TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God
Pages (25): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »

quote:

Originally posted by mr.bison so it could be likely?

Sure, but is that a reason to believe it?

It is also quite likely that in Wellton Town lives a family with two children named Johnson. There is still no reason to conclude it. The possibility in itself - or even the likelihood - is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker It seems a great deal of atheists have a pejorative regard for people who don't see the world as they do.

Wrong. faith creates erroneous actions. It's not about seeing the world the same way, it's about not fooling yourself and believing things without evidence, because it is directly harmful.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Huh.

And huh to you.

We do not know if natural laws, such as action-reaction arose from the Big Bang or whether they are constants outside time and space. Experiences of how the universe works now is useless when we're talking about a time before the universe came into being. There are discussions in scientific circles about whether some constants would be the same in another universe.

Moreover, the big killer: If everything requires a beginning, it helps absolutely nothing to put a god into the equation, because he (she?) also requires a beginning, and who then created god?

quote:

Originally posted by Znack And huh to you. We do not know if natural laws, such as action-reaction arose from the Big Bang or whether they are constants outside time and space. Experiences of how the universe works now is useless when we're talking about a time before the universe came into being. There are discussions in scientific circles about whether some constants would be the same in another universe. Moreover, the big killer: If everything requires a beginning, it helps absolutely nothing to put a god into the equation, because he (she?) also requires a beginning, and who then created god?

Unless you have any evidence whatsoever, there's simply no use talking about it.

Unless you'd also like to recognize why many theoretical physicists are extremely spiritual.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack There is actually no evidence that Jesus ever lived as an ordinary, non-divine human either. Of course it is possible that a teacher/carpenter named Yeshu was around in Palestine shortly after the year 0, but there is no reason to believe it.

What's the word on those writings from the historian Josephus (spelling?) that mention Jesus? I know it's fairly well-accepted that the addition of the words "who was called the Christ" were edited in by someone else, but what about the mention in the first place?

Didn't see it; didn't happen!

I was meditating and I found God... (thankful) I was lost... but know I'm Found.

quote:

Originally posted by chlola I was meditating and I found God... (thankful) I was lost... but know I'm Found.

I was meditating and I found Santa... (when I was 6) Same thing.

Negative.

i just watched ben hur the other day.. fucking love that movie!

so awesome.

This never gets old.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin This never gets old.

I've seen it a million times before but...

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Unless you have any evidence whatsoever, there's simply no use talking about it.

It's in a way an argument in my direction. If you may not speak without evidence, anyone who believes in the alternative, ghosts and gods should remain silent.

- Not because I agree with that. I would like to hear peoples opinions and why they believe things without evidence.

quote:

Unless you'd also like to recognize why many theoretical physicists are extremely spiritual.

I would then like to acknowledge why some are: They lack critical thinking in one area. Intelligence in terms of theoretical physics is not the same as intelligence regarding the spiritual. What you are trying to do here is called an appeal to authority - "An intelligent person believes x, therefore you should believe it to - or therefore it is Intelligent to believe it to". This is wrong and it is of course clearly revealed by the fact that many scientists are not believers, including the two greatest minds in recent times, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam What's the word on those writings from the historian Josephus (spelling?) that mention Jesus? I know it's fairly well-accepted that the addition of the words "who was called the Christ" were edited in by someone else, but what about the mention in the first place?

Firstly, Josephus was born around year 37, after Jesus was supposed to be dead - and his book, Antiquitates Judaica, was written in the year 93 or 94 - Thus even farther off. Josephus therefore could not experience Jesus himself, and must have his stories from a different source - which quite likely could be a Christian who passed on the fictional story of Jesus.
- What we need in order to talk about historical evidence of Jesus' existence, are eyewitness accounts from historians or others who are not already believers in the story - and there are none. All stories about Jesus are written by people who lived after his death. In most cases, long after.

Secondly Josephus mentions the resurrection in his first passage - but Josephus himself was a jew to his death. If he really believed that Jesus was divine and resurrected, would he then not himself have been converted to the new Christianity? That part rather suggests that he was forced or pressured to write it, or that it is inserted into the text later.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Firstly, Josephus was born around year 37, after Jesus was supposed to be dead - and his book, Antiquitates Judaica, was written in the year 93 or 94 - Thus even farther off. Josephus therefore could not experience Jesus himself, and must have his stories from a different source - which quite likely could be a Christian who passed on the fictional story of Jesus. - What we need in order to talk about historical evidence of Jesus' existence, are eyewitness accounts from historians or others who are not already believers in the story - and there are none. All stories about Jesus are written by people who lived after his death. In most cases, long after. Secondly Josephus mentions the resurrection in his first passage - but Josephus himself was a jew to his death. If he really believed that Jesus was divine and resurrected, would he then not himself have been converted to the new Christianity? That part rather suggests that he was forced or pressured to write it, or that it is inserted into the text later.

