I’m leaving for a few days, be back on Friday.In the mean time, let’s discuss Jesus from an historical perspective. Most of us will acknowledge that he didn’t turn any water into wine or cure any sick people, but did he live in the first place?I think not, and here’s why:1) All evidence supporting his existence has been disproven (Shroud of Turin, the Osuarry of James) or is very suspect (Josephus forgery)2) There should be much more evidence for a man with his supposed following3) Most of the accounts of Jesus’ life predate Jesus in other mythologies. Support from Frank ZindlerNone of this is proof that he didn’t exist, but it certainly seems so to me. Your thoughts?
lil dub:
I don?t understand where you?re coming from. Your treatise on humans necessarily having to ?resort to ?inventing or creating? gods and other mythology as explanations for things – especially to ‘objectify’ right and wrong? is pure existentialism, yet you also claim to be a Christian.
I disagree that
It isn?t necessary to explain why stealing is wrong to a child when that child has been the victim of a thief. And the objective nature of right and wrong isn?t a concept germane solely to humans?in the movie March of the Penguins a bereaved mother penguin who lost her chick in a blizzard tried to take a chick from another mother, but was repelled by several other penguins. Even the National Geographic Society acknowledges this objective morality in the animal kingdom by putting its name on a film containing the narration, ?having lost her own chick, she will attempt to steal another?s, but the group will not allow it.? So, does this mean that the Emperor Penguin (as a species) has also fabricated a god in order to ?objectify? right and wrong?
You speak of theism as though it is purely a construct of human thought despite its having universal applications and consequences. You also seem to avoid acknowledging that there are indeed objective realities in this universe. The science of Cosmology has discovered considerable evidence of the ?big bang? that brought the universe into existence. If it did occur, then it is axiomatic that it was an event that must have had a cause, and that cause had to predate the universe and exist external to it. Theism (i.e. God) does not need a ?reason? to exist. It?He, exists by His own merit, independent of our subjective perceptions, and is indicated by the objectivity of repeatable observations (i.e. the ?big bang?).
jcc:
While your example from “March of the Penguins” is an interesting footnote, I think that, if anything, the flick is most definitely an argument against creationism/ID.
It is hard for me to stomach that any creator could be so cruel.
It’s more likely, rather than a moral imperative that the group prevent the kidnapping of a chick, it is more a survival instinct.
Personally, I don’t need someone (or something) to be behind the whole ball of wax.
It just is, is all, to paraphrase the seeker.
If the penguins are representative of g-d’s eternal love, I think I’d rather blink out of existence, thanks.
That some guy in an outpost of Italy,
Whose dying words rang out so bitterly,
Is believed now a god,
Seems at least rather odd,
And to live life based on this is nit-witery.
jcc
Glad to see you don’t think God is necessary for morality. Or have you ceded that point before. I don’t recall. I didn’t see the movie. Did the penguins get the grieving mother some counseling? Or was their morality limited to not stealing? You really think it was more than “if we let it happen to her, it could happen to us?”
Just asking, I’m all for morality in the animal kingdom; just don’t know that I would read that much into it.
Of course theism is “purely a construct of human thought.”
Did belief in gods exist before man did?
It matters not what brought man to existence. Man made up gods when he started to question his surroundings. Not his existence; just how the world worked, which he didn’t understand. What’s the wind? God. What makes rain? God. Etc.
AH….HeatheNZ
THANK YOU!!!!
It has been a long time between limericks. I had actually been pining for one and thought the other day about requesting one! How DID you know? Quite a good one, too! ☺
Karen,
You’re welcome.
I’ve been toying with responding to my Aunt’s limerick pitying my lack of xian faith. That one just kind of arrived as a failed attempt to find a second stanza to the following:
Some things one should know about Mike,
That curious, questioning tyke.
Although still a lad,
Thought it gruesomely sad,
That sinners should fry on a spike.
karen:
Well, I think that utter anarchy & unenlightened self-interest would be somewhat antithetical to survival.
‘MOTP’ is a heartbreaking flick.
March 70 miles to the place of birth. Mate, lay the eggs. Hubbie waits while mom walks back ANOTHER 70 miles (that’s if an ice shelf HASN’T formed). If ma doesn’t make it back, chick dies. If the chick (or egg) is exposed to the weather for more than a minute (this is in the dead of winter), an entire loss.
The whole thing is just tragic.
If there is a supreme being, it’s just shoddy workmanship.
If an angel was designated to do that, it should be fired.
Not a film for the highly empathic, IMHO.
I’ve said it before, & I’ll say it again:
Definitely NOT an argument for a deity of any sort.
HZ:
Nit-wittery? Aye, & jaypers! The games 1 plays, to be a-rhymin’ proper!
Aye, & prose it be to these hairy old ears, none the less.
Erin Go Bragh!
I do believe, the limerick is named after a city in old Erin, it be.
HZ
AH, Mikey, I love you! You tickle me.
