TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God and Evolution..
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by Bondor i think we should end this thread on that good note

haha



would be great but...
noo this thread can't die

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God and Evolution..

quote:

Originally posted by montie ...

Yes, those stories do become slightly more credible when you choose to not take them literally. However, I want to outline the difference between viewing them to be a metaphor, and claiming them to be a metaphor while quoting from them as though they actually happened. See, the drama in those stories causes "suspension of disbelief", much like watching a well-acted movie or play, and certain people, while they claim not to believe the story in its literal sense, still think of it that way.

I'd also like to point out that if you're willing to accept the Fall of Man as a parable, you should probably be willing to accept the parts about Jesus as parables too. Let's be honest here - it's pretty hard to swallow that God asexually impregnated Mary with some sort of alien baby who later turned out to have quasi-divine powers. It would make more sense to believe, perhaps, that he was an ordinary man who did great things for society but was still persecuted. Although I'd hesitate to believe even that - where's the proof of any of this?

The last part of your reply, while it may conveniently answer the questions I posed to a sufficient extent for devout Christians, is still in essence religious dogma and spoonfed precepts. I'm okay with you believing it, but there's no way I will without a lot of corroborating evidence.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God and Evolution..

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Yes, those stories do become slightly more credible when you choose to not take them literally. However, I want to outline the difference between viewing them to be a metaphor, and claiming them to be a metaphor while quoting from them as though they actually happened. See, the drama in those stories causes "suspension of disbelief", much like watching a well-acted movie or play, and certain people, while they claim not to believe the story in its literal sense, still think of it that way.

I'm not sure exactly what your saying here. Do you mean that people look at these like some sort of farytale which tries to explain the history of man or of mankinds condition, such as like a movie like the Matrix does?

quote:

I'd also like to point out that if you're willing to accept the Fall of Man as a parable, you should probably be willing to accept the parts about Jesus as parables too. Let's be honest here - it's pretty hard to swallow that God asexually impregnated Mary with some sort of alien baby who later turned out to have quasi-divine powers. It would make more sense to believe, perhaps, that he was an ordinary man who did great things for society but was still persecuted. Although I'd hesitate to believe even that - where's the proof of any of this?

You're quite right, it is very difficult to explain how mary was mysteriously impregnated and that Jesus had some sort of divine powers. There is no proof to justify or support any of this. Just as there is no proof to support the genesis story. Such is the area where people who are religous (at least in this case Catholics) put their faith. Blind as it may be.
But to your points about Jesus existing and being persecuted. There is much evidence from many other sources besides the Bible that Jesus did exist. It only makes sense from a historical perspective that someone started the break from judaism and thus began christianity. Jesus may have done great things for society but that didn't mean everyone loved him. Most jews hated him because he was a heretic. He broke their moral code by doing work on Sundays and by befriending "sinners" such as the prostitute Mary Magdelen. He made a point to support the rejects of society and for this he was scorned. He also threw a fit inside the Temple and ranted and raved about how the Hebrews had gone astray. The list of reasons that he was hated goes on and on.
He can also be thought of as what a cult leader is today. He befriended the weak and rejected and made them his followers, and showed them a new religon. I don't know any cult leaders that are well respected by society in general.

quote:

The last part of your reply, while it may conveniently answer the questions I posed to a sufficient extent for devout Christians, is still in essence religious dogma and spoonfed precepts. I'm okay with you believing it, but there's no way I will without a lot of corroborating evidence.

Haha I'm glad "You're OK with me believing it" that makes me feel alot better about myself but I never said I actually did belive it. Its just a conception of God I have thought about. I don't know what I believe. I have many ideas which are ever changing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God and Evolution..

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'd also like to point out that if you're willing to accept the Fall of Man as a parable, you should probably be willing to accept the parts about Jesus as parables too. Let's be honest here - it's pretty hard to swallow that God asexually impregnated Mary with some sort of alien baby who later turned out to have quasi-divine powers. It would make more sense to believe, perhaps, that he was an ordinary man who did great things for society but was still persecuted. Although I'd hesitate to believe even that - where's the proof of any of this?

