How much can we rely on Bible scholars to provide us with sound information about the Bible and its historicity? One of the main reasons I'm asking this question is because Bible scholars are very often cited in debates about the historicity of Jesus. It is often asserted that the "overwhelming majority of Bible scholars" are very sure that there was a real Jesus--they just can't agree on who or what he was and what he did.
Quote from: Jagella on April 06, 2020, 09:39:03 PM
How much can we rely on Bible scholars to provide us with sound information about the Bible and its historicity? One of the main reasons I'm asking this question is because Bible scholars are very often cited in debates about the historicity of Jesus. It is often asserted that the "overwhelming majority of Bible scholars" are very sure that there was a real Jesus--they just can't agree on who or what he was and what he did.
Are the scholars secular? Are they professional? Some are believers of course, other scholars are graduates of Bible colleges. Secular/professional scholars are neutral, and are reliable as far as superficial analysis is concerned. Like determining the "most likely" text (manuscripts have many variations). This happens with the Talmud as well, for example.
I would say, a secular/professional scholar would say that the Bible, extra-biblical writings, church documents etc have no bearing on the historicity of Jesus. Only Tacitus and Josephus. And the interpretation of those two sources, is unclear. IMHO ... no text can have any bearing on the historicity of anyone, even a "secular" Jesus. Historical writing is "creative". Even Churchill's history of WW II is biased and leaves out Ultra completely.
Usually Bible Scholars have an agenda--they get paid in some way if they defend the historicity of Jesus and the KJ Bible. So, it is to their benefit to defend the tradition of christianity. When I was deeply into my study of the religion, I chose several 'traditional' scholars to read, several scholars who don't believe in any of the christian propaganda and the most difficult group to find, those who did not have a dog in any of the fights, neutral.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2020, 10:25:28 PM
Usually Bible Scholars have an agenda--they get paid in some way if they defend the historicity of Jesus and the KJ Bible. So, it is to their benefit to defend the tradition of christianity. When I was deeply into my study of the religion, I chose several 'traditional' scholars to read, several scholars who don't believe in any of the christian propaganda and the most difficult group to find, those who did not have a dog in any of the fights, neutral.
There are few books/essays that deal with this problem honestly (take a 3rd party view). I would suggest that seekers use common sense. Also I don't think that the debates over the particular "grammar" or "vocabulary" variance of a particular verse is worth worrying about anyway.
I've always assumed that 90% of so called Bible Scholars have been trained in Divinity Schools. I don't think it's a big leap to guess whether or not they have an agenda. I think the big question is whether or not God exists. No scholar knows that for sure, and until that question is answered, talking about Jesus, Mohammad, angels, and Satan is pointless masturbation.
In so much as all scholars of a religion seek to support said religion is Not surprising they all make a living from same. Football manufacturers will tell you football is the greatest game evah!
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 05:23:22 AM
I've always assumed that 90% of so called Bible Scholars have been trained in Divinity Schools. I don't think it's a big leap to guess whether or not they have an agenda. I think the big question is whether or not God exists. No scholar knows that for sure, and until that question is answered, talking about Jesus, Mohammad, angels, and Satan is pointless masturbation.
I see your point. But I must disagree, in that calling Jesus' historicity into question, is just another avenue of attack on the lack of evidence for god. For many, many christians, demonstrating that Jesus is a total myth and fiction is also demonstrating that god most likely is too. After all, the movement is called Christ-ian, not godian. Christ (Jesus) is the kernel in the center of their thinking. And I think we need to question everything about all religions.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2020, 09:09:26 AM
I see your point. But I must disagree, in that calling Jesus' historicity into question, is just another avenue of attack on the lack of evidence for god. For many, many christians, demonstrating that Jesus is a total myth and fiction is also demonstrating that god most likely is too. After all, the movement is called Christ-ian, not godian. Christ (Jesus) is the kernel in the center of their thinking. And I think we need to question everything about all religions.
I question those things too, and I think the academic discussion about the existence of Jesus is fun. In fact, I have wondered if there could have been a Jesus, not the son of God, who didn't do actual miracles, that roamed the desert, and was eventually raised to an absurd poster child for a cause he never intended? Whereas considering if there was a historical person who rose to the status of Paul Bunyan, wouldn't seem worthwhile.
But I confess to a bias. God to me has always been numero uno and the big Kahuna of Christianity or any other religion. As a little kid, I never understood why people prayed to Jesus. It was like begging the gal at the reception desk to change company policy. God hears our prayers, and he's the one who can answer them. Who needs Jesus when God can speak to anyone through a burning bush? And supposedly, he hears all our prayers and even reads our minds and our hearts. If you are going to debate Jesus, it seems to me you must then debate whether Mary was a Virgin, and then the parting of the seas. It goes on and on forever. And I've done these things with myself and even enjoyed it. But for me the big question has always been about God. Even before I resolved that to my satisfaction, Jesus was always just a spin off, something added to the Bible, almost as an afterthought.
Quotecalling Jesus' historicity into question, is just another avenue of attack on the lack of evidence for god.
Definitely agree, but when debating a Christian, it seems as equally ineffectual as debating God. He's not going to buy it, and if he does, you still have to resolve the God issue. Why have two debates when one will do?
Maybe another way to explain this is that I don't know if a Jesus guy existed or not, but I do know that a Mohammed guy did exist. But neither the lack of fact about Jesus or the actual fact of Mohammed leads to an ultimate truth about the Abrahamic God, let alone any other god.
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 10:03:37 AM
Maybe another way to explain this is that I don't know if a Jesus guy existed or not, but I do know that a Mohammed guy did exist. But neither the lack of fact about Jesus or the actual fact of Mohammed leads to an ultimate truth about the Abrahamic God, let alone any other god.
I am on your bandwagon. Just adding another seat for me. I did the deepest part of my study of the christian religion centered around Jesus/myth because it interested me more on a personal level. And I found that most people in my last church would be more willing to discuss that topic than on whether or not a god existed. I also found that the more I offered certain people the facts of Jesus and his being real, the more they bought that he was a myth, the easier it was for them to entertain the idea that god did not exist. Yet, I also realize that one cannot convince a typical christian using logic and reasoning. So, I hear what you are saying and I agree. When all is said and done, show me any evidence of any god existing; that is the real main question.
Most Western people aren't interested in abstract ontology (does G-d exist). You are more likely to find such people in Buddhist or Hindu cultures. Abrahamic religions are completely dependent on false historical claims. Yes, Muhammad existed (probably) ... but he was just a crazy Arab, not a prophet of Allah (who one can deny existence of). The idea of Mecca as presently understood, has been debunked as a post-Muhammad invention. A historical Jesus is like an early pacifist version of Muhammad, but that is completely inadequate to sustain Christianity.
Early Christianity was unsustainable as a state-religion since it was pacifist. Joseph Smith was a real person, but I don't think the Book of Mormon came from some angel (which is basically a New York 19th century borrowing from the Quran). Brigham Young made Mormonism into the state religion of Utah, and thus saved it. Islam would have been nothing much, if it had remained a dissident movement among pagan Arabs. Caliph Umar started making it into an imperial religion, which was completed under the early Umayyads (by 700 CE).
