Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Randy Carson]

I believe so, some people need religion, but the explanation for why is beyond me.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that EVERYONE needs God and that some are simply more conscious of this than others.

I assume you mean "atheist that deconverts from Christianity?"  From a logical perspective, yes.  It should be discounted.  From an illogical perspective, no.  Logic is independent of predispositions and desires.  Things are either logical or they are not.  We don't get to choose what is logical.  Logic is unsympathetic and outside of our control.  It's only a guide we can apply, but not our master.  Theists can become atheists for illogical reasons too.

Converting "from" one thing to another is a deconversion from that thing, isn't it?

I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly. I have come up with a list of reasons that people may have for being atheist, and it's my opinion that more people are atheists because of emotional and volitional reasons than for intellectual reasons.

[Jason78]

They are. Is this a problem?

There are non-canonical reasons to believe these five facts, and even if we simply view the NT books as historical rather than inspired, the five facts are not challenged.

The point is that we can accept these minimal facts without appealing to scripture as inspired. In fact, they represent the consensus view of modern scholars.

Cool.

If there are non-canonical reasons, then use them.   Don't except us to just accept they are true.

[Randy Carson]

Facts are rapidly converted to PR.  PR is rapidly converted to legend.  Legend is rapidly converted to myth.  Already, the NYC tragedy, and it was a tragedy, has been converted into myth ... of course for political purposes.  Political propaganda, no more than saint's hagiographies, are not histories.  They are leaflets to draw in the tourists.  Like the old joke of Washington Slept Here.

<sigh>

A book entitled, A History of the Jews - From Abraham to the Present, contains no chapter on the Holocaust.

Why? Was it written by a denier? No...it was written by a rabbi.

So, why no mention of the shoah?

[Randy Carson]

If there are non-canonical reasons, then use them.   Don't except us to just accept they are true.

Okay.

Let me ask you this question, Jason, since I don't know that we've interacted before: Are you familiar with Bart Ehrman? He is an agnostic/atheist, a former Christian, and a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.

You probably are, but I don't want to make any assumptions.

If so, what is your opinion of his books and views, etc?

Thanks.

[SGOS]

My only objection to this portion of your post is your statement that the arguments "lack internal logic, etc.". Could you provide an example of this so that I can understand what you're saying better?

This is where I begin to get weary.  The explanation is tedious and I'm quite sure you won't get it.  It would be like trying to explain logic to your blind spot.

So, I have a blind spot and cannot see what you can see? Interesting. But couldn't that be the other way around, also? I can't see things from your perspective, but you can't see things from my perspective. But what if we both "see" the same evidence and simply draw different conclusions about it?

You are almost there.  We both live in the same environment.  We process that environment differently.  What we conclude from that input is irrelevant to the unsympathetic environment we share.

I dunno about this. It seems like it might be worth the effort to bridge that gap. Otherwise, the animosity and distrust between the two sides just continues.

From my limited experience, the gap cannot be bridged.  It can only be ignored.  I have very close theist friends.  Yes, THEIST friends; a hard core fundamentalist couple, and that's how we deal with the gap.  We are at each other's disposal in times of need, and we care about each other.   

I have theist acquaintances that can't deal with the gap.  They want me to agree with them and they become annoying.  I have no need to think the way they do.  I shared their beliefs long ago, but those beliefs faded gradually, because I found those beliefs irrelevant, unsupportable, and illogical.

I also have another theist friend that maintains that his beliefs are entirely logical.  I'm not going to claim he is similar to you.  He is most definitely intellectually challenged in spite of the fact that he claims to have a 175 IQ, but through annoying conversations I realize it's simply a matter of definitions.  His definition of logical is "whatever he believes."  This is a show stopper.  We speak different languages that create an unbridgeable gap.  He couldn't process a claim logically if his life depended on it because he is not willing to accept that logic is more that what he believes to be true.  And I'm not going to bother outlining it for him so that he might further search into it for himself.  He wouldn't, and don't want to play teacher, anyway.

Randy, I'm not a debater.  I don't like the activity.  Keep that in mind.  There was something undefinable that momentarily drew me into this conversation, and I may lose interest and drop out.  Don't take it personally.  Maybe I just needed some mental activity or maybe I just wanted to avoid more pressing jobs.  I'll never think like you or believe like you.  The probability of that happening is somewhere under 1%, closer to zero than to one.