That was great!
karen:
I don?t understand how you interpreted what I wrote to mean that. The objectivity of morality transcends our perception of it and, therefore, can only come from God. How can there possibly be a conceivable notion of right and wrong if the universe is completely naturalistic? Right and wrong only have meaning in reference to an objective, pre-existant, standard. We didn?t create the universe?therefore we don?t get to make the rules.
RA
Awwwwww.
My therapist asked me if I had seen MOTP when it came to theaters. She thought I’d like it, as I’m an animal lover and I believe it’s set to classical music?
I told her I’d catch it on DVD…but now, after your description, I think I’ll tell her she has to come to my house and hold my hand while I watch it. And provide the Kleenex.
RA, Karen,
Thanks for the feedback, ’tis indeed a pleasure to tickle someone’s fancy.
Verse two doth progress…
Some things one should know about Mike,
That curious, questioning tyke.
Although still a lad,
Thought it gruesomely sad,
That sinners should fry on a spike.
So looking without and around,
Saw plenty of gods that abound,
All hold but one to be true
And a sin to trust two
Yet to spurn all, is apt to confound.
I think it might end up being 5 or six stanzas in length.
jcc:
& how convenient, that the moral paradigm shifts, in accordance with the times.
).
That the objective reality seems to so conveniently sync up w/the subjective reality of what’s permissible, at any given time.
It’s called moral relativism. & yes, I know what it means.
I like you, jcc, but I for 1 ain’t buying it.
Sorry to interject. Carry on, please.
Oh, & ignore the little man behind the curtain.
(that’s a joke, BTW.
jcc
Obviously, the penguins didn’t invent a god. If they did, I’ll take bets it isn’t the Christian god. They are acting under on instinctual behavior of some sort.
I know you will point to your remark about NGS acknowledging “this objective morality in the animal kingdom,” but how can you prove this has anything to do with morality? How does NGS putting their stamp of approval on a movie make something true or not?
How does this relate to other animals who will eat their own young?
reluctantatheist:
I disagree. The very fact that the species does survive under such extreme conditions, to me, indicates extraordinary design. I don?t see how a species could, through ?natural selection,? devise a breeding process that depends solely on the demonstrable bond of love between the parents and their offspring.
But that is illogical. If it were merely a matter of survival instinct, then wouldn?t the group let the strongest mother penguin win the fight to rear the chick?
karen:
Sorry, dear. But forewarned is forearmed (I wonder who said that originally?).
I believe I stated this in an earlier thread, when I returned it to the video store, the clerk asked me, “How’d you like it?” To which I said, “Definitely an argument against creationism.” I said it pretty loud. There was a line behind me.
The little Hispanic lady standing next to me just goggled.
Not a peep.
Gonna get me an ‘American Atheist’ T-shirt next, & start walking around town (when the rain FINALLY subsides). Might visit an Xtian bookstore.
No arguments, no railing. Just smile, & be my own friendly self.
Nothin’ like advertising. Setting an example.
People are usually shocked when I freely offer that I’m an atheist (that’s ’cause I get to know them a little, 1st. I don’t introduce myself as 1, any more than most folk introduce themselves as a theist).
Anywhoways. Bring some kleenex.
jcc
Simple: trial and error.
Unk bops Ork over the head with his club. Ork falls down dead. Arnk says, “gee Unk, maybe you should not oughta done that.”
Since Unk killed Ork, the tribe decides he has to take care of Ork’s family. Now we have a precedent.
Sure we do. Not rules like gravity, but rules like “don’t bop someone over the head with your club” happen all the time.
jcc:
Welll…yes & no.
If penguins were fiercely insular, then yes. If they only flocked together at that 1 point in time, sure. You’d have a valid point.
But they’re units that comprise a whole.
Look at the Cuckoo. It lays eggs in other birds’ nest, the chick hatches, shoves other chicks out of the nest, gets fed by the mother.
The likelihood of that happening in a bird that is not insular, that is, dwells among others of its kind, is demonstrably slim. As far as I know, the Cuckoo is a loner.
The herd/flock mind is demonstrably stronger than the individual’s.
If memory serves, birds imprint, both adult & chick.
& it’s easy to anthropomorphize, to say, “Ah, look, they’re just like people.” When all 1 wants is some sort of mirror to look into, to see some of oneself reflected in the world about ourselves.
Sadly, ain’t so.
“Vanity of vanities, sayeth the preacher: of what profit vanity?” (I think that’s the quote – Ecclesiastes, if I’m not mistaken)
I’d have to do some research, to see if there are other examples in the animal kingdom, where such an occurrence happens.
I’m no engineer, by any stretch of the imagination, but I can’t agree at all w/that assessment.
It’s harsh. It’s cruel.
They’re just dumb animals. Subjecting dumb animals to such…outrageous extremes just goes against my grain.
I’d like a word or 2 w/this ‘creator’. So much unnecessary agony.