The original (multiple) Jewish messianic movements were dead by 135 CE. Gentile messianic movements continued as Christian Gnosticism for another 200 years, until marginalized by Constantine. Of course Jewish messianic and Gentile messianic movements all owed much of their content to Hellenistic Mystery Cults (as influenced by various pagan, Babylonian, Persian and Indian influences). Given all that, if Jesus existed as a man, or what he may have actually been like, is irrelevant. Then add 1300 years of Church history on top of that.
Getting any believer to accept the possibility that their chosen one may not have existed bores heavy on their psyche, an admittance of not just being wrong but being gullible is something many people, regardless of the topic, are loath to do. Toss in the small fortune they may have squandered and it may be too much for them to handle. Better to just go with their beliefs...after all...â€what if you’re wrongâ€?
Quote from: Baruch on April 06, 2020, 10:21:31 PM
Are the scholars secular? Are they professional? Some are believers of course, other scholars are graduates of Bible colleges. Secular/professional scholars are neutral, and are reliable as far as superficial analysis is concerned. Like determining the "most likely" text (manuscripts have many variations). This happens with the Talmud as well, for example.
I honestly cannot agree with everything you're saying here about "secular" scholars. Atheists can be as biased as any Christian. Oddly enough, some purported atheists who hold degrees in Biblical studies have a pro-Jesus bias and will fight for the historicity of Jesus with as much passion as any Christian apologist. I'm not sure why--maybe they fear that if they question the historicity of Christ, then they may jeopardize their careers.
QuoteI would say, a secular/professional scholar would say that the Bible, extra-biblical writings, church documents etc have no bearing on the historicity of Jesus.
I can think of at least two exceptions: Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey. Both men are atheists and are Bible scholars, and both rely almost completely on the Bible to make their cases for a historical Christ. They argue that they can "tease out" the truth from all the baloney in the Gospels. Of course, they cannot demonstrate that they can sift the truth from the lies--they just write a lot of books to impress us that they know the "real Jesus."
Quote... no text can have any bearing on the historicity of anyone, even a "secular" Jesus. Historical writing is "creative". Even Churchill's history of WW II is biased and leaves out Ultra completely.
I wouldn't go quite that far. The documentation we have about Jesus is not worthless. The gospels may be based on a real person, but I'm just not sure if they are based in reality.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2020, 10:25:28 PM
Usually Bible Scholars have an agenda--they get paid in some way if they defend the historicity of Jesus and the KJ Bible. So, it is to their benefit to defend the tradition of christianity.
Some critics of real-Jesus apologists have alleged that if such scholars entertain Jesus-mythicism, then they may lose their jobs. I'm not sure if that's true, but scholar Hector Avalos has written that Biblical studies is essentially a "liberal-Christian apologetic." If Avalos is correct, then Bible scholars must kowtow to liberal Christianity. They may question the resurrection or the virgin birth, but questioning the historicity of Christ is going too far.
QuoteWhen I was deeply into my study of the religion, I chose several 'traditional' scholars to read, several scholars who don't believe in any of the christian propaganda and the most difficult group to find, those who did not have a dog in any of the fights, neutral.
I understand that such scholars have cropped-up on occasion, but their work did not endure long in the scholarly community supposedly because it was of poor quality and refuted. Either that was the reason for their work getting the big heave-ho, or those dissenting scholars just weren't toeing the party line.
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 05:23:22 AM
I've always assumed that 90% of so called Bible Scholars have been trained in Divinity Schools.
That sounds about right although it's important to note that some divinity schools have been secularized. There's a joke that you must be an atheist to get into some of them!
QuoteI don't think it's a big leap to guess whether or not they have an agenda.
That agenda may well be the survival of their profession. If more people realize that the Bible is basically irrelevant to modern life, then Bible scholarship is not of much utility to them except perhaps as the study of entertaining fiction from antiquity.
QuoteI think the big question is whether or not God exists. No scholar knows that for sure, and until that question is answered, talking about Jesus, Mohammad, angels, and Satan is pointless masturbation.
Again, there is a place for the Bible. We can place it on library shelves next to tomes on King Arthur, Robin Hood, and the pantheon atop Mount Olympus.
Quote from: aitm on April 07, 2020, 05:35:07 AM
In so much as all scholars of a religion seek to support said religion is Not surprising they all make a living from same. Football manufacturers will tell you football is the greatest game evah!
Bible scholars have managed to earn a reputation as the guys in the know regarding the historical basis for the Bible. I do not know if that reputation is deserved. Scholars have never demonstrated their ability to tell history from mythology--at least not to my satisfaction. It was not that long ago that Bible scholars assured us that Moses really led the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt. Many have since changed their minds about that event. I wonder what's next on the chopping block--Jesus, perhaps?
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 10:03:37 AM
Maybe another way to explain this is that I don't know if a Jesus guy existed or not, but I do know that a Mohammed guy did exist. But neither the lack of fact about Jesus or the actual fact of Mohammed leads to an ultimate truth about the Abrahamic God, let alone any other god.
Mythicists have been derided as a bunch of atheists who are out to destroy Christianity by arguing that Jesus never existed. They have an agenda, in other words. I wonder if the opposing side has an agenda.
In any case, a real Jesus would not prove a real God, and a real God would not prove a real Jesus. So the prevalence of atheism among mythicists may be the result of some other factor. I think atheists just have no need for a historical Jesus, and therefore are more open to the possibility that he didn't exist.
Quote from: Jagella on April 07, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
I think atheists just have no need for a historical Jesus, and therefore are more open to the possibility that he didn't exist.
That's me. I'm open to it, but I don't care if he existed or not. My guess is... Hmm, I don't even want to guess, so I'm going to pass. I sometimes think about buying some of the recommended books on the subject, but I probably won't because I don't care if I have an opinion on the matter or not.
Quote from: Jagella on April 07, 2020, 07:47:44 PM
Some critics of real-Jesus apologists have alleged that if such scholars entertain Jesus-mythicism, then they may lose their jobs. I'm not sure if that's true, but scholar Hector Avalos has written that Biblical studies is essentially a "liberal-Christian apologetic." If Avalos is correct, then Bible scholars must kowtow to liberal Christianity. They may question the resurrection or the virgin birth, but questioning the historicity of Christ is going too far.
I understand that such scholars have cropped-up on occasion, but their work did not endure long in the scholarly community supposedly because it was of poor quality and refuted. Either that was the reason for their work getting the big heave-ho, or those dissenting scholars just weren't toeing the party line.
My current favorite is Richard Carrier; his latest book is excellent. Google him--he's good. Robert M. Price, a recovered Baptist minister of 30 years or so, also has written several books on the subject. He does good work, as well.
Quote from: Jagella on April 07, 2020, 08:18:44 PM
Mythicists have been derided as a bunch of atheists who are out to destroy Christianity by arguing that Jesus never existed. They have an agenda, in other words. I wonder if the opposing side has an agenda.
In any case, a real Jesus would not prove a real God, and a real God would not prove a real Jesus. So the prevalence of atheism among mythicists may be the result of some other factor. I think atheists just have no need for a historical Jesus, and therefore are more open to the possibility that he didn't exist.