I would just like to point out the differences between the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament make a big difference in how they can be percieved. The Old Testament was written however many thousands of thousands of years ago, and so its origins and actual meaning cannot be really proven or disproven at this point in time. However, the New Testament, where Jesus first appears, can be considered quite reliable and factual. There are something like 25,000 early manuscripts (dating from the first few centuries A.D.) of the New Testament existing today, the oldest from about 100 A.D. from Egypt, hundreds of miles from Asia minor where the New Testament is believed to have been written. Compare these with similar works written at the time, such as the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote The Annals of Rome around 116 A.D. The earliest surviving copy of this is from A.D. 850, over 700 years later, and yet this is accepted as quite historically accurate.

I know that now you will bring in the question of the reliablilty of the first manuscripts of the New Testament and how it should matter if there are thousands of existing copies of it today if the whole thing was based on a made up story of Jesus. I could understand this if the people writing the new Testament were gaining something personally for spreading the story of Jesus. I will point out, however, that the disciples of Jesus that were spreading Christianity and writing the books of the New Testament had much to lose and nothing to gain. They were persecuted for their beliefs and were hated by most everybody for what they were doing, and lived their lives on the road, with hardly any personal posessions and were eventually tortured and killed for their beliefs. Why would these people go through all this pain and suffering for a lie they made up? It just doesn't make any sense if you think about it.

One last thing, you might be thinking about how over time the manuscripts might be misread and miscopied after thousands and thousands of copyings and recopyings. This is also another common misconception. The thousands of copies spread across a quite large area including Europe, Asia, and some of the norhtern parts of Africa all match up with each other almost word for word, with only small mistakes such as word placement that don't change any of the meanings of the sentences. So, considering all of this, the New Testament is quite historically accurate.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God and Evolution..

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Let's be honest here - it's pretty hard to swallow that God asexually impregnated Mary ...

The Orthodox Church does not believe in the immaculate conception... At least not in the same sense that the Western Church does. I think it stems back to differing views on original sin.

Re: God and Evolution..

quote:

Originally posted by sherman I would just like to point out the differences between the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament make a big difference in how they can be percieved. The Old Testament was written however many thousands of thousands of years ago, and so its origins and actual meaning cannot be really proven or disproven at this point in time. However, the New Testament, where Jesus first appears, can be considered quite reliable and factual. There are something like 25,000 early manuscripts (dating from the first few centuries A.D.) of the New Testament existing today, the oldest from about 100 A.D. from Egypt, hundreds of miles from Asia minor where the New Testament is believed to have been written. Compare these with similar works written at the time, such as the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote The Annals of Rome around 116 A.D. The earliest surviving copy of this is from A.D. 850, over 700 years later, and yet this is accepted as quite historically accurate. I know that now you will bring in the question of the reliablilty of the first manuscripts of the New Testament and how it should matter if there are thousands of existing copies of it today if the whole thing was based on a made up story of Jesus. I could understand this if the people writing the new Testament were gaining something personally for spreading the story of Jesus. I will point out, however, that the disciples of Jesus that were spreading Christianity and writing the books of the New Testament had much to lose and nothing to gain. They were persecuted for their beliefs and were hated by most everybody for what they were doing, and lived their lives on the road, with hardly any personal posessions and were eventually tortured and killed for their beliefs. Why would these people go through all this pain and suffering for a lie they made up? It just doesn't make any sense if you think about it. One last thing, you might be thinking about how over time the manuscripts might be misread and miscopied after thousands and thousands of copyings and recopyings. This is also another common misconception. The thousands of copies spread across a quite large area including Europe, Asia, and some of the norhtern parts of Africa all match up with each other almost word for word, with only small mistakes such as word placement that don't change any of the meanings of the sentences. So, considering all of this, the New Testament is quite historically accurate.

Now hang on a minute... absolutely nothing you've said can prove its historical accuracy.

As montie himself said, Jesus was a cult leader. Every cult leader has much to lose, but they certainly do NOT have nothing to gain! They have followers to gain. And in the case of a severely hierarchical religion like Christianity, the "leaders" had a lot to gain by controlling the masses. Christians forced conversions. There's no denying the occurrence of this throughout history. If they forced conversions, they obviously had something to gain. Okay, perhaps the people who wrote the new testament had nothing to gain directly, but they were followers of the Christian leaders (we'll call him/them Jesus if you like), and they just did what they were told because they thought they feared going to hell otherwise.

Just because copies of the New Testament are consistent, doesn't make them accurate. There's a world of difference between the two. I cannot and will not accept the New Testament as a history book without corroborating evidence from other non-religious history books. Proving motivation for a set of actions ("they had nothing to gain") does not prove the partaking of those actions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God and Evolution..

quote:

Originally posted by montie I'm not sure exactly what your saying here. Do you mean that people look at these like some sort of farytale which tries to explain the history of man or of mankinds condition, such as like a movie like the Matrix does?