It gets me by the short hairs, it does.
Nuff said.
“To sleep! perchance to dream:–ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come” – Hamlet, Act III, scene 1.
G’nite.
Okay I think I have penned my reply:
First the limerick from my Aunt:
We once knew a boy called Mike,
Who determined to do what was right
And professing conversion
Was baptized by immersion
Beginning his walk in the light
So now what is this that we find?
That the Lord is no more on his mind
Evolution’s preferred
And what’s so absurd
He’s evolved from the apes, not designed
Oh alas and alack!
When we cut too much slack
So far from the truth we can roam
Not seeing the way
Even though it is day
Nor hearing God’s call to come home.
Now my reply:
Some things one should know about Mike,
That curious, questioning tyke.
Although still a lad,
Thought it gruesomely sad,
That sinners should fry on a spike.
So looking without and around,
Saw plenty of gods that abound,
All held, but one, to be true,
And a sin to trust two,
Yet to spurn all, was apt to confound.
Yet support of a godless conclusion,
Meant belief, in fact, was delusion,
And the means to show why,
Was still up in the sky,
For a youth assumed in confusion.
With the passing of many a season,
Despite once considered a treason,
It’s still plainly apparent,
That the myth is transparent,
As shown, by logic and reason.
That some guy in an outpost of Italy,
Whose dying words rang out so bitterly,
Is believed now a god,
Seems at least rather odd,
And to live, based on this is nit-witery.
So from whence do we get our direction?
Yet maintain our loved-ones’ affection.
We avoid all-out war,
When we question all lore,
And progress by mental reflection.
To conclude this rhythmic reply,
I have no glib answers to “why?”,
I defend a conclusion,
In the place of illusion,
‘Cause at the End when we die, we … die.
Too much? Too little? Too mean?
karen:
And why do you suppose Arnk had the impetus to tell Unk that he shouldn?t have done that? Was it an instinctual discernment that it was wrong, or just simply that Arnk happened to be in a ?righteous? mood?
Again, what was the reasoning behind the tribe?s form of justice? Why was taking care of Ork?s family the ?right? thing to do? According to lil dub there can be no scientific rationale behind the act of deciding if an act is ?right? or ?wrong,? and if we do live in a purely naturalistic universe then Arnk?s reaction Ork?s murder and the tribe?s dispensing of justice for it were purely arbitrary. So, it?s by blind luck that that precedent was set the way it was and not whether or not the act was intrinsically and objectively wrong?
But it?s incontrovertible that the consequences of wrong behavior, like gravity, are built into the universe. If you go around murdering people, sooner or later, you?ll be killed to make you stop. Humans didn?t come up with the consequences of our sins, it?s part of the fabric of the universe?which is by design.
jcc:
Simple. Didn’t want it to happen to him.
Nah-AH! Anyone (or any creature) can see that allowing indiscriminate slaughter (from 1 of their own) is contrary to the survival of the species.
Time to trot out old Ingersoll: “‘Thou shalt not kill’, is as old as time itself, inasmuch as most men object to being murdered.”
How odd that we’re 1 of the 2 species that kills for pleasure.
Karen did ask about creatures that eat their own young.
Also, the penguin seeks out a different mate each year, if memory serves.
Am curious as to your definition of a ‘purely naturalistic universe.’
I’m assuming, by your definition, that w/o an innate sense of morality, every creature would turn on it’s own, & slaughter indiscriminately otherwise?
reluctantatheist:
Sure, on a genocidal scale, but a one-on-one incidence of a crime of passion cannot practically be applied to your assertion, though the ethics remain the same, and this is about ethics, not evolution?but even if it could be misconstrued as such, what about the case of a male murdering others to ensure only his offspring survive?isn?t that contrary to the survival of the species? Seems this knife cuts both ways.
Precisely my point?that the consequences of wrong behavior are built into our existence in the universe; that morality cannot change because it has been objectively fixed.
First, that?s a very strong argument against evolution?you know, contrary to the survival of the species, etc. Second, wrong behavior is wrong behavior even if it occurs in the animal kingdom.
True, but it was also clear that once they chose a mate for that breeding cycle, both remained monogamous for the duration?and the primary reason was for the good of the chick; an amazingly close parallel to the human condition.
One not created by an intelligent designer; one that somehow ?popped? into existence purely by chance and governed by randomly set physical laws?as held by the philosophy of materialism.
What would prevent it? After all, aren?t you the one who thinks, ?that the moral paradigm shifts, in accordance with the times??
jcc:
I’m unsure on this, but how many other species commit a crime of passion?
Examples please. That sure sounds like an argument for evolution, but what do I know? How would that be contrary?
Tell that to the Canaanites. Or the Amekelites. Or any other tribe the Israelites slaughtered.
Genocide was okay then, but not now?
True. On the surface it seems so. Examples, please.