Mythicists are psychologically and physically realistic. All of this is an exercise in personal and social psychology. So IMHO, Mythicists are based. Of course, that being so, religion might not be of much interest except to anthropology nerds. As much as secular and atheist people constantly talk about religion, they seem to have their own clinical needs (completing their deprogramming for example).
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 08:42:31 PM
That's me. I'm open to it, but I don't care if he existed or not. My guess is... Hmm, I don't even want to guess, so I'm going to pass. I sometimes think about buying some of the recommended books on the subject, but I probably won't because I don't care if I have an opinion on the matter or not.
Unlike you, I do care if Jesus existed or not because so many people claim he did exist. When I'm told something, I want to know if what I'm told is true. But what's even more important to me, is knowing the difference between history and myth. If Jesus never existed, then obviously many historians are wrong. If I cannot rely on historians to get it right, then I don't want to be too quick to believe them, of course.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2020, 08:51:58 PM
My current favorite is Richard Carrier; his latest book is excellent. Google him--he's good. Robert M. Price, a recovered Baptist minister of 30 years or so, also has written several books on the subject. He does good work, as well.
I'm familiar with both authors, and I've read some of their books. I think they make some good points about the historicity of Jesus. Like it or not, we do have reason to doubt he existed.
Quote from: Jagella on April 08, 2020, 12:16:27 PM
I'm familiar with both authors, and I've read some of their books. I think they make some good points about the historicity of Jesus. Like it or not, we do have reason to doubt he existed.
What is your current fav book and author?? On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, is my current fav. But I do have a library of several others.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 08, 2020, 02:12:28 PM
What is your current fav book and author?? On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, is my current fav. But I do have a library of several others.
Here's a list of books I've read by real-Jesus apologists:
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus)
Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (Biblical Studies)
Man, Myth, Messiah: Answering History's Greatest Question
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
And here's a list of mythicist books I've read:
Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus
The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems
The Greatest Story Ever Sold The Christ Conspiracy
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman
I'd say the best of the mythicist books I've read is the last one on the list. My favorite mythicist author is Richard Carrier.
I just happen to have this one on my desk right now:
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, by David Fitzgerald
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 08, 2020, 04:42:40 PM
I just happen to have this one on my desk right now:
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, by David Fitzgerald
That's a good book, but in my opinion Fitzgerald doesn't quite "nail it." He does a good job of casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus, but he doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist.
Quote from: Jagella on April 08, 2020, 07:12:43 PM
That's a good book, but in my opinion Fitzgerald doesn't quite "nail it." He does a good job of casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus, but he doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist.
How can you prove a human Jesus didn't exist? There are thousands of Jesus' in Mexico even today ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on April 08, 2020, 07:28:05 PM
How can you prove a human Jesus didn't exist? There are thousands of Jesus' in Mexico even today ;-)
If there had not been an Arab conquest, then Islam was just a lost marginal religion, and Muhammed was a religious leader in the papers of lost history books.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 08, 2020, 08:26:29 PM
If there had not been an Arab conquest, then Islam was just a lost marginal religion, and Muhammed was a religious leader in the papers of lost history books.
Correct, though I believe in his G-d, even if Muhammad was forgotten, his G-d would remain ;-) His G-d is my G-d, is Jesus' G-d ;-)
Don't count Islam out, even if marginalized. A great tree starts from a single seed.
A gift for those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear ...
‘Ashrey ha’ish ‘asher lo halak ba’atzat r’sha’im, wuv’derek cha’tayim lo ‘amad wuv’moshav letzim lo yashav. Kiy ‘im b’torat ha’adonay chef’tzo wuv’torato yeh’geh yomam valay’lah. V’hayah k’etz shatul ‘al pal’gey mayim ‘asher pig’yo yiten b’ito v’alehu lo yibol. v’kol ‘asher ya’aseh, yatz’liach. Lo ken har’sha’iym kiy ’im kamotz ‘asher tid’fenu ruach. ‘al ken lo yaqumu r’shayim bamish’pat v’cha’tayim ba’adat tzadiyqim. ki yode’a ha’adonay derek tzadiyqim v’derek r’sha’iym t’oved. - Moshe
My system of phonetic transcription (that I used last in teaching Biblical Hebrew to adults), of Psalm 1. Carefully transcribed and triple checked, as by a Torah scribe. I am reliable? Not as reliable as G-d. But I let the ha'ruach ha'qodesh guide me.
Quote from: Baruch on April 08, 2020, 08:49:19 PM
Correct, though I believe in his G-d, even if Muhammad was forgotten, his G-d would remain ;-) His G-d is my G-d, is Jesus' G-d ;-)
Don't count Islam out, even if marginalized. A great tree starts from a single seed.
U mention of Abrahamic religions: Respectively: Judaism, Cristianism, Muhammedism: A great treenity.
Sorry, i am so very sensitive to alliterations, rhyming, implying innuendo, embedded meaning, etc. :D
Quote from: Baruch on April 08, 2020, 07:28:05 PM
How can you prove a human Jesus didn't exist?
The inability to prove a person didn't exist is perhaps mytyicism's greatest weakness. At best the mythicists can cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus, but as far as the faithful are concerned, no doubt can overcome their faith in their ticket to paradise.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 08, 2020, 08:59:03 PM
U mention of Abrahamic religions: Respectively: Judaism, Cristianism, Muhammedism: A great treenity.
Sorry, i am so very sensitive to alliterations, rhyming, implying innuendo, embedded meaning, etc. :D
Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism are equally great. There is only one true inspiration, in many voices.
Quote from: Jagella on April 08, 2020, 09:02:44 PM
The inability to prove a person didn't exist is perhaps mytyicism's greatest weakness. At best the mythicists can cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus, but as far as the faithful are concerned, no doubt can overcome their faith in their ticket to paradise.
I have a US silver dollar, from the administration of George Washington, it is real. But I can't use that to prove that George Washington was real. The question isn't proof, but self confidence. If you believe that Jesus existed, then go with that. If not, then go with that. You are the judge, we all are. But the meter stick you use on others, will be be used to measure you.
Quote from: Jagella on April 08, 2020, 09:02:44 PM
The inability to prove a person didn't exist is perhaps mytyicism's greatest weakness. At best the mythicists can cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus, but as far as the faithful are concerned, no doubt can overcome their faith in their ticket to paradise.
the problem with trying to use reason and thinking to prove anything to a theist is that they don't reason or think critically; they have their belief/faith which is emotional. Reason does not work on them. And I think it is possible to prove Jesus (of the christian faith) did not exist by the total lack of any evidence that he did. For far too long, the christian religion has had a free ride in that they have been allowed to proclaim Jesus existed without the need to produce credible proof. More and more they are being asked to produce credible proof of his existence and have come up short. Why? Because there isn't any proof that he did exist--except for the bogus data that said he did.
Quote from: Baruch on April 08, 2020, 09:05:40 PM
I have a US silver dollar, from the administration of George Washington, it is real. But I can't use that to prove that George Washington was real. The question isn't proof, but self confidence. If you believe that Jesus existed, then go with that. If not, then go with that. You are the judge, we all are. But the meter stick you use on others, will be be used to measure you.