Cool, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack There is actually no evidence that Jesus ever lived as an ordinary, non-divine human either. Of course it is possible that a teacher/carpenter named Yeshu was around in Palestine shortly after the year 0, but there is no reason to believe it.

I'm sorry but the argument that there is no physical evidence or contemporary written accounts of Jesus as a historical figure equates to no reason to believe such a person existed shows very narrow thinking. It stands to reason that there would be nothing written about him in his life time, as during his lifetime he would have been a largely insigificant person... a working class person (note: tekton means maker of things, not necessarally carpenter... in fact carpenter is unlikely as that would have been a middle class occupation at the time and Jesus was most certainly a working class person), teaching to working class people, over a period of roughly three years, and doing nothing that would attract the attention of anyone until causing a slight disturbance in the temple and being executed for same a couple of days later. He was a wondering teacher in a time of wondering teachers. He would not have been viewed as anything special to his contemporaries other then those that actually followed him. Given that there were no news papers, and few of the people that paid any mind to this particular wondering teacher would have known how to write it only stands to reason that there would be no contemporary physical record. Hell, Pontius Pilate was one of the most powerful people in region and there has only been one contempory physical record of his existance found. It would be shocking if there was contemporary physical evidence of this person.

If nothing else the Jesus of the bible is a character of legend, legends are often based on some truth... in this case I would suggest that it's reasonable to assume there was a wondering teacher in Galalie and Judea by the name Yeshua in the first half of the first century CE. I would also suggest it is probable that he was executed. Most scholars would agree with that.

I don't doubt that there was a "jesus" somewhere around 2000 years ago.

On the other hand, when he was recognized as being divine... Thats a bit hard to figure out, and it was probably most likely after his death. His death was used as martyrdom and as a way to gain followers to a religion that opposed the Romans.

Telling people with little to no clue on anything beyond their plot of land that the Romans killed the son of God is a pretty good way to get people to follow you...

The idea of his virgin birth, mother mary, etc, all were formed as part of the cult of personality around him after his death. Its almost the same as North Koreans believing that the dear leader was born on a mountain top and is divine himself... You get a bunch of people that have no idea about the world outside of what they have been told by people in much higher power and its easy to control them.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I don't doubt that there was a "jesus" somewhere around 2000 years ago. On the other hand, when he was recognized as being divine... Thats a bit hard to figure out, and it was probably most likely after his death. His death was used as martyrdom and as a way to gain followers to a religion that opposed the Romans. Telling people with little to no clue on anything beyond their plot of land that the Romans killed the son of God is a pretty good way to get people to follow you... The idea of his virgin birth, mother mary, etc, all were formed as part of the cult of personality around him after his death. Its almost the same as North Koreans believing that the dear leader was born on a mountain top and is divine himself... You get a bunch of people that have no idea about the world outside of what they have been told by people in much higher power and its easy to control them.

Hard to say exactly when he became believed to be divine. There is a pretty clear bent in the teachings ascribed to him that much of what he was teaching was that there is divinity in all people. Whether people at the time thought he was god/part of god/son of god is hard to say; however, Paul refers to him as the son of god in several letters (not through conception mind you but through being chosen by god to be born again in resurection). Given that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus (although never met him) and was introduced to Christianity through Peter it is fair to conclude that Jesus' closest compatriates believed him to be divine.

While your argument that telling people Rome killed the messiah would act as good fodder to get people to join in an uprising against Rome makes sence it actually stands in stark opposition to historical fact. The Christians were largely neutral in the Jewish rebellions against Rome (granted; it is probable that many Christians who had converted from Judism sided with the Jews whereas many of the Gentiles would have stayed non-commital... the early church - such as it were - as a whole did not choose sides). In addition, the gospels shifted the blame for the execution of Jesus to the Jews rather then the Romans... Mark (the earliest and likely writen before or during the Jewish rebellion) does not suggest blame on either side and simply reports that he was turned over to Rome by the Jews and executed by Rome; whereas, John (writen 15-30 years later) goes so far as to say Pilate and Jesus had a theological discussion and Pilate urges the Jews to let him go (and flat out blames them for his execution). So while I see how your suggestion could make sense it stands in direct opposition to the fact that early Christianity was not a revolutionary movement.