Correct. But we do see that monogamy is never long-term in most animals, as it is for humans.
So, IOWs, if there was no ‘watchmaker’, then there’d be slaugher galore (oh, wait, there’d be nothing at all).
Hey, facts are facts, my friend. 1 needs but to consult history, to see the shift.
Moral relativism is the sword that cuts both ways, to borrow your simile.
What about intersexual animals? Creatures that are hermaphroditic, that can both give birth or impregnate? How does that fit into this paradigm? That w/these two polar opposites, there are those pieces of the puzzle that fall precisely between (or imprecisely: choose your own adjective/adverb/etc.) this standard of normality?
jcc:
correction on last post: substitute ’seldom’ for ‘never’.
Gotta watch my absolutes around you, ey?
jcc
Practicality. Unk didn’t really mean to kill. He was just ’sperimentin’. It wasn’t a crime of passion. More involuntary manslaughter.
Plus what RA said.
Again, practicality. Unk’s action was the reason there was a family without a provider, so it just makes sense that he take up that responsibility.
Consider again the tiger that eats his young. The consequences for him are not that he will be punished by a court, but by evolutionary law, by the lessening of the gene pool he has created.
If a human kills its young, evolutionary law applies, but is not as crucial, given the vast amount of humans compared to tigers. And hopefully, the human also faces consequences set forth by his fellow humans for his actions, in a court of law.
Yes, paradigms shift. One can kill a baby girl in China without consequences. In one country one may be put to death, while in another , put in a looney bin for years to life.
If the consequences were always the same, universally, I’d agree that they were incontrovertably built into the universe. An omnipotent being could have handled that. But that is not the way it happens.
reluctantatheist:
I was referring to karen?s ?Arnk and Unk? scenario. I?m pretty sure penguins (or just about any other animal) are incapable of comprehending the notion of what they?re doing is ensuring the survival of their species.
As for a male murdering others to ensure only his offspring survive, I believe that dominant male lions are known to do such. Such can be used as an argument against evolution by 1) unnecessarily reducing the breeding population, and 2) reducing the gene pool which will have the deleterious effect on the future population by propagating any genetic defects he has.
First, let me apologize for my poor choice of words; I should have used eradication rather than genocide. That being said, genocide during a war does not eradicate the entire species, secondly, I must confess my lack of knowledge of the historical context of those incidents, so I cannot offer a defense of them at this time, but I maintain that the immorality of murder?not morally defensible acts of war?is immutably wrong.
Same as for the male lion killing the offspring of his rivals.
But again, in both the animal kingdom and for humans, everyone in the family relationship benefits from monogamy?especially the offspring while they?re in the care of the parents. For the penguins, the offspring of a mating cycle are only dependent on their parents during that cycle?as you know, that isn?t the case in humans.
But you seem to continue to miss my point: objectively, morality cannot change because the consequences of it do not change. You seem to be confusing the acceptance of social mores (which are always in a state of flux) with absolute morality. We?ve had this discussion before. Just because ?honor killings? are acceptable to Muslim men does not make it morally justifiable.
Does such a condition truly exist? Is there documentation of individuals who possess a fully formed and functioning uterus, vagina, penis, testes and ovaries that are capable of producing viable sperm and egg simultaneously? From what I understand, even in the most extreme cases of ambiguous genitalia, the individual will still be genetically either male or female and not genetically both simultaneously. But even so, how does a congenital, morphological aberration imply an intrinsic immorality? We are not defined by our behavior, but by our character.
Truly fascinating post –
I love how the discussion of how the universe has no concept of negation has turned in to a discussion on ‘mid brain’ instinctual survival and ‘fight-or-flight’ chemical processes. Either way, the universe still doesn’t have any notion of something wrong – there is only ‘what is’. Humans added the “what is not”.
And, in true linguist style -
jcc:
“We are not defined by our behavior, but by our character.”
Actually – by definition – (circular pun intended) we are defined by our language and nothing more. Our behavior and our character are also defined by our language.
jcc:
I find your perambulations..interesting.
What would be judged to be a defect? In the jungle, tooth & claw & fleetness of foot contribute to survival. Shorter claws/talons would lend themselves to unadaptability.
The Dodo bird, in it’s inability to recognize potential danger, became extinct.
I think you’re stretching it a bit here.
All due respect, from answers.com – “The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.”
Aren’t there some animals that practice a form of polygamy?
Dogs & cats (domestic), interestingly enough, are entirely promiscuous w/in the domiciles of domesticity. (say that 3 times fast!).
The lion, if memory serves, keeps a harem. Other animals too, but memory fails.
No, I’m not: I disagree w/it entirely.
It seems that mostly mammals (w/the noteworthy exception of most birds) exhibit these vestiges of ‘morality’ that you propound.
If memory serves (w/a towel over its wrist, no less: “I’ll be your memory this evening”), most creatures that eat their young are of the lower forms (i.e., not mammalian, although there are exceptions, I’m sure).