The issue of coinage has been brought up regarding the existence of Jesus. Some mythicists argue that there are no known coins with the image of Jesus on them. Coins with his image from the early first century would be evidence for Jesus, of course, but I see no reason to expect such coins. Jewish preachers from Galilee were never to my knowledge so important that the Romans would place those preachers' images on coins.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 08, 2020, 09:38:28 PM
the problem with trying to use reason and thinking to prove anything to a theist is that they don't reason or think critically; they have their belief/faith which is emotional. Reason does not work on them. And I think it is possible to prove Jesus (of the christian faith) did not exist by the total lack of any evidence that he did. For far too long, the christian religion has had a free ride in that they have been allowed to proclaim Jesus existed without the need to produce credible proof. More and more they are being asked to produce credible proof of his existence and have come up short. Why? Because there isn't any proof that he did exist--except for the bogus data that said he did.
One of the biggest bones of contention between mythicists and real-Jesus apologists is the issue of what evidence we should expect for Jesus. Some scholars explain away the dearth of evidence for Jesus as what we could expect for a Galilean preacher. Jesus was "small time," they say, so people like Philo would not have noticed him. If these scholars are correct, then clearly the gospels lie about Jesus making him out to have been very famous. In any case, it seems to me that many people have "pared down" Jesus to make his historicity more plausible. But why strive so hard to make him real?
Quote from: Jagella on April 10, 2020, 01:35:23 PM
One of the biggest bones of contention between mythicists and real-Jesus apologists is the issue of what evidence we should expect for Jesus. Some scholars explain away the dearth of evidence for Jesus as what we could expect for a Galilean preacher. Jesus was "small time," they say, so people like Philo would not have noticed him. If these scholars are correct, then clearly the gospels lie about Jesus making him out to have been very famous. In any case, it seems to me that many people have "pared down" Jesus to make his historicity more plausible. But why strive so hard to make him real?
Because he is a money maker and a power broker of the highest order! The bible does not claim he is a backward, country preacher. Wise-men came to see him born; a unique star appeared, as well. He was super smart, walked on water, turned water to wine, brought the dead to life, cast curses on pigs, wandered all over the land making deep impressions on all who was near him, cured blindness and sickness, and on and on. The world became darkened at his death and the earth stood still. And nobody at the time saw fit to mention it????? There was not a lack of writers at that time, and they would have at least mentioned stuff like that--especially one like Philo who traveled that area of the world extensively and wrote tons of stuff. If a man had done all of that stuff, and more, all the writers would have told of it. That lack of evidence speaks very loudly to me. Clearly, he is a retrofitted godling made into the image of those who shaped him for them to use to gather power and money. And it worked, didn't it?
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 10, 2020, 01:48:28 PM
Because he is a money maker and a power broker of the highest order!
If Jesus existed, then to him it would be the greatest irony that his preaching poverty has led to so much greed. Yes, you can get very rich on Jesus, and many do get rich that way.
QuoteThe bible does not claim he is a backward, country preacher. Wise-men came to see him born; a unique star appeared, as well. He was super smart, walked on water, turned water to wine, brought the dead to life, cast curses on pigs, wandered all over the land making deep impressions on all who was near him, cured blindness and sickness, and on and on. The world became darkened at his death and the earth stood still. And nobody at the time saw fit to mention it?????
To make Jesus seem real, many scholars have cut out those details. What's left, they call the "historical Jesus." If we reduce Superman to Clark Kent, would we then have a historical Superman?
QuoteThere was not a lack of writers at that time, and they would have at least mentioned stuff like that--especially one like Philo who traveled that area of the world extensively and wrote tons of stuff. If a man had done all of that stuff, and more, all the writers would have told of it. That lack of evidence speaks very loudly to me.
Some say that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's not always true. As you suggest, we should expect evidence for Jesus from the time he supposedly lived. Since we have no such evidence, we do have a problem with his historicity.
QuoteClearly, he is a retrofitted godling made into the image of those who shaped him for them to use to gather power and money. And it worked, didn't it?
Yes. Did you ever notice how rare it is for a preacher to condemn the sin of greed? Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their alleged hypocrisy, but Jesus failed to rid the world of hypocrisy himself.
The babble has a whole book dedicated to how to pay the priests. If ever there was a neon light, this is it, and yet....some are blind to the light.
Quote from: aitm on April 11, 2020, 09:17:37 PM
The babble has a whole book dedicated to how to pay the priests. If ever there was a neon light, this is it, and yet....some are blind to the light.
What is "the babble" and what is the name of the book?
I don't think I need to read it, though. i already know how to pay the priests. I don't pay them.
Quote from: Jagella on April 12, 2020, 12:28:23 PM
What is "the babble" and what is the name of the book?
I don't think I need to read though.
Question answered.
I once had a debate with a self proclaimed Christian Bible scholar on whether the Creation "Museum" is a museum at all. His "scholarship" was pathetic. He insisted that the 'Arc Encounter' is full of 'artifacts'. I am sure that there are much better faithful Bible scholars that that guy, but faith can only cloud up real scholarship IMHO.
Quote from: Cassia on April 26, 2020, 08:06:06 PM
I once had a debate with a self proclaimed Christian Bible scholar on whether the Creation "Museum" is a museum at all. His "scholarship" was pathetic. He insisted that the 'Arc Encounter' is full of 'artifacts'. I am sure that there are much better faithful Bible scholars that that guy, but faith can only cloud up real scholarship IMHO.
I'd recommend Hector Avalos' book,
The End of Biblical Studies. He does a great job of exposing modern Biblical scholarship as a front for and as a "liberal Christian apologetic." He should know because he's a Bible scholar himself who is blowing the whistle on his peers. So the person you mention is not so unusual among Bible scholars. They are very poor in their use of logic skewing their work in favor of liberal Christianity.
I sometimes if "scholarship" deserves to be in the same sentence with "Bible." Are there any renowned MAD Magazine scholars?
Quote from: SGOS on April 28, 2020, 05:39:04 PM
I sometimes if "scholarship" deserves to be in the same sentence with "Bible." Are there any renowned MAD Magazine scholars?
There are Star Wars and Manga scholars ... hate the "liberal" arts?
Quote from: SGOS on April 28, 2020, 05:39:04 PM
I sometimes if "scholarship" deserves to be in the same sentence with "Bible." Are there any renowned MAD Magazine scholars?
I suppose there are scholars for everything! I think a lot of Christians look to Bible scholars as a way of giving their beliefs a sense of academic respectability. Who, for example, can disagree with that "overwhelming consensus" of scholars who have no doubt that Jesus existed? I wonder how many people know that there was also a consensus of scholars who insisted that Moses existed. Nowadays most scholars have given up on Moses, but they still fight tooth and nail for Jesus--just like they fought tooth and nail for Moses not to mention Jonah--and Noah--and Adam--and...you get the picture.
Quote from: Jagella on April 28, 2020, 10:49:52 PM
I suppose there are scholars for everything! I think a lot of Christians look to Bible scholars as a way of giving their beliefs a sense of academic respectability. Who, for example, can disagree with that "overwhelming consensus" of scholars who have no doubt that Jesus existed? I wonder how many people know that there was also a consensus of scholars who insisted that Moses existed. Nowadays most scholars have given up on Moses, but they still fight tooth and nail for Jesus--just like they fought tooth and nail for Moses not to mention Jonah--and Noah--and Adam--and...you get the picture.