Sort of. Think of it this way. There are those of us who never saw the Matrix, those of us who saw it and thought "bah... rubbish", and those of us who saw it and think "that's kind of cool, I wonder if there's more to reality than we know about it." Now imagine another sect of people who watch the movie every day and start praying to the God Neo for having liberated us from the evil machines in ancient history.

There are people who take the "Fall of Man" literally, just like those who believe Noah's Ark actually existed. Not everybody does, but some people do, and some people do but say they don't. Those are the people I'm reflecting on here.

Now, the rest of your post I agree with, for the most part... I mean it could well have happened that way. Except that Judaism prohibits work on Saturdays, not Sundays. Other than that, I've got nothing to argue against there.

quote:

Haha I'm glad "You're OK with me believing it" that makes me feel alot better about myself

Oh and I'm sorry for the implication of that... I just meant to say that if people want to believe that, it's none of my business to tell them they're wrong - I just don't want to hear them telling me they're right.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Now hang on a minute... absolutely nothing you've said can prove its historical accuracy. As montie himself said, Jesus was a cult leader. Every cult leader has much to lose, but they certainly do NOT have nothing to gain! They have followers to gain. And in the case of a severely hierarchical religion like Christianity, the "leaders" had a lot to gain by controlling the masses. Christians forced conversions. There's no denying the occurrence of this throughout history. If they forced conversions, they obviously had something to gain. Okay, perhaps the people who wrote the new testament had nothing to gain directly, but they were followers of the Christian leaders (we'll call him/them Jesus if you like), and they just did what they were told because they thought they feared going to hell otherwise. Just because copies of the New Testament are consistent, doesn't make them accurate. There's a world of difference between the two. I cannot and will not accept the New Testament as a history book without corroborating evidence from other non-religious history books. Proving motivation for a set of actions ("they had nothing to gain") does not prove the partaking of those actions.

DigiNut, if you will please try and listen to someone else's arguments for once instead of just trying to put everything together how you have already decided from the start, just hear me out. In my post I was talking about the original church leaders, Jesus' original disciples, not the later "Christians" who were just using the religion for their own gains. Do you really think that the earlist church leaders would go from place to place preaching, knowing full well that every time they spoke out they risked torture and death if they knew the basis of their beliefs was a sham? Would this really give them enough incentive to try to gather followers? Obviously they didn't care about money or prestige since they were all eventually tortured and then died, all of them basically penniless. I would think that this would give you an idea that they weren't just doing this because they themselves wanted followers, but because they truly had reason to believe that Jesus was the son of God. And since they had been with him constantly for many years and knew him very well, do you not think that they had good reason to believe these things? I personally don't see how you could believe that these people would be in constant danger and eventually die painful deaths for something they knew to be false, just so that they could gain a few followers. That just seems like too much work with little or no gain for something that could be done much more easily without risk to their lives for speaking directly against the church of the day.

quote:

Originally posted by sherman DigiNut, if you will please try and listen to someone else's arguments for once instead of just trying to put everything together how you have already decided from the start, just hear me out. In my post I was talking about the original church leaders, Jesus' original disciples, not the later "Christians" who were just using the religion for their own gains. Do you really think that the earlist church leaders would go from place to place preaching, knowing full well that every time they spoke out they risked torture and death if they knew the basis of their beliefs was a sham? Would this really give them enough incentive to try to gather followers? Obviously they didn't care about money or prestige since they were all eventually tortured and then died, all of them basically penniless. I would think that this would give you an idea that they weren't just doing this because they themselves wanted followers, but because they truly had reason to believe that Jesus was the son of God. And since they had been with him constantly for many years and knew him very well, do you not think that they had good reason to believe these things? I personally don't see how you could believe that these people would be in constant danger and eventually die painful deaths for something they knew to be false, just so that they could gain a few followers. That just seems like too much work with little or no gain for something that could be done much more easily without risk to their lives for speaking directly against the church of the day.

What makes you think they knew the basis of their beliefs was a sham? Besides which... when did I even say that it was a sham?

Once again, I'll point you to the fact that motivation is not an argument when talking about cultism.