Must be an objective layering of the moral blanket you so propound.
No I’m not. I believe in evolution, remember?
The only absolute morality is that which enables our species to survive.
Interesting footnote, as an example: while we are horrified & disgusted at cannabilism, in Africa, it’s practiced a great deal more than we’d like to believe.
Interestingly enough:
http://www.answers.com/intersexual -
“According to the highest estimates (Fausto-Sterling et. al., 2000) perhaps 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity [1] (http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency), and that between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of spec_ialist medical attention, including surgery to disguise their sexual ambiguity. Other sources (Leonard Sax, 2002) estimate the incidence of true intersexual conditions as far lower, at approximately 0.018%.”
Apparently, there is a condition known as Chimerism (same source):
“According to the New England Journal of Medicine, vol 338, p 166, physicians in the Western General Hospital of Edinburgh have reported on a child with a penis, one testicle, and an ovary and fallopian tube instead of a second testicle. Some of this child’s body cells are XY (male), and some are XX (female). The child was conceived as the result of in-vitro fertilization, and it appears most likely that two embryos, a male embryo and a female embryo, fused before or soon after embryos were transferred to the mother’s uterus.”
Chances are pretty strong that we most likely will never discover if such a person can actually fertilize oneself, as societal impetus will most likely move the parents to have cosmetic surgery performed on the child.
answers.com – hermaphrodite –
“Gonadal dysgenesis, a type of intersexuality formerly known as “True Hermaphroditism”, occurs in about one percent of mammals (including humans), but it is extremely rare for both sets of sexual organs to be functional, usually neither set is functional. In many cases, these manifestations are altered, sometimes only cosmetically, to resemble standard male or female anatomy shortly after birth.”
Extremely rare? But not impossible.
Seeing as the ancient Israelites were so fiercely insular, this gives me some thoughts as to the not-so-Immaculate Conception.
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
lil dub:
Okay then, so what defines our language? Since we are not telepathic, language is all we have, and the English language can, and does, do an excellent job of facilitating the communication of ideas and concepts.
I disagree that ?our behavior and our character are?defined by our language.? We use our language to express our thoughts and concepts but our definition, our essence and our character far exceed what our language can convey.
reluctantatheist:
You?re kidding, right? How ?bout a genetically weaker immune system than in those he kills?
?Only as far as you are?
As per my earlier correction, none of the aforementioned groups qualify as an entire species.
Which always seems to come back to: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal?
But again, the prevalence of it cannot ever morally justify it. We?re clearly at an impasse in this discussion and I see no point in continuing on that topic.
Thanks for the source on hermaphroditism, though I?m still not sure what its relevance was to our discussion.
Again, I?m not sure what you?re getting at. The Immaculate Conception refers to the Virgin Mary?s conception?which makes no claim of being supernatural apart from it being absent from original sin.
jcc:
A genetically weaker immune system? In a lion? In the jungle?
The only place I know of where this occurs is in civilization. Or in captivity. Of course, never heard of it before. Examples please.
I dunno….
You did correct the genocide thing, so sorry.
Clear examples of evolution, not theology.
Yep, I think you’re right about an impasse.
Whaaaa? as Moe on the Simpsons always says.
C’mon, parthenogenesis is only exhibited in the lower forms of animals, Luke specifically states she’d never ‘known a man’, how is that not supernatural.
I thought original sin was knowledge, not sex?
Well, at the risk of upsetting your delicate sensibilities, I’m suggesting (speculation only), that she was — intersexual, & impregnated herself via nocturnal emission (I’ve heard detached anectdotes about this, have no hard facts).
It all goes to your insistence on ID – you maintain everything is perfect in application as well as theory, even though there are so MANY structural flaws. You insist on your ‘1 man 1 woman’ paradigm, despite the consistent examples that refute it. You insist on a hard-wired morality, a touch on the nervous system from your abstract deity codifies a behavior pattern that is more easily explained by evolution.
Almost all creatures are territorial. At least the 1’s higher up on the food chain.
It’s all explainable.
We evolved.
reluctantatheist:
Please don?t take this personally, but that?s really quite an amusing hypothesis?especially since (according to your own source) the only incidence of such a phenomenon was the result of an artificial process (one that did not exist 2000 years ago)?and even then, there was no mention in your reference of the known individual having a uterus for gestation to take place in. But all that aside, you clearly misunderstood my last post regarding the Immaculate Conception?it?s a Catholic doctrine regarding the conception of Jesus? mother, the Virgin Mary, not the conception of Jesus.
I beg your pardon, but don?t recall ever alluding to there being a requirement for perfect applications. We cannot break God?s laws?they are immutable and will always carry their consequences. We break ourselves on them when we behave contrary to them.