I pinged a few of my Christian buddies.."do you know that the expert consensus is that Moses is fictional?". They disagree, LOL. Some of them may suspect I am a atheist.
Quote from: Jagella on April 28, 2020, 10:49:52 PM
I suppose there are scholars for everything! I think a lot of Christians look to Bible scholars as a way of giving their beliefs a sense of academic respectability. Who, for example, can disagree with that "overwhelming consensus" of scholars who have no doubt that Jesus existed? I wonder how many people know that there was also a consensus of scholars who insisted that Moses existed. Nowadays most scholars have given up on Moses, but they still fight tooth and nail for Jesus--just like they fought tooth and nail for Moses not to mention Jonah--and Noah--and Adam--and...you get the picture.
The Muslims told lies about Muhammad ... 1300 years ago too. And they maintain those lies well. Mecca isn't Mecca ... originally the qibla was pointed toward Petra. Mecca became a town after the Umayyad Dynasty started, and Petra had been destroyed in a civil war.
Quote from: Cassia on April 29, 2020, 10:11:47 AM
I pinged a few of my Christian buddies.."do you know that the expert consensus is that Moses is fictional?". They disagree, LOL. Some of them may suspect I am a atheist.
Confound them even more and ask them to show you in the bible where the 10 commandments are listed. None of the 'flock' can even name what they are supposed to be and none can point to where in the bible they are numbered. None realize that they are located in 3 places in the OT; and I'd guess most ministers/priests cannot do so either.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 29, 2020, 11:48:09 AM
Confound them even more and ask them to show you in the bible where the 10 commandments are listed. None of the 'flock' can even name what they are supposed to be and none can point to where in the bible they are numbered. None realize that they are located in 3 places in the OT; and I'd guess most ministers/priests cannot do so either.
It is to be expected that the laity are illiterate, even though that confounds Martin Luther's plan. But yes, a lot of the clergy are illiterate too.
Quote from: Jagella on April 28, 2020, 10:49:52 PM
I suppose there are scholars for everything! I think a lot of Christians look to Bible scholars as a way of giving their beliefs a sense of academic respectability. Who, for example, can disagree with that "overwhelming consensus" of scholars who have no doubt that Jesus existed? I wonder how many people know that there was also a consensus of scholars who insisted that Moses existed. Nowadays most scholars have given up on Moses, but they still fight tooth and nail for Jesus--just like they fought tooth and nail for Moses not to mention Jonah--and Noah--and Adam--and...you get the picture.
Paul said that if Jesus didn't rise from death then the faith of Christians is in vain. So if Jesus never existed then, again, their faith is in vain. So they'll do whatever it takes to keep their comfortable belief.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 29, 2020, 05:16:53 PM
Paul said that if Jesus didn't rise from death then the faith of Christians is in vain. So if Jesus never existed then, again, their faith is in vain. So they'll do whatever it takes to keep their comfortable belief.
What does it mean, to an atheist or pagan, to raise from the dead? Metaphysical/metaphorical not physical/literal. If then.
Quote from: Baruch on April 29, 2020, 05:20:36 PM
What does it mean, to an atheist or pagan, to raise from the dead? Metaphysical/metaphorical not physical/literal. If then.
zombie.
Quote from: Munch on April 29, 2020, 09:07:51 PM
zombie.
Which exist as literary beings, not physical ones. Which is to say, as all literary beings do, they haunt the thoughts of those who are obsessed by such things. Which is to say, this is a psychological question, not a theological one.
Quote from: Cassia on April 29, 2020, 10:11:47 AM
I pinged a few of my Christian buddies.."do you know that the expert consensus is that Moses is fictional?". They disagree, LOL. Some of them may suspect I am a atheist.
Bible scholars don't divulge much of how the Bible is historically incorrect and irrelevant in the modern world. They seem content to allow most people to enjoy their blissful ignorance.
Quote from: Jagella on April 30, 2020, 11:04:45 PM
Bible scholars don't divulge much of how the Bible is historically incorrect and irrelevant in the modern world. They seem content to allow most people to enjoy their blissful ignorance.
The Martin Luther fallacy ... if the Bible is in colloquial language instead of Latin, and if everyone is literate, then everyone will interpret the Bible just like Martin Luther. It was a major change that did happen, but didn't work out like Martin Luther imagined. Martin Luther was a utopian who expected a Second Coming to start in Germany. Germany got a dystopia instead, lasting over 400 years.
Quote from: Baruch on April 29, 2020, 10:39:52 AM
The Muslims told lies about Muhammad ... 1300 years ago too. And they maintain those lies well. Mecca isn't Mecca ... originally the qibla was pointed toward Petra. Mecca became a town after the Umayyad Dynasty started, and Petra had been destroyed in a civil war.
All religions either lie or make mistakes in their claims. I think Islam, for example, was modeled after both Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad must have thought that if the Jews and Christians could fool people, then so could he. The formula is to be a charismatic person, BS people, and fight off anybody who gets in your way.
It worked for Joseph Smith too!
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6025/1362/1600/051001andreas_pitt_smith%20hitler.jpg)
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 29, 2020, 11:48:09 AM
Confound them even more and ask them to show you in the bible where the 10 commandments are listed. None of the 'flock' can even name what they are supposed to be and none can point to where in the bible they are numbered. None realize that they are located in 3 places in the OT; and I'd guess most ministers/priests cannot do so either.
If people really believed that the Bible is the word of God, then you would think they would devour it. Since they often don't bother to read it, it seems to me that they have doubts about its authorship.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 29, 2020, 05:16:53 PM
Paul said that if Jesus didn't rise from death then the faith of Christians is in vain. So if Jesus never existed then, again, their faith is in vain. So they'll do whatever it takes to keep their comfortable belief.
Not only that, but a "real" Jesus can be very profitable. The tourist attractions in Israel make good money off of people's beliefs in a historical Jesus. A mythical Jesus equals lost revenue for them.
Quote from: Baruch on April 29, 2020, 05:20:36 PM
What does it mean, to an atheist or pagan, to raise from the dead? Metaphysical/metaphorical not physical/literal. If then.
We are to believe that a rotting corpse "recomposed" and became reanimated complete with the man's prior thoughts and memories, magically walked through a wall, and then floated up into the sky. We are assured that this claim is true by apologists who argue that those who made this claim could not have lied.
So a zombie can fly, but the New Testament writers could not have lied.
Quote from: Munch on April 29, 2020, 09:07:51 PM
zombie.
Jesus was never a zombie--he was a
flying zombie!
In a Christian forum, I used that term to refer to Jesus without naming him. A Christian woman there objected saying that Christ was never a zombie, but I pointed out that she knew exactly who I was talking about. She then insisted that zombies are still dead, but Christ rose to life.
That's much more credible--a dead man rising from his grave to life and flying versus a dead man rising from his grave still dead and flying.
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:17:08 PM
If people really believed that the Bible is the word of God, then you would think they would devour it. Since they often don't bother to read it, it seems to me that they have doubts about its authorship.