Destructive Religious Cults

P.S. The personal comment was not necessary. I refuted your argument - my "agenda", whatever you think that may be, is unimportant in this context.

quote:

Originally posted by sherman DigiNut, if you will please try and listen to someone else's arguments for once instead of just trying to put everything together how you have already decided from the start, just hear me out. In my post I was talking about the original church leaders, Jesus' original disciples, not the later "Christians" who were just using the religion for their own gains. Do you really think that the earlist church leaders would go from place to place preaching, knowing full well that every time they spoke out they risked torture and death if they knew the basis of their beliefs was a sham? Would this really give them enough incentive to try to gather followers? Obviously they didn't care about money or prestige since they were all eventually tortured and then died, all of them basically penniless. I would think that this would give you an idea that they weren't just doing this because they themselves wanted followers, but because they truly had reason to believe that Jesus was the son of God. And since they had been with him constantly for many years and knew him very well, do you not think that they had good reason to believe these things? I personally don't see how you could believe that these people would be in constant danger and eventually die painful deaths for something they knew to be false, just so that they could gain a few followers. That just seems like too much work with little or no gain for something that could be done much more easily without risk to their lives for speaking directly against the church of the day.

I agree with you here mate. The early church leadears and deciples of Jesus fully believed in what Jesus had taught.
Just going back to my comparison of Jesus to a modern day cult leader. Most fo the followers are devout to the beliefs of their cult, many have even commited suicide thinking that would bring salvation, as many of the first christians died believing they were martyrs. They did believe they had something to gain, their salvation.
The early church was much much different than what it evolved into. Early christians were persecuted and thought of as "pussys" because they were mostly pacifists. As Jesus had taught forgiveness and that revenge was a sin. It wasn't until the roman emperor Constantine (i think it was him) converted to christianity (for political reasons and because his mother or wife had converted I don't remember which), did Catholicism start to develop into what it is today.
Then with the reformation, you have the development of the fanatical Christians.
There is alot of historical events in the New Testament that can be backed up by evidence. The miracles and revelations and such are of course up to debate as those are personal accounts and don't have any proof backing them.
Also the last book, Revelations, was actually just a political satyr about the emporor Nero who burned down Rome because he wanted to rebuild alot of the city and blamed it on the Christians.

quote:

Sort of. Think of it this way. There are those of us who never saw the Matrix, those of us who saw it and thought "bah... rubbish", and those of us who saw it and think "that's kind of cool, I wonder if there's more to reality than we know about it." Now imagine another sect of people who watch the movie every day and start praying to the God Neo for having liberated us from the evil machines in ancient history. There are people who take the "Fall of Man" literally, just like those who believe Noah's Ark actually existed. Not everybody does, but some people do, and some people do but say they don't. Those are the people I'm reflecting on here. Now, the rest of your post I agree with, for the most part... I mean it could well have happened that way. Except that Judaism prohibits work on Saturdays, not Sundays. Other than that, I've got nothing to argue against there.

Ah yeah I get what you mean on the matrix thing. I can see, and have seen examples of people thinking like that. (on a side note, the whiczowski brothers took alot from ancient theology and philsophy when they wrote the matrix)

quote:

Oh and I'm sorry for the implication of that... I just meant to say that if people want to believe that, it's none of my business to tell them they're wrong - I just don't want to hear them telling me they're right.

No worries. I never was trying to say I was right. How can I? I don't even know what I believe.
But I know what you mean, I find pretensious religous zealots who try to push their views on people very annoying. You gotta ignore them, don't fuel their fire. Even if you do debunk their arguement (which normally isn't hard), they aren't gonna stop.

I think saying that Jesus did it for the followers is slightly ludicrous. Walking around impoverished and un armed in enemy territory preaching against the status-quo would be sheer folly, there is nothing to gain in reality.

All of them were persecuted tortured, and I beleive only 1 disciple lived. Being crucified, being crucified upside down (His CHOICE, he said he didnt deserve to die like Jesus, so they hung him upside down. You think at that point he would be trying to gain still?) being put into kettles without water and being heated over fires to death are the least among the ways the followers of Jesus were destroyed. The Romans werent known for their friendly nature.

Jesus himself was lashed 40 times, dragged to the site, crucified, embalmed, smothered, and drowned (in that order, unless you believe he died on the cross in which case it ends there, but still...)