But your evolutionary explanation contains as many scientifically valid, objectionable assertions as my design explanation. I concede there is a possibility (though, now in light of current scientific evidence, it is extremely remote) that evolution could have occurred. The difference is, you apparently cannot acknowledge the same for mine?something someone who is truly in pursuit of objective truth would do.
reluctantatheist:
Thank you for having a considerate conversation here. If you don?t mind, I?m curious?if given a chance to sit down, face-to-face with a group of theists (Christians) in a discussion where you felt free to ask them any questions you wanted about their faith (i.e. you were assured that they wouldn?t try to proselytize you), would you do it, and what would your first, say five, questions be?
jcc:
Hey, I was trying to be funny.
Your reference is to the chimerism, I assume. However, in the other part of the post, I had this as well: “”Gonadal dysgenesis, a type of intersexuality formerly known as “True Hermaphroditism” & also, “but it is extremely rare for both sets of sexual organs to be functional, usually neither set is functional.”
As to the existence of fallopian tubes, again, undegreed layman (biology & science were, alas, not a strong point in HS).
Well, that’s a new 1 I hadn’t heard. Intriguing. Mary was conceived in the same way JC was, am I reading that right?
True enough. However (& let me know if I’m committing a fallacy here, reductio ad absurdum? Not my strong point), but if the creator is perfect, it would stand to reason that anything he/she/it created, would be perfect as well.
Unless, of course, the concept of a Persian rug (in which it has 1 flaw, on purpose, to mar its perfection).
Well, it seems we break ourselves sometimes, regardless of these immutable laws.
Except for 1: the core of it. Said designer.
I could trot out the hoary old chestnuts from my side: vaccine developments, biology, all the advances that evolution has sprouted. But it really boils down to that 1 single item:
Who’s the designer? Where is it/he/she? Why is it beyond our 5 senses to detect said creator?
Current evidence? Extremely remote?
Maybe you & DNAUnion should sit down & hash that discussion out.
DNAUnion actually used to be a proponent of ID, if memory serves.
I think perhaps a discussion between you 2 would be most fascinating.
Bearing in mind, that you have developed a little thicker skin (I assume you have), because, well, he can be a tad, well, acerbic (definition #2, NOT #1).
Got link? Interesting.
jcc:
Hey, right back atcha.
Thanks to my friendship w/spanders, I’ve toned down a bit.
When somebody starts something new (at least for me), 1 becomes somewhat hellbent for leather. I’ve calmed down a bit (but I still got the ire of Eire in me blood, it can’t be helped sometimes).
Hmmm. Interesting query.
My questions might have changed somewhat. It would also (probably) depend on who I’m speaking w/.
Catholic, Prot., Baptist.
I’d try, of course, to be la generica , but that’s hard to do , w/all the divergent faiths out there.
Top 5 questions?
Let’s give it a shot.
#5: Why is it so necessary to have to believe?
#4: Isn’t this just another form of co-dependence?
#3: How many of the flock are ‘incurable’ romantics?
#2: Is your faith contingent on being surrounded by others of the same faith? Yes or no, if yes, why, if no, why?
#1 (drum roll, please): Please give a detailed description (including physical as well as emotional) of how you know the deity you believe in is actually communicating w/you.
I find #1 interesting, because of all the theists I’ve had some discussion w/, this seems to be a topic that’s assiduously avoided (having had Amway folks try to recruit me in the past, by avoiding a straight answer to the query, “What’s the name of the company?” well, it seems somewhat suspicious).
I realize this is (from what I understand) an intensely personal experience, but I’ve actually had personal experiences (occult phenomena, not manifested physically, strange galvanic responses, etc.) in which it SEEMED as if I was in touch w/something.
But as I’ve grown older, I’ve chalked all of it up to
A. Ingesting (or smoking) select substances,
B. I was in closer touch w/the right side of my brain than I am now (tho my detractors would probably say I’m not in touch w/it at ALL, hehehe)
C. Far, far too much fantasy, not enough reality (in re: to point A, not to mention that my reading material for over 2 decades consisted solely of fantasy, horror, sci fi, speculative fiction).
I’ve also noted (albeit this may be an unrepresented example fallacy), that as a rule, some theists don’t have strong parental role models (nuttin’ personal here, I don’t know if it applies to you or not).
I had VERY strong parents, which (I think) gave me an independent spirit. I hate relying on anyone, for anything. Maybe it’s pride, maybe it’s folly, but it’s the way I am.
Looks like the spell-check is up, for anyone interested (not you, jcc: it’s been a point of discussion).
You have to post, go back to post, click on Edit, Spellcheck’ll show (it does on mine, at least).
I haven’t tested it yet, since I don’t usually mispell (except on purpose).
Yippee, skippy!
You’re distorting facts. The truth is that in light of past and current scientific evidences, scientists have enormous confidence in the validity of evolution.
It would take an ENORMOUS amount of counter evidences against evolution – which simly haven’t been found – to make scientists look for a different explanation.
Further, if evolution were false, there is no good reason that all of the experiments performed since Darwin’s day would so effectively support it: yet they do.