Or brainwashed to be lazy and accepting of the 'authority' of the so-called leaders.
Quote from: Baruch on May 01, 2020, 10:39:34 AM
The Martin Luther fallacy ... if the Bible is in colloquial language instead of Latin, and if everyone is literate, then everyone will interpret the Bible just like Martin Luther.
I was recently thinking about this very issue. Catholics told the reformers that if people read the Bible for themselves, then those people would come up with many divergent interpretations that would not always agree with Luther's interpretation. Five centuries later, the thousands of Protestant cults are evidence that the Catholics were right.
QuoteIt was a major change that did happen, but didn't work out like Martin Luther imagined. Martin Luther was a utopian who expected a Second Coming to start in Germany. Germany got a dystopia instead, lasting over 400 years.
Luther called for the Jews to be persecuted. I wonder if his words had a legacy.
(https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/canonical_images/feature/holocaust_kristallnacht_canonical_copy.jpg)
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2020, 07:37:40 PM
Or brainwashed to be lazy and accepting of the 'authority' of the so-called leaders.
My Dad was a very devout Catholic but never read the Bible. He said he got enough of it in mass on Sundays. I've often wondered, then, if his reading it would have been too much Bible. In any case, on weekdays he had other things he would rather do.
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:17:08 PM
If people really believed that the Bible is the word of God, then you would think they would devour it. Since they often don't bother to read it, it seems to me that they have doubts about its authorship.
Ancient magic ... put spell with dissolving ink on papyrus, do some acting, then put it in water, and the patient drinks it. Real stuff. In Temple Judaism they had a similar test for wife's infidelity.
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:19:59 PM
Not only that, but a "real" Jesus can be very profitable. The tourist attractions in Israel make good money off of people's beliefs in a historical Jesus. A mythical Jesus equals lost revenue for them.
This was started by Emperor Constantine's mother, Helena. She went to Jerusalem to uncover the tomb, and found it underneath a Roman temple to Venus ;-) Most successful tourist business, after the Jewish version was shut down, until modern times when so many Muslims can now go to Mecca. Of course Rome became a very big tourist business too. That is where Martin Luther went, and experienced real Catholicism directly ;-)
Martin Luther hated Jews, because his model of Second Coming had Jews becoming Christians. When they did not, he believed they were delaying the Second Coming. For Catholic/Lutheran Nazis, Hitler was the Second Coming, and blamed the demise of the Third Reich on Jews. For fascist Italians, Mussolini was the Second Coming of Constantine. For Constantine, he was the Second Coming.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2020, 07:37:40 PM
Or brainwashed to be lazy and accepting of the 'authority' of the so-called leaders.
Back in the day, most people were illiterate rural farmers or corporate farm slave population (aka pagans). Christianity took off in the mixed race towns, with the free proletariat and household/crafts slaves. Free social security was provided by the synagogue for Jews, and by the church for everyone. Of course, if you are an anarchist who rejects all authority, you would have found yourself in an arena awaiting public execution, with the other malcontents.
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:26:13 PM
We are to believe that a rotting corpse "recomposed" and became reanimated complete with the man's prior thoughts and memories, magically walked through a wall, and then floated up into the sky. We are assured that this claim is true by apologists who argue that those who made this claim could not have lied.
So a zombie can fly, but the New Testament writers could not have lied.
In one description, Jesus arose from the Mount of Olives, specifically from the Red Heifter altar (connected to Kabbalah) which is the only Jewish altar outside of the Temple, and directly opposite the Temple. What people imagine hearing that isn't what you think, since you aren't an ancient Jew. For them, the invisible Heavenly Temple (per Ezekiel) was directly above the Earthly Temple, but invisible. This is why in Muslim tradition, the ascent of Muhammad was moved from Mecca to Jerusalem, after Caliph Omar occupied the city. For these people the Earth is flat, not round, and Heaven is straight up, as Hades/Sheol is straight down.
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:46:18 PM
My Dad was a very devout Catholic but never read the Bible. He said he got enough of it in mass on Sundays. I've often wondered, then, if his reading it would have been too much Bible. In any case, on weekdays he had other things he would rather do.
Correct, it was thought in Catholic and Orthodox circles, that it was a sin for laity to read the Bible. Also Orthodox, so I am told, in Macedonia were just like the Catholics. They had pew Bibles, but Bible salesmen came after the fall of the Warsaw Pact, and said, we want to sell Bibles in Macedonian. The priests, long used to communist government, but traditional otherwise, couldn't understand why anyone would want a Bible.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 01, 2020, 07:37:40 PM
Or brainwashed to be lazy and accepting of the 'authority' of the so-called leaders.
You are projecting your hatred of the South and Trump voters ;-( Democrats and Yankees are totally based (not). Ironically, as you well know, the South was Democrats ;-)
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:17:08 PM
If people really believed that the Bible is the word of God, then you would think they would devour it. Since they often don't bother to read it, it seems to me that they have doubts about its authorship.
Yeah, I've wondered about that, too!
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:42:13 PM
Luther called for the Jews to be persecuted. I wonder if his words had a legacy.
I never understood this especially when I would hear the complaint that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. I mean really... isn't that how we all get saved? We should celebrate the Jews for turning Jesus over to be sacrificed.
The entire idea of vicarious redemption is immoral and idiotic anyways. The transfer of responsibility for wrong-doing isn't even allowed in our civil judicial system, yet here it is, the basis of the largest religion. Yeah, I stole a car, sorry. My grandma here is gonna do my prison stint, OK your Honor?
We can keep going.....
Original sin? Really?
Coveting? Really? Thought crime?
Don't rely on my own intellect? Really?
When Moses took a look at God's ass, maybe he saw the entire being. Christianity is a mess at it's very core. Apologists have a lot of material to defend. Yet all we get is pathetic whining about 'objective morality', LOL.
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:42:13 PM
...evidence that the Catholics were right.
Boy, there's a phrase you don't get to use very often.
Quote from: Jagella on May 01, 2020, 07:17:08 PM
If people really believed that the Bible is the word of God, then you would think they would devour it. Since they often don't bother to read it, it seems to me that they have doubts about its authorship.
It's laziness.
Quote from: Cassia on May 01, 2020, 08:36:29 PM
I never understood this especially when I would hear the complaint that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. I mean really... isn't that how we all get saved? We should celebrate the Jews for turning Jesus over to be sacrificed.
If one believes in god and that jesus is part of the god-head, then jesus and god set this thing up. Judas and the Jews had no choice. This is what god scripted and this is what had to happen. It is god's fault and no others. But then, nobody said the mentally insane (theist) are capable of logic or critical thinking.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 02, 2020, 09:00:32 AM
If one believes in god and that jesus is part of the god-head, then jesus and god set this thing up. Judas and the Jews had no choice. This is what god scripted and this is what had to happen. It is god's fault and no others. But then, nobody said the mentally insane (theist) are capable of logic or critical thinking.