None of them became rich for their beliefs, or popular among non-christians. Any benefit argument is, again, ludicrous. Unless you think Jesus and all of his followers were madmen, in which case they wouldnt be good moral leaders. So if you think that they brought no decent morality to the table, i guess you can say that they were all crazy, and who knows why crazy people do anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I think saying that Jesus did it for the followers is slightly ludicrous. Walking around impoverished and un armed in enemy territory preaching against the status-quo would be sheer folly, there is nothing to gain in reality. All of them were persecuted tortured, and I beleive only 1 disciple lived. Being crucified, being crucified upside down (His CHOICE, he said he didnt deserve to die like Jesus, so they hung him upside down. You think at that point he would be trying to gain still?) being put into kettles without water and being heated over fires to death are the least among the ways the followers of Jesus were destroyed. The Romans werent known for their friendly nature. Jesus himself was lashed 40 times, dragged to the site, crucified, embalmed, smothered, and drowned (in that order, unless you believe he died on the cross in which case it ends there, but still...) None of them became rich for their beliefs, or popular among non-christians. Any benefit argument is, again, ludicrous. Unless you think Jesus and all of his followers were madmen, in which case they wouldnt be good moral leaders. So if you think that they brought no decent morality to the table, i guess you can say that they were all crazy, and who knows why crazy people do anything.

Circular reasoning. You're using this to prove that biblical records of this time are historically accurate, and using the biblical records to show that this happened.

I believe that some of his followers may have been tortured or killed or persecuted, but they believed that they would achieve eternal happiness. They believed that their lives meant nothing. That's what a cult is. That's why even modern-day cults commit suicide and go through other kinds of weird torture.

Incidentally, I never did say that Jesus did it for the followers. I said that there is only minimal solid evidence that there ever was a Jesus, and even less evidence on who he was or what he did. As far as I'm concerned, if he existed, he was an average cult leader.

Jesus-preaching is among the worst of preaching for me... you have to understand that only Christians (and Christian derivatives) believe in this. At least Creationism isn't faith-specific, all kinds of different religions believe that there was a god-like Creator. But Jesus? Meh, don't ever hope to get a positive response from me on that one.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Circular reasoning. You're using this to prove that biblical records of this time are historically accurate, and using the biblical records to show that this happened. I believe that some of his followers may have been tortured or killed or persecuted, but they believed that they would achieve eternal happiness. They believed that their lives meant nothing. That's what a cult is. That's why even modern-day cults commit suicide and go through other kinds of weird torture. Incidentally, I never did say that Jesus did it for the followers. I said that there is only minimal solid evidence that there ever was a Jesus, and even less evidence on who he was or what he did. As far as I'm concerned, if he existed, he was an average cult leader.

i wasnt saying anything to the historical accuracy, im just saying if true>they had nothing to gain (except salvation, which is basically a grenade jumper theory, and if u believe that nothing Ill say is gonna really mean anything).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Circular reasoning. You're using this to prove that biblical records of this time are historically accurate, and using the biblical records to show that this happened.

It looks like you are using circular reasoning also to prove Jesus did not exist and that the early christians started their religon for
personal gain

quote:

I believe that some of his followers may have been tortured or killed or persecuted, but they believed that they would achieve eternal happiness. They believed that their lives meant nothing. That's what a cult is. That's why even modern-day cults commit suicide and go through other kinds of weird torture. Incidentally, I never did say that Jesus did it for the followers. I said that there is only minimal solid evidence that there ever was a Jesus, and even less evidence on who he was or what he did. As far as I'm concerned, if he existed, he was an average cult leader. Jesus-preaching is among the worst of preaching for me... you have to understand that only Christians (and Christian derivatives) believe in this. At least Creationism isn't faith-specific, all kinds of different religions believe that there was a god-like Creator.

There is much evidence from many other sources besides the Bible that Jesus was a historical figure. In fact I remember learning about reading about the historical account of Jesus in several history books (not religiously biased, if you can say any history book is unbiased )
As I said earlier, someone had to start the religon. Yes the 12 Apostles did it, but Jesus gathered them and they continued to spread the word. Just like Muhammed was for Islam (there are even accounts of Jesus in the Koran, he is thought of as a misguided prophet by Muslims) or Siddhartha was for Budhism. And I don't think Jesus put himself through shit for personal gain. There are no accounts i know of him living luxoriously. I'm pretty sure they did what they did because they firmly believed in what they were teaching. Hell the guy thought he was the son of God, if someone went around today doing that they would be put in an insane asylum.
Also remember christianity was not an organized religon until 200-300 years after Jesus's death. Not until Constantine adopted it. Already after it had started, there were different sects arising cuz it spread and people adopted it and incorporated their own religons into it.
But all this motivation and religous mumbojumbo is of course debateable. Everyone has their own ideas, and put faith where they see fit (or how they were spoonfed and told to).
I just think it is silly to argue the actual physical existance of Jesus and if he was the person who started Christianity. Now his motivation is of course arguable.

quote:

But Jesus? Meh, don't ever hope to get a positive response from me on that one.