Then you say that since you concede evolution could have happened (though you attach qualifiers to your concession), you want the other side to return the favor. Why?
First, if I concede that Jesus may have lived, will you concede that Jesus may not have lived?
Second, once a naturalistic explanation has been found for some phenomenon, the former supernatural/superstitious explanations are rejected. Or do you still believe that diseases known to be caused by microbes are actually still caused by evil spirits?
DNAunion:
If that?s the case then why are so many renowned, highly respected in their field, scientists?in many disciplines, on record voicing their dissent from Darwinism?
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
If these scientists weren?t on record, then, yes, you could plausibly assert that I?m the one ?distorting? facts. But, unfortunately for you, it seems the objective truth is that you are the one ?distorting? facts by disregarding the existence of these dissenting scientists.
Clearly, for so many credentialed scientists to object to it, sufficient evidence exists to cast serious and plausible doubt for the validity of Darwinism.
So, the results of an experiment are only valid if they?re interpreted to support evolution??talk about having a ?confirmation bias.?
It?s not ?returning the favor.? It?s what any truly objective scientist must acknowledge.
Yes.
Are you quoting me here, or are you just assuming I believe such a thing? Given the absurdity of your last question (which clearly demonstrates your propensity for unsubstantiated, personal bias), I?d say that your ability to maintain a necessary scientific objectivity has been seriously compromised. But that aside, you again presuppose that there can only be one correct interpretation of facts.
reluctantatheist:
First, thanks for your questions. I find them very interesting and will keep them in mind in future posts.
Second, (and I apologize for the tardiness in addressing this) but you made an interesting comment earlier:
Care must be used when using the term ?perfect.? Something can be perfect (i.e. ?being without fault or defect?) and still be subject to decay. It?s all relative to the nature of what we?re referring to. A healthy, newborn baby can be properly considered ?perfect? in that he/she was not born with any defects, yet it is in the nature of that baby to eventually grow old and die. The perceived imperfection is the baby?s susceptibility to harm and death?but that is that every baby has, so in that sense, the baby is ?perfect? in that it does what all babies do.
Also, while I cannot logically refute your claim, there?s also nothing to prohibit God from creating what you regard as ?imperfect? things. There is nothing illogical to claim that something that is true for God must also be true of his creation?hence, your Persian rug metaphor.
Lets see… How many Jews and others did the Romans crucify? Why is it that you are writing this blog about only one of them? How many other human beings on this planet were tortured and killed even just in the past year and society has forgotten them. Hmmmm… why all the fuss over Jesus by people who don’t beleive he existed. hmmmm… Why the curiosity in your soul?
Open your eyes to the reality of the supernatural.
This is a pointless blog because you will not accept any evidence that will begin to casue you to think that maybe, just maybe he really lived, died, was who he said he was and was resurected.
What are you afraid of?? Love?
All, Sorry – I know I am but feeding the troll.
openureyes,
Try looking at the world without your god-tinted glasses. What you would be looking at is reality.
It’s not all cuddly, gooey and warm, but neither is it delusional.
So why is it that atheists seem to be preoccupied with God? Or trying to prove that there is no God? If you truly believe that you don’t believe in God then why all the rhetoric? If you truly have a superior intellect and a superior objective view of reality (which is what most atheists assert) then why even go there? Why on an atheist website is there all this discussion about God? The historicity of Jesus? Why do you even care? You don’t believe anyway. You wouldn’t believe even if there was the kind of proof you think you need. You seem caught in an exercise of futility. Much like I probably am by even writing this.
It is very obvious that you (atheists) are grappling with, and trying to come to terms with the the fact that there is a God but since you cannot (or will not) understand Him with your intellect you can’t handle it so you reject the entire concept or possibility. Hmmm, how would that attitude go over in a scientific experiment? What if Darwin would have approached his theory of evolution with that logic? You would not have an empty unprovable theory to believe in. Yet in your rejection you are crying out “prove to me that God exists”. You are torn between your intellect and the reality of a Living God. If you were truly satisfied in your unbelieving self righteous superior thinking then this thread or even this website would not even exist. Dare I say…hypocrite? You will deny all this because you live in denial. That’s what atheism is, denial. Surely you will agree with that.
Hmmm….”God tinted glasses”. What about yours? As an atheist you say you don’t believe in God. But, in fact you do believe in a god. The god of your understanding. YOUR understanding. You cannot look past your own understanding and accept that maybe, just maybe there is someone (God) smarter than, bigger than, mankind. A God who is so far greater than anything you can comprehend but yet has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind through what little understanding we do have. The universe really doesn’t revolve around you or mankind. There really are things we cannot comprehend. Does that make them not true?