[SGOS]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that EVERYONE needs God and that some are simply more conscious of this than others.

I've heard that theist meme a lot.  All I can tell you is that is undeniably false.  I can't speak for everyone, but I can for myself.  Not everyone needs a god.  But I can throw you one bone if you promise not to go running off with it half cocked.  One time, I was talking to a Pantheist, who rejects the idea of divinity of all gods, while he worships the universe.  Like it or not, the universe is his god (you must realize there are and always have been many gods, each with different attributes, all of which you probably reject).  This Pantheist, who admits he doesn't speak for all other Pantheists, affords his god no mystic properties, intelligence, or grand plan.  His explanation for identifying the universe as his god is that he needs a god.  He claimed, "I have a god shaped hole in my heart."  Well that's poetic and all, but there is nothing there I relate to.  I can understand, but there is nothing there that's in me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You imply a dichotomy where none exists.

True. There was no god on Earth named Jesus. So why fucking bother?

[Jason78]

Okay.

Let me ask you this question, Jason, since I don't know that we've interacted before: Are you familiar with Bart Ehrman? He is an agnostic/atheist, a former Christian, and a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.

You probably are, but I don't want to make any assumptions.

If so, what is your opinion of his books and views, etc?

Thanks.

If you have reasons, just state them.

[Randy Carson]

This is where I begin to get weary.  The explanation is tedious and I'm quite sure you won't get it.  It would be like trying to explain logic to your blind spot.

Try me.

If the lesson is unclear, it that the fault of the student or the teacher?

Randy, I'm not a debater.  I don't like the activity.  Keep that in mind. 

Okay, but you sure choose to spend your time in an unusual forum for someone who does not like debate. Do you come here just to laugh at believers?

There was something undefinable that momentarily drew me into this conversation, and I may lose interest and drop out.  Don't take it personally.  Maybe I just needed some mental activity or maybe I just wanted to avoid more pressing jobs.  I'll never think like you or believe like you.  The probability of that happening is somewhere under 1%, closer to zero than to one.

I wonder how many converts have said that at one point or another in the course of human history?

[Blackleaf]

I have ignored it because it is an opinion-based v. fact-based question. But since this is important to you, let me address your dilemma:

"Option 1: Do your sin in secret, don't put yourself through the emotional rollercoaster that is deconversion so you can justify it. Use religion to justify yourself instead, because God forgives and no sinner has the right to judge you."

OR

"Option 2: Give up your religion, which a considerable portion of your life has been devoted to. Give up a major source of emotional support, both the imaginary God you pray to and the congregation that gives you a sense of belonging. Give up your hope for an afterlife, and the sense that your life has a purpose. All so that you can sleep with your (insert gender of your preference here)friend."

Isn't this a false dilemma, Blackleaf?

Whatever happened to Option 3: Stop sinning?

You're not the only person to struggle with sin. We all do. But God provides the grace for us to do so. And when we fall, we go to confession and ask God to forgive us. Then, renewed by the grace of the sacrament, we try again. And we may fall again. And God forgives us again. He is not surprised nor is He disappointed. And your sin is not greater than His mercy. You can't sin beyond His ability to forgive.

We only fail when we give up our struggle against sin and embrace it.

It sounds as if you gave in to despair about ever being free from the sins which entangled you, so rather than fight against them, you chose to fight against God or the idea of a God since you now claim that He does not exist.

I suspect that this is not very satisfying for you because while you tell yourself this (and hang out in forums like this to bolster your self-assurance), in your heart you know this is a lie you're telling yourself.

Why not return to your Father who sees the sins we commit in secret and ask for His forgiveness as well as for the grace to live as you know you should? God, who desires the good for you, knows what you need even before you ask Him, and He will answer.

Perhaps in unexpected ways, but He will answer.

Oh, no you don't. I'm not letting you change the subject this time. YOU said that it was convenient for a man to become an atheist so that he can sin. Now tell me, why is it more convenient to give up your religion and all the advantages that come with it when you could just use your religion to justify yourself? Which of the two is more convenient?