Haha your being as stuborn as Orbax was

quote:

Originally posted by montie Haha your being as stuborn as Orbax was

meh?

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax meh?

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax i wasnt saying anything to the historical accuracy, im just saying if true>they had nothing to gain (except salvation, which is basically a grenade jumper theory, and if u believe that nothing Ill say is gonna really mean anything).

I'm not sure what you mean by "grenade jumper", but isn't salvation the ultimate aim of every religious man?

Also, there's no need to make it so black-and-white in terms of what they had to lose or gain... a lot of cultists really are fanatical believers regardless of where it gets them in life. People are impressionable, often looking for something to latch onto, and religion is often the answer because it's a convenient one.

Christianity took all of Judaism's enigmatic mysteries and made them easier for the masses to swallow - it did away with the strange laws on fabric and kashrut, and instead of basing the entire religion around an imperceptible deity, it gave a physical persona, a "demigod" if you will. It wasn't hard to convert those Jews who weren't already orthodox and rigid in their beliefs.

Might I remind you, Orbax, that Jews have been persecuted throughout history, far longer than Christians ever were, and yet the religion is still around today. If we are to believe all the old religious books, they were persecuted ever since they broke off from Paganism. I doubt if that implies that there's anything inherently special or correct about the religion, just a very strong adherence to one's lineage and tradition.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm not sure what you mean by "grenade jumper", but isn't salvation the ultimate aim of every religious man? Also, there's no need to make it so black-and-white in terms of what they had to lose or gain... a lot of cultists really are fanatical believers regardless of where it gets them in life. People are impressionable, often looking for something to latch onto, and religion is often the answer because it's a convenient one. Christianity took all of Judaism's enigmatic mysteries and made them easier for the masses to swallow - it did away with the strange laws on fabric and kashrut, and instead of basing the entire religion around an imperceptible deity, it gave a physical persona, a "demigod" if you will. It wasn't hard to convert those Jews who weren't already orthodox and rigid in their beliefs. Might I remind you, Orbax, that Jews have been persecuted throughout history, far longer than Christians ever were, and yet the religion is still around today. If we are to believe all the old religious books, they were persecuted ever since they broke off from Paganism. I doubt if that implies that there's anything inherently special or correct about the religion, just a very strong adherence to one's lineage and tradition.

yeah good point, hehe.

grenade jumpers work on pleasure principle, saying that every human act is based on getting pleasure back and making yourself feel good about what you are doing. The argument to that is when a grenade gets thrown into a trench and there is 2 seconds before it blows up, a soldier will throw himself on it to save his comrades. Pleasure principalists say he did that because of that 1 second feeling of "i totally saved their lives, YES!"

Faith can be a very powerful thing, no doubt. Religion isnt always logical, usually emotional, and always powerful. The belief of later gain/pleasure kind of has roots in the Epicureans, but on more of a spiritual level. After a 12 hour day and a Duvel though, i cant put too much thought into it at the moment hehe Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Christianity took all of Judaism's enigmatic mysteries and made them easier for the masses to swallow - it did away with the strange laws on fabric and kashrut, and instead of basing the entire religion around an imperceptible deity, it gave a physical persona, a "demigod" if you will. It wasn't hard to convert those Jews who weren't already orthodox and rigid in their beliefs.

And it made this "new judaism" available to the gentiles.
I think most of the rigid orthodox jews would have stuck to judaism and have been the ones for the killing of Jesus. Infact I think it was the Pharisees and the Saducees who were most for getting rid of Jesus in the New testament.
It would have been the more lower class jews or the ones who were more troubled who would have gone over to christianity, such as with people who join cults.

quote:

Originally posted by montie It looks like you are using circular reasoning also to prove Jesus did not exist and that the early christians started their religon for personal gain

This is not circular reasoning - I'm simply calling the validity of the "evidence" into question. The burden of proof on any historian is to prove their history is correct, not on their peers to prove otherwise.

quote:

I'm pretty sure they did what they did because they firmly believed in what they were teaching.