The Christian point is guilt, a rather Jewish thing. If there is guilt, and no way to relieve this (in this life anyway) then neurosis results. Atonement is getting divine forgiveness from the one source that can do so (for sin, as you describe). Wronging another human isn't like that ... if the victim or family is still alive. Then recompense is required. Recompense was an improvement over vendetta. But Christians often get this wrong, that recompense isn't required, given divine forgiveness. They treat every wrong as divine ;-( ... G-d made me do it, instead of the devil made me do it ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NASl_Qy2sc
If there is no guilt (regardless if there is sin or not), then either one is faultless, or sociopathic. I struggle with this, not with sin. What I am guilty of (G-d isn't responsible for my own guilt, but of things beyond my control). Aren't you describing a convenient determinism, a god-mechanical universe without free will? If G-d didn't make you do it, and the Devil didn't make you did it, your Nature made you do it (so you are innocent like any 3 year old).
If I read or hear the word 'sin' in a serious sentence, I disregard whatever nonsense follows. It is however great for comedy. The forgiveness brokers (clergy) really crack me up.
Quote from: Cassia on May 02, 2020, 09:58:25 AM
If I read or hear the word 'sin' in a serious sentence, I disregard whatever nonsense follows. It is however great for comedy. The forgiveness brokers (clergy) really crack me up.
Is sin separate from guilt for you? If so, you can tell your right hand from your left ;-) In the context of Protestant criticism of Catholicism, the Mass is a magic routine (and thus a travesty) that the Church acts as a gateway for.
Quote from: Baruch on May 02, 2020, 10:03:26 AM
Is sin separate from guilt for you? If so, you can tell your right hand from your left ;-) In the context of Protestant criticism of Catholicism, the Mass is a magic routine (and thus a travesty) that the Church acts as a gateway for.
'Sin' is a nonsensical word made up by the religious (mentally insane) leaders; it, according to them, is a condition all of us are in and only they can lead you to overcome it. That includes your G-d, which is a nonsensical word as well. Guilt is a true human emotion/feeling, and it comes in good and bad types. All religion, including yours, is a magic routine, and thus a travesty. It is all a fiction.
The babble also says, though many are hush hush about it, that the return of Jebus is so soon that if you are married you should act as if you are not. Not surprisingly the idea of giving up a fuck for jesus quickly went by the way.
Quote from: Baruch on May 01, 2020, 08:02:02 PM
Correct, it was thought in Catholic and Orthodox circles, that it was a sin for laity to read the Bible.
Nowadays Catholics are allowed to read the Bible--along with the "help" of the Catholic church. Come to think of it, though, Protestants "help" their congregants to read the Bible too. These Christian sects just don't seem to trust people to read the Bible on their own and come to their own conclusions.
Quote from: Cassia on May 01, 2020, 08:36:29 PM
I never understood this especially when I would hear the complaint that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. I mean really... isn't that how we all get saved? We should celebrate the Jews for turning Jesus over to be sacrificed.
I think what happened is that some confusion resulted from the stories that Christians were making up at that time. Some Christians saw the crucifixion of Christ as evil, and others saw it as good. Those opposing views were never completely reconciled. The result is that Satan along with "the Jews" have been blamed and persecuted for a deed that has led to Christian salvation!
QuoteThe entire idea of vicarious redemption is immoral and idiotic anyways. The transfer of responsibility for wrong-doing isn't even allowed in our civil judicial system, yet here it is, the basis of the largest religion. Yeah, I stole a car, sorry. My grandma here is gonna do my prison stint, OK your Honor?
The belief in Christ's "dying for our sins" is a great way to lay a guilt trip on people. After all, who could reject a man who died so that we need not be punished? How ungrateful to do so!
QuoteApologists have a lot of material to defend.
I'm currently reading Douglas Groothuis
Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. It's 752 pages long. I'm wondering why Groothuis spends so much time writing a big book telling us why the claims of the New Testament are true. Can't the New Testament demonstrate the truth of its claims?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 02, 2020, 11:07:44 AM
'Sin' is a nonsensical word made up by the religious (mentally insane) leaders; it, according to them, is a condition all of us are in and only they can lead you to overcome it. That includes your G-d, which is a nonsensical word as well. Guilt is a true human emotion/feeling, and it comes in good and bad types. All religion, including yours, is a magic routine, and thus a travesty. It is all a fiction.
Thanks you, inventor of Newspeak ;-) You are the ultimate grammar Nazi? I suppose you hate Star Trek and Star Wars fans too?
Are you guilty of anything? Or does your version of natural law preclude any guilt?
Quote from: Jagella on May 02, 2020, 11:54:36 AM
Nowadays Catholics are allowed to read the Bible--along with the "help" of the Catholic church. Come to think of it, though, Protestants "help" their congregants to read the Bible too. These Christian sects just don't seem to trust people to read the Bible on their own and come to their own conclusions.
Freethinkers are the enemies of all human order. As they should be ;-)
It is funny when literary criticism is much larger than the literature it is analyzing ;-)) Maybe critics/apologists like the sound of their own keyboards?
Quote from: Baruch on May 02, 2020, 12:16:09 PM
Thanks you, inventor of Newspeak ;-) You are the ultimate grammar Nazi? I suppose you hate Star Trek and Star Wars fans too?
Are you guilty of anything? Or does your version of natural law preclude any guilt?
For you, English means nothing. All you have is snark and putdowns--substance or thinking not allowed in your world. And, yes, I am guilty of reading too much of your trash! And trash is all you produce.
Quote from: Baruch on May 02, 2020, 12:16:09 PM
Are you guilty of anything? Or does your version of natural law preclude any guilt?
"Guilty" and "sin" are two very different concepts.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 02, 2020, 12:44:48 PM
"Guilty" and "sin" are two very different concepts.
Correct, my exact point. But banning words is ... cringe, provided one uses practical definitions of them. One of my points is that Christians et al commonly have little understanding of this difference. For evangelical Protestants, the Mass isn't the magic, it is having "Jesus In Your Heart". Jews think that merely following ritual exactly is righteous (Jesus knocks this very point). And Muslims think that jihad is virtuous.
Are you guilty of anything? I am not asking about sin ... and my questions are rhetorical. Otherwise TMI.
Speaking of hating fandoms ... the SWJ versions of Star Trek (Picard) and Star Wars (third part of trilogy) were all written by people who openly admit they hate Star Trek and Star Wars fans. They must have attended that "15 minute hate" with Big Brother in the original Macintosh commercial.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 02, 2020, 12:42:17 PM
For you, English means nothing. All you have is snark and putdowns--substance or thinking not allowed in your world. And, yes, I am guilty of reading too much of your trash! And trash is all you produce.
Do you know that senior anger is a known symptom of aging? My Ex's second husband had it. My very old mother had it. Surely you can put some F bombs in your posts? (rhetorical) to make the ad hominem more memorable. We almost entirely agree on Biblical scholarship, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you.
Quote from: Baruch on May 02, 2020, 12:17:07 PMMaybe critics/apologists like the sound of their own keyboards?
Book reviews are fine, but in the Bible's case the reviews keep coming after thousands of years. I suppose there's still room for originality.
In any case, the Bible is a very strange and confusing book. Apologists I think keep seeking a way to write that killer book that finally clarifies the Bible's "single message" and convinces everybody who reads it that yes, the Bible is indeed the word of God, and Jesus is his son and savior of all who believe. The apologist-writer can do all that while earning a nice royalty!
