says so, or someone he knows says so, or he researched it somewhere. But the events of Jesus’ life, which shaped history more than any other events ever in the history of mankind? No, he can’t accept those as true.

The only historical material on Jesus appears briefly in the Gospels. How reliable are they? Historicity evaluates the value of the Gospels from a standpoint of accurate history, but they were not written as historical documents. Their purpose was to serve in spreading the teachings of Jesus. Whether or not they are accurate made no difference. Their value in spreading Christianity was all that mattered.

So, if some propaganda was inserted that was a distortion of the actual events or was a complete fabrication, why would anyone care? It is this uncertainty that has thrown doubt upon the Gospels as a source of history. In contrast Josephus was a noted scholar of the day, who strived to write history. His writings are valued as historical documents, not propaganda.

 

[clem456]

The only historical material on Jesus appears briefly in the Gospels. How reliable are they? Historicity evaluates the value of the Gospels from a standpoint of accurate history, but they were not written as historical documents. Their purpose was to serve in spreading the teachings of Jesus. Whether or not they are accurate made no difference. Their value in spreading Christianity was all that mattered.

So, if some propaganda was inserted that was a distortion of the actual events or was a complete fabrication, why would anyone care? It is this uncertainty that has thrown doubt upon the Gospels as a source of history. In contrast Josephus was a noted scholar of the day, who strived to write history. His writings are valued as historical documents, not propaganda.

1. Propagandists don’t create heroes who fail miserably at liberating the people who are writing about him. They create heroes who are heroes, people who promise to get things done…win wars, pass laws, create nations. The Gospels present the suffering and humble king who saves people by his own death, and asks them to follow him, which at that time was a unique presentation in human history, probably because it iseems like such a foolsih idea.
2. They don’t create phantasmagoric scenes of miracles. Propaganda is presented as reasonable, so the hearer may have noi obstacles to belief. The events of the Gospel are nonsensical without the eyes of faith
3. Propaganda appeals to emotions and desires, nationalism, political gain, success. The Gospels ask for detachment, death to one’s self.
4. Propaganists don’t espouse things which they know will get them and others in their movement killed. Rather they write for selfish gain.
   Remember, the Gospels were written at a time when Christianity was not in vogue. Christ had risen and still no results, decades later. Why would any fool continue the charade when propagating this story meant suffereing and death, not power or gain?

 

[Abu]

There is no reliable challenge to the historicity of the Gospels.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=62