I think so too. The religious originators didn't have personal gain in mind, but the conversionists a few hundred years later undoubtedly did.

quote:

Hell the guy thought he was the son of God, if someone went around today doing that they would be put in an insane asylum.

Actually, there have been many recent accounts of people thinking they are the Second Coming. Yes, we think these people are nuts, but thousands of years ago, before we really understood anything about psychology or science, it would have been much harder to conclusively debunk their claims.

quote:

Also remember christianity was not an organized religon until 200-300 years after Jesus's death. Not until Constantine adopted it. Already after it had started, there were different sects arising cuz it spread and people adopted it and incorporated their own religons into it.

Exactly! That's been my point from the beginning. The original cultists (disciples, whatever) were probably true believers. The originators of the organized religion, I'm not so sure about.

quote:

I just think it is silly to argue the actual physical existance of Jesus and if he was the person who started Christianity. Now his motivation is of course arguable.

I'm willing to believe that he may have existed, yes; his motivation is arguable, as you say, and his accomplishments are also quite debatable. I still need proof before I'll admit he had any divine powers; even if people back then "witnessed" it, there are still such things as hypnosis and stage magic, and I'm sure those were as prevalent in those days as they are now.

Maybe Jesus was a time traveller who brought back modern technology to wow his colleagues. Sounds silly indeed, but I can't see it being any harder to prove than him having divine powers.

quote:

Haha your being as stuborn as Orbax was

Actually Orbax hasn't been as stubborn today. But in any event, I think I'm being quite logical and fair-minded here.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax After a 12 hour day and a Duvel though, i cant put too much thought into it at the moment hehe Cheers

Not necessary, your point's well taken.

Faith and religion are indeed very powerful tools, and often very positive ones. The negative only comes into play when they attempt to push themselves onto "non-believers", IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut This is not circular reasoning - I'm simply calling the validity of the "evidence" into question. The burden of proof on any historian is to prove their history is correct, not on their peers to prove otherwise.

I'm just messing with you It sounded like you were trying to say Christianity was started by Jesus and his followers for personal gain, when that really wasn't the case until Christianity was adopted as the offical religon of the Roman Empire.

quote:

I think so too. The religious originators didn't have personal gain in mind, but the conversionists a few hundred years later undoubtedly did.

Yeah. Exactly, I just misunderstood you earlier.

quote:

Actually, there have been many recent accounts of people thinking they are the Second Coming. Yes, we think these people are nuts, but thousands of years ago, before we really understood anything about psychology or science, it would have been much harder to conclusively debunk their claims.

*nods in agreement

quote:

Exactly! That's been my point from the beginning. The original cultists (disciples, whatever) were probably true believers. The originators of the organized religion, I'm not so sure about.

*nods in agreement again

quote:

I'm willing to believe that he may have existed, yes; his motivation is arguable, as you say, and his accomplishments are also quite debatable. I still need proof before I'll admit he had any divine powers; even if people back then "witnessed" it, there are still such things as hypnosis and stage magic, and I'm sure those were as prevalent in those days as they are now.

Yes very true. Infact there has been scientific evidence that the divine interventions done by Moses in the Old Testament can be accounted to natural causes. Please if someone could, it would be nice if I could get some sources on this, but I remember hearing some of the plagues were caused by a fungus traveling through the air and the parting of the seas was actually a natural occurance caused by irregular weather patterns. But maybe this could be God at work, using predetermined events in nature to help the spread of religon? I don't know, thats just another way you can go with the arguement.

quote:

Maybe Jesus was a time traveller who brought back modern technology to wow his colleagues. Sounds silly indeed, but I can't see it being any harder to prove than him having divine powers.

Haha your very correct in your point tho.

quote:

Actually Orbax hasn't been as stubborn today. But in any event, I think I'm being quite logical and fair-minded here.

Just wait till he has a bit to drink

I kid, I kid.
I could use a drink about now, but I'm stuck writing a lab report and studying Chem.

Jesus Christ is most likely a fictional character.