[Randy Carson]

I've heard that theist meme a lot.  All I can tell you is that is undeniably false.  I can't speak for everyone, but I can for myself.  Not everyone needs a god.  But I can throw you one bone if you promise not to go running off with it half cocked.  One time, I was talking to a Pantheist, who rejects the idea of divinity of all gods, while he worships the universe.  Like it or not, the universe is his god (you must realize there are and always have been many gods, each with different attributes, all of which you probably reject).  This Pantheist, who admits he doesn't speak for all other Pantheists, affords his god no mystic properties, intelligence, or grand plan.  His explanation for identifying the universe as his god is that he needs a god.  He claimed, "I have a god shaped hole in my heart."  Well that's poetic and all, but there is nothing there I relate to.  I can understand, but there is nothing there that's in me.

Let's step back for a moment.

Would it be reasonable for me to assume that you want good things in life? No matter what they are or how you define them, you want "good" for yourself and others, correct?

[Poison Tree]

Nothing you posted denies that burial after crucifixion was anything but extremely rare and your argument that it was granted to Jesus is indistinguishable from mere assertion

[snip]
And Pilate was motivated to avoid conflict with the leaders of the Sanhedrin and further uproar in the city.

Pilate who so continually provoked the Jews by disrespecting their custom that he was rebuked by the emperor? Pilate who was so eager to kill Jews at the slightest provocation that it cost him his prefect? Next you are going to tell me that you actually believe that it was his custom to offer full amnesty a prisoner at passover and that he could be browbeaten by the crowd into releasing an insurrectionist


But I noticed you ignored the opening section of my post

[Randy Carson]

Oh, no you don't. I'm not letting you change the subject this time. YOU said that it was convenient for a man to become an atheist so that he can sin. Now tell me, why is it more convenient to give up your religion and all the advantages that come with it when you could just use your religion to justify yourself? Which of the two is more convenient?

I have demonstrated that you are trying to force me onto the horns of a false dilemma, and I have avoided this by stepping between the horns.

You made a choice. You decided that it was easier (note I didn't say it was easy) to become an atheist (even leaving beloved stuff behind) than it was to give up the thing you desired more.

You preferred your new *whatever* to the old that you had. It was a cost-benefit analysis, and you made your choice. You have the Pearl you consider to be of greater price.

My point is that there was (and still is) a third way, and I suspect that you knew this, too.

[Sargon The Grape]

I have demonstrated that you are trying to force me onto the horns of a false dilemma, and I have avoided this by stepping between the horns.

You made a choice. You decided that it was easier (note I didn't say it was easy) to become an atheist (even leaving beloved stuff behind) than it was to give up the thing you desired more.

You preferred your new *whatever* to the old that you had. It was a cost-benefit analysis, and you made your choice. You have the Pearl you consider to be of greater price.

My point is that there was (and still is) a third way, and I suspect that you knew this, too.

You're avoiding the question because you know that if you answered honestly, it would demonstrate your present argument to be completely baseless.

[Randy Carson]

Nothing you posted denies that burial after crucifixion was anything but extremely rare and your argument that it was granted to Jesus is indistinguishable from mere assertion

Except for the fact that we have four independent eyewitness accounts from reliable men who had no motivation for lying about what they reported.

Now, I am conscious of the possibility that you would dispute virtually every word in that last sentence. I get that. Because you have not done enough homework to determine for yourself that it is true.

Pilate who so continually provoked the Jews by disrespecting their custom that he was rebuked by the emperor? Pilate who was so eager to kill Jews at the slightest provocation that it cost him his prefect? Next you are going to tell me that you actually believe that it was his custom to offer full amnesty a prisoner at passover and that he could be browbeaten by the crowd into releasing an insurrectionist

Gee, do we have any ancient documents suggesting that he might?

See, at the end of the day, I have indirect evidence...the eyewitness accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and others. You have opinions and speculations that you REALLY want to be true because you DON'T want to acknowledge the existence of God.

Now, to be fair, I DO want the acknowledge His existence, so I have my own agenda same as you. Except I have eyewitness testimony supporting what I want. You don't.

But I noticed you ignored the opening section of my post

If I didn't respond, then you are correct. Was there some critical point that I should have addressed?