|
God and Evolution.. (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
| 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 |
|
|
| montie |
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. :p 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 :D |
Actually Orbax hasn't been as stubborn today. :p But in any event, I think I'm being quite logical and fair-minded here. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| montie |
| 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. :p Sounds silly indeed, but I can't see it being any harder to prove than him having divine powers.
|
Haha :p your very correct in your point tho. :D
| quote: |
Actually Orbax hasn't been as stubborn today. :p But in any event, I think I'm being quite logical and fair-minded here. |
Just wait till he has a bit to drink :p
I kid, I kid.
I could use a drink about now, but I'm stuck writing a lab report and studying Chem. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
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 |
|
|
| astroboy |
| 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. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| 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. :( |
|
|
| montie |
You have some very strong points here. If you were to back them up and further develop them with some sources and strong evidence you would have quite the arguement.
I'm gonna try and give some of my thoughts though on a couple of the points.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
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.
|
I don't doubt that they kept rather meticulous records in Rome, but Jerusalem was vary far away from Rome (in the standerds of those days) and I doubt records were very well kept here. The hebrews were always a problem so I bet the Roman government there was always in disarray trying to keep things in order.
| quote: |
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.
|
Only possibly rebuttal to this I can think of is that Mary was pregnant before she married Joseph, thus people would have considered Mary a whore and would have scorned her if she remained. Joseph only accepted her because he believed that he had an angel come to him and tell him his wife was carrying the child of God. Thats the story according to the New Testament I'm pretty sure.
| quote: |
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.
|
The Roman system was incredibly corrupt. And especially way out in Jerusalem, they had many other things to worry about then keeping strict adherence to the code. The Jews wanted Jesus dead because he was a heratic. He broke the laws of the Jews. He did work on the sabbath, he befriended sinners, he called all the jewish elite blasphemeres in the temple. The jews thought their messiah was going to be a warlord who kicked out the romans and brought the hebrew society to power. Not some pacifist who turns the other cheek. There is much in the New Testament about how and why the Jews hated Jesus and on the reasons behind his crucifixion.
| quote: |
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 |
anyway like i said you present some strong points which you could turn into a very solid arguement if you had evidence to back it all up. I really didn't support any of what I said with evidence so we are both sorta running around in circles :). |
|
|
| montie |
oh and one more thing tho.
if Jesus never did exist, who started Christianity?
It certainly wasn't the Romans who adopted it about 200 years after its conception.
Was it the apostles and they just made up this Jesus guy to get things going?
Christianity got here somehow, someone had to start it.
Whether Jesus was actually the son of god or some crazy bloke who thought he was or some kind man who believed he had a mission to spread the word of peace and forgiveness or some crazy cult type leader, Jesus is the most logical person to have started the religon.
If Jesus didn't I'd like to hear some very strong arguements for who did. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
If Jesus didn't I'd like to hear some very strong arguements for who did. |
The vast right wing conspiracy of course. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
Mary was pregnant before she married Joseph, thus people would have considered Mary a whore... |
pics or STFU
sorry but its gettin way to serious in here. :haha: |
|
|
|
|