Consider:

1. There is NO physical evidence of the life of Jesus Christ.

2. The Roman Empire kept records of executions, but these records do not mention Jesus Christ.

3. The 41 most prominent Roman Historians during Christ's supposed lifetime and within several decades thereafter were Apollonius, Appian, Arrian, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Damis, Dio Chrysostum, Dion Pruseus, Epictetus, Favorinus, Florus Lucius, Hermogenes, Josephus, Justus of Tiberius, Juvenal, Lucanus, Lucian, Lysias, Martial, Peterculus, Pausanius, Persius, Petronius, Phaedrus, Philo-Judeas, Phelgon, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Plutarch, Pompon Mela, Ptolemy, Quintillian, Quintius Curtis, Seneca, Silius Italicus, Statius, Suetonius, Tacitus, Theon of Smyran, Valerius Flaccis, and Valerius Maximus. In the combined works of these historians, Jesus Christ is mentioned a grand total of 4 times. Two of these passages have been proven forgeries, and the other two are highly suspect as well.

4. The only "historical" records of the life of Jesus Christ are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament. However, these can't really be considered historical records at all. Original copies of the gospels no longer exist, so we are forced to assume they were copied perfectly. According to Biblical historians, none of the gospels were written until 70 AD - a bit late to have been written by the followers of Christ. Whoever wrote Luke says that he is compiling the stories from other material and was not a witness to the events himself (Luke 1:1-4). The gospels are written in Greek, not Aramaic - the language that Christ and his followers used. Finally, the gospels are written in the third person - not the point of view one would expect from someone supposedly recording their historical experiences with Christ.

5. Matthew and Luke present contradictory accounts of the birth of Christ. Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. Problem is, 10 years seperated the rule of those two men.

6. In the late eighteenth century, a Jesuit scholar by the name of Antonmaria Lupi wrote a work which showed that the nativity of Christ had been assigned to every month of the year at one time or another.

7. Luke stated that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment, and that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was pregnant. It's highly doubtful she could have even made the trip, but what's worse is that Roman custom dictated that, when an enrollment was made, the head of each household alone was to report. Not to bring their pregnant wives with them.

8. The story of Christ's crucifixion doesn't even make sense. The Roman Civilization was marked by the greatest legal system the world had ever seen. Their courts were models of order and fairness. And yet, flying in the face of everything we know about the Roman legal system, we're supposed to believe that Pilate commanded Christ's execution even after finding him innocent, simply to please a mob which demanded his crucifixion? It reeks of laziness, as if the author(s) of these stories couldn't even be bothered to research the topics about which they wrote! Besides, why would the mob demand his death? If he had truly performed the miracles described in the New Testatment, he would be a hero, not a martyr. That a civilized people bore such murderous hatred towards a kind and loving man who went around doing good, preaching forgiveness, and even miraculously curing leprosy and raising the dead is not even close to a believable story.

9. The idea of a human messiah was already found in several other geographically nearby religions just prior to the birth of Christ. Har-Khuti in the Sut-Typhonian, Kunsu in that of the Amen-Ra, Iu in the cult of Atum-Ra, and most glaringly, Horus in the Osirian Mythos. Each of these religious figures allegedly had Gods for fathers, virgins for mothers, had their births announced by the stars, were born on the solstice around December 25, had tyrants who endeavored to kill them in their infancy, met violent deaths, and supposedly rose from the dead.

10. In fact, the religious account of Horus is so closely analagous to that of Jesus Christ, one can scarcely believe they are different.
The Osirian Mythos described "Horus and the Father as one", "Horus as the father seen in the son", "Horus was baptized with water by Anup", and "Horus as the good shepherd." Additionally, Horus was identified with the cross, and was said to have had 12 followers. Anyone familiar with the precepts of Anthropology should immediately recognize this as an example of cultural migration - not the birth of some farcical "son of god."

Conclusion: While it is impossible to be 100% certain that Jesus Christ did not exist, it would be very imprudent to believe he did.

Cheers,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter 8. The story of Christ's crucifixion doesn't even make sense. The Roman Civilization was marked by the greatest legal system the world had ever seen. Their courts were models of order and fairness.

The Roman legal system was far from perfect. Injustice was common... a slave's testimony, for example, was inadmissible unless s/he was tortured. Corruption was not unheard of. And placating the people was certainly a priority in acquired territories like Judea, where separatist movements (eg. the Zealots) were common.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy The Roman legal system was far from perfect. Injustice was common... a slave's testimony, for example, was inadmissible unless s/he was tortured. Corruption was not unheard of. And placating the people was certainly a priority in acquired territories like Judea, where separatist movements (eg. the Zealots) were common.

It certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd love to see a secular source documenting any instance of an individual being executed after being found innocent to placate the local population. I can't seem to find anything even remotely of the sort.

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