Quote from: Jagella on May 02, 2020, 04:32:30 PM
Book reviews are fine, but in the Bible's case the reviews keep coming after thousands of years. I suppose there's still room for originality.
In any case, the Bible is a very strange and confusing book. Apologists I think keep seeking a way to write that killer book that finally clarifies the Bible's "single message" and convinces everybody who reads it that yes, the Bible is indeed the word of God, and Jesus is his son and savior of all who believe. The apologist-writer can do all that while earning a nice royalty!
There are still fans of Gilgamesh ... after they deciphered the clay tablets again ;-) Academics earn money (money is Evil) by studying clay tablets.
Star Trek Canon is gospel to those of us who saw it for the first time in the 60s. Scifi is the modern version of Marxism.
To me morality and ethics have nothing to do with some fictitious battle between good and evil or any childish incarnations. Do your best not to cause harm to others and yourself; in fact help others if possible. All 'mentally-well' social animals inherently know this. It is through cooperation that homo sapiens has come to dominate this planet for the time being.
Christians write books to make money, not to save souls.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 02, 2020, 05:52:47 PM
Christians write books to make money, not to save souls.
Did Karl Marx give away Das Kapital?
"Karl Marx's publications sold extremely well. The Manifesto of the Communist Party, with around 500 million copies sold, is one of the four best-selling books of all time. Both the Manifesto and Das Kapital are UNESCO World Heritage documents."
Quote from: Cassia on May 02, 2020, 05:50:07 PM
To me morality and ethics have nothing to do with some fictitious battle between good and evil or any childish incarnations. Do your best not to cause harm to others and yourself; in fact help others if possible. All 'mentally-well' social animals inherently know this. It is through cooperation that homo sapiens has come to dominate this planet for the time being.
Good POV. Alas, few people are mentally well. Humans don't dominate this planet, insects do ;-)
https://www.livescience.com/46866-planet-apes-next-dominant-species.html
Quote from: Baruch on May 02, 2020, 06:09:55 PM
Good POV. Alas, few people are mentally well. Humans don't dominate this planet, insects do ;-)
https://www.livescience.com/46866-planet-apes-next-dominant-species.html
Yeah, that is very true by the numbers. You can say bacteria and many single celled organisms are doing well. I doubt a huge self-aware brain will enjoy a long tenure and existence. Look at what we have done to the planet in just a few thousand years !
There is art and there is science. Both are valuable, but it is important not to mix the two up, unless we are speaking of scientific discovery, or the technical aspects of art ...
"Art is the understanding that reality does not dictate the limits of your imagination. Wisdom is the understanding that reality is not dictated by the limits of your imagination."
There is much ennui against the creativity of art, and blind faith that facts are sufficient ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 02, 2020, 09:00:32 AM
If one believes in god and that jesus is part of the god-head, then jesus and god set this thing up. Judas and the Jews had no choice. This is what god scripted and this is what had to happen. It is god's fault and no others. But then, nobody said the mentally insane (theist) are capable of logic or critical thinking.
Pretty much. I think I was eleven or twelve when I asked our parish priest why Judas should be condemned for doing what god wanted him to do, since without the crucifixion there would be no reason for Christianity. He more or less fell back on "it's a mystery" and I was terribly disappointedâ€"especially since he really was a great guy and I had immense respect and affection (no, not that kind) for him. He later went on to head the diocesan office of ecumenical outreach; while he was in our parish, he often did joint services with other ministers.
Boy, you have never seen spines straighten like a bunch of old Polish and Slovak Catholics being hit with their first Baptist homily... Father Willman spoke. Reverend Tisdale
preached.
Quote from: Cassia on May 02, 2020, 05:50:07 PM
To me morality and ethics have nothing to do with some fictitious battle between good and evil or any childish incarnations. Do your best not to cause harm to others and yourself; in fact help others if possible. All 'mentally-well' social animals inherently know this. It is through cooperation that homo sapiens has come to dominate this planet for the time being.
Apologists evidently cannot figure out this simple logic. Earlier today, for example, I heard an apologist raising a fuss over rational morality. He asked what's to keep us from eating our neighbors without God to command us not to!
Hmmm. Do some apologists need their religion to overcome their hunger for "neighbor stew" and assume we all have the same urge?
Quote from: Jagella on May 02, 2020, 09:23:03 PM
Apologists evidently cannot figure out this simple logic. Earlier today, for example, I heard an apologist raising a fuss over rational morality. He asked what's to keep us from eating our neighbors without God to command us not to!
Hmmm. Do some apologists need their religion to overcome their hunger for "neighbor stew" and assume we all have the same urge?
Any system agreed to by a community will do, whether an outsider likes it or not. Claiming divine sanction is simply doubling down. Such a system doesn't have to be consistent either (given that people aren't internally consistent or socially consistent). Justifying such a system can be the mythical "social contract". But it doesn't actually need any justification. Given Mongols, Aztecs etc .. I don't see much evidence for any universal morality. Except from the bourgeois cultural imperialism.
Quote from: Baruch on May 02, 2020, 09:55:58 PM
Any system agreed to by a community will do, whether an outsider likes it or not. Claiming divine sanction is simply doubling down. Such a system doesn't have to be consistent either (given that people aren't internally consistent or socially consistent). Justifying such a system can be the mythical "social contract". But it doesn't actually need any justification. Given Mongols, Aztecs etc .. I don't see much evidence for any universal morality. Except from the bourgeois cultural imperialism.
I've found that moral systems are often the result of whoever has the power to impose their will on others. If Big Momma can beat up any of us, for example, and Big Momma tells us we can have no candy, then we darned well better not be caught with candy! It doesn't matter how logically or factually we can argue that we can have candy, what Big Momma says goes.
The Bible god is like Big Momma. If he rules out gathering sticks on Saturday, no matter how stupid we might think that rule is, we better not get caught gathering sticks on Saturday. His might is right.
Some apologists will deny my argument. They argue that God's goodness "flows from his being--his very essence is good," whatever that might mean. Since he is good, he can only do good and command good. (So much for omnipotence!) Anyway, I must wonder how apologists judge God to be good. What standard of goodness are they referring to? If that standard of goodness is God, then to say "God is good" reduces to the tautology, "God is like God." If that standard of goodness is independent of God, then we don't need God to decide what is right and wrong, and we can gather sticks any time we think we need them.
Yes, power flows from a gun - Mao Tse Tung. Power structures do distort whatever morality would be coexistent with a particular culture. Hence organized crime tends not to be punished, particularly the greatest organized crime, government. What is a puritan to do? Get uploaded into an android body to escape the stain of mere humanity?
The entire book of Job can be summed up with 3 words: Might makes right.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 05, 2020, 01:13:43 PM
The entire book of Job can be summed up with 3 words: Might makes right.
With G-d, there is no alternative. With atheism, government is god.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 05, 2020, 01:13:43 PM
The entire book of Job can be summed up with 3 words: Might makes right.
Or, "Fuck you, Job."
Quote from: trdsf on May 05, 2020, 06:04:45 PM
Or, "Fuck you, Job."
Yes, and some people say (to a fictional story) ... fuck you back! Human beings want to be more than the flotsam and jetsam of history, just another intermediate or terminal species (we don't know which).