With regard to the virgin birth; more than anything it is likely this evolved due to the influence of Greek mythology and a misinterpretation of Matthew and Luke in which the greek word used to describe Mary can be interpreted to latin as either virgin or young woman. One thing that is certain; however, is that early Christian tradition considered Jesus to be born of human parents through the normal means not a human mother and divine father.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Paul refers to him as the son of god in several letters

The phrase "son of god" had multiple meanings in Jewish culture. It actually appears several times in the old testament to refer to other people such as kings or other military rulers, and obviously nobody back then took it literally to mean that God had a child. It was just an exalted title to emphasize the importance of someone.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The phrase "son of god" had multiple meanings in Jewish culture. It actually appears several times in the old testament to refer to other people such as kings or other military rulers, and obviously nobody back then took it literally to mean that God had a child. It was just an exalted title to emphasize the importance of someone.

indeed, the most common meaning of "son of God" amongst Jews at the time would have simply meant "Jew"; however, if you look at the context in Paul's letters it is probable that Paul's use of the phrase is actually meant to suggest Jesus was chosen by God as opposed to concieved by God.

edit; BTW, thanks for recommending Bart Ehrman to me. So far I'm enjoying his fairly balanced take on the non-canonical gospels. I also have two more of his books waiting in the wings for my next vacation.

cool, glad you enjoy his stuff. He gets a bad rap from some Christians because he is not a conservative, but I think he takes a fair and respectful approach to things.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt cool, glad you enjoy his stuff. He gets a bad rap from some Christians because he is not a conservative, but I think he takes a fair and respectful approach to things.

I'm a huge fan of looking at things in the proper context; understanding that the socio-political climate at the times the stories of the bible were commited to paper and later edited/translated influenced the product presently available for our consumption has a profound effect on what one can take from it (either from a theological or historical perspective). Ehrman does a good job at examining that context and giving suggestions on how that could have or has effected the evolution of Christianity, so it's right up my ally. Much of what I've read of his so far is not new to me but it is entertaining to revisit.

Edit: as you already know; some Christians are under the erred belief that any challenge to the orthodoxy is a challenge to the entire core of their faith... I'm not of that camp, in fact, I feel that exposing the errors at the fring strengthens the core.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Edit: as you already know; some Christians are under the erred belief that any challenge to the orthodoxy is a challenge to the entire core of their faith... I'm not of that camp, in fact, I feel that exposing the errors at the fring strengthens the core.

I've always known you were in this camp. Your stance (like Ehrman's) certainly more respectful to the original authors of these texts. Ehrman is so sympathetic to the gospel writers that he almost seems offended in Misquoting Jesus at the steps people take to rob them of their voice by insisting every book in the bible is saying the same thing. He calls efforts to reconcile every little discrepancy "doing violence" to the text, and he has much more respect for the NT than that. Using the historical critical approach allows one to gain a deeper understanding in many areas by respecting the voice of each human author who were doing the best they could in the time and place they were writing.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I've always known you were in this camp. Your stance (like Ehrman's) certainly more respectful to the original authors of these texts. Ehrman is so sympathetic to the gospel writers that he almost seems offended in Misquoting Jesus at the steps people take to rob them of their voice by insisting every book in the bible is saying the same thing. He calls efforts to reconcile every little discrepancy "doing violence" to the text, and he has much more respect for the NT than that. Using the historical critical approach allows one to gain a deeper understanding in many areas by respecting the voice of each human author who were doing the best they could in the time and place they were writing.

Misquoting Jesus is actually the one I plan on reading next. Indeed, one needs to know that each of the Gospels were writen by a real person who had multiple motivations for writing their collection of the oral traditions surronding Jesus and different audiences. If one ignores this then they loose a lot of the meaning behind the stories. I've always try to look at the NT with three questions; what do the words say, what is the symbolic meaning, and what was the author trying to accomplish.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack It's in a way an argument in my direction. If you may not speak without evidence, anyone who believes in the alternative, ghosts and gods should remain silent. - Not because I agree with that. I would like to hear peoples opinions and why they believe things without evidence.

But the responsibility to never proceed without evidence is on those who exclusively adhere to the scientific method. People who might believe in the existence of the supernatural obviously don't tend to worry about that, as they are making faith-based assertions and projecting their confirmation bias given numerous authentic circumstances.

quote:

I would then like to acknowledge why some are: They lack critical thinking in one area. Intelligence in terms of theoretical physics is not the same as intelligence regarding the spiritual. What you are trying to do here is called an appeal to authority - "An intelligent person believes x, therefore you should believe it to - or therefore it is Intelligent to believe it to". This is wrong and it is of course clearly revealed by the fact that many scientists are not believers, including the two greatest minds in recent times, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

In what you suppose I am trying to do, you are in some way acknowledging yourself that theoretical physicists are an authority. After all, I wouldn't be appealing to them in argumentative faux pas, did I not hold the same sentiments, right? But then you turned around and appealed your argument to what you believe to be the greatest minds in recent times - obviously irrefutable authorities in the matter. Nice.

Anyway, it is my understanding that Einstein did indeed believe it was possible there was a God - albeit not the "Christian" god of authority or punishment, but the creator being of beauty and order through mathematics. Obviously not one worth praying to, unless you realize the fact that a life spent observing and calculating His creations and forces in a staggeringly non-chaotic universe, is simply another form of prayer and admonishment.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.