Atheism boils down to the worship of the god of intellect, knowledge and human understanding. It’s nothing new. Gnosticism has been around for thousands of years. But what if you can’t figure something out, then what? Then you reject it. Hence atheism. If you were to take off YOUR “god-tinted glasses” you would be able to see beyond your own limited intellect and see reality…that the Creator of the Universe, both material things and things unseen wants you to have your eyes opened to The Greater Reality. The God who Lives now. Jesus.
openureyes
openureyes:
I dunno, the prevalence of Xtianity in our society? It’s negative impact on us, before & after our decisions?
Yeesh, I’m gonna have to develop a stock answer, that question’s been asked so MANY times.
Sharpening the debating skills, is all.
Bullshit.
Defer to my prior comment.
Apparently, you’re not a scientist, or you’d realize how foolish that statement is.
pot.kettle.black. Why do YOU even care?
1st rational statement you’ve made.
What, you took ESP 101?
Sure, why not?
Got proof?
2nd rational statement.
Hey, WE’RE the 1’s saying that.
It’s the theists who claim otherwise.
“Man, in his ignorance, supposed that all natural phenomena was created in direct relation to himself” paraphrase, Ingersoll.
3rd rational statement, sentence #1.
Apparently you know squat about Gnosticism.
It’s called empirical knowledge. Or logic, if you prefer.
The positive can’t be proven? The negative is given.
Open your own damn eyes.
Please.
“I dunno, the prevalence of Xtianity in our society? It’s negative impact on us, before & after our decisions?”
Excuse me but if you live in the US you live in a country where you can choose to beleive or not to beleive in God. Try that in China or many other nations. How much Christian (or Xian if you prefer, see my note below) blood was spilled so you could rant freely? Your probably a windoze user also, guess who gave you windoze?? Yup, uncle bill the… huh!!!!… Christian… (well you may have a point here…)
I don’t here you complaining about Harvard or Yale. Yes, they were started as Christian schools. How about hospitals? Do a little research and you will find that the concept of a place where people could go and be treated and healed was started by Christians. How many thousands of Christian churches have reached out to devastated lives in just your lifetime alone? Name me 1 or 2 Atheist organizations that even begin to get close to what Christian organzations have done over the course of American History.
Xmas, Xian, Xianity.
Oxford Dictionary:
ORIGIN X Representing the initial chi of Greek. Khristos, Christ.
I find it interesting how people try to “X” out Christ thinking they are making a statement. You are however still using the word Christ. It’s kind of a “gotcha” thing. See, no matter how hard you try you cannot get around Christ, The Messiah, The Annointed one.. or X if you prefer. Reality is real even if you deny it.
Gnosticism, I know, it’s a religion and afterall you are atheists. But, it’s still basically the worship of knowledge. It has nothing to do with a relationship with God through X. It is self centered religion just like atheism. I know you won’t cop to that plea but if you get honest atheism is a religion.
Religion: Activity towards a purpose… Like Islam, Catholocism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism, Mormanism, Paganism and all the other “ism’s”
Christian- (Christ in). Followers of the Way of Jesus: Relationship with God through X.
Surely you know the difference between ritual and relationship.
Ingersoll would have been onto something if he would have just written:
“Man, in his ignorance, supposed…”
“The fool in his heart says there is no God” King David. Check your history books. He was a Jewish King.
Openureyes:
Rightey-o, & that’s thanks to the 1st amendment.
I am thankful to be an American.
Not the point.
Valid point, if there’d been any atheist organizations, say, at the beginning of American History.
Proof, please. Links, sources, etc.
)
Until Xtianity came along, there was no where for sick & wounded people to go?
Here, I’ll do your homework for you (but only this 1 time,
http://www.answers.com/topic/hospital?gwp=19
“In ancient cultures religion and medicine were linked. The earliest known institutions aiming to provide cure were Egyptian temples. Greek temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius might admit the sick, who would wait for guidance from the god in a dream. The Romans adopted his worship. Under his Roman name ?sculapius, he was proved with a temple (291 B.C.) on a island in the Tiber in Rome, where similar rites were performed.
The first institutions created specifically to care for the sick appeared in India. Brahmantic hospitals were established in Sri Lanka by 431 B.C., and King Ashoka founded 18 hospitals in Hindustan c.230 B.C. The latter were provided with physicians and nurses, and supported from royal funds.“
I might suggest you do a little more homework, before you begin taking credit for something Xtianity didn’t start.
Again, shooting off your mouth w/o doing any research.
I’m not making a statement at all. I’m saving 5 extra keystrokes. Not afraid of the CHRIS part of it.
It’s also a perfectly legitimate way to type the name.
I could leave out the ‘t’, but I leave it in, anyways.
Wrong, on so many points.
Gnosticism (depending on the variant) is pantheistic (multiple gods), believes that the farther 1 gets from the Monad (the original source), the more 1 is corrupted, etc.
Atheism doesn’t worship anything whatsoever. Not the individual, nada.
I know that’s hard for you to understand, but it’s true.
Hey, if you start getting insulting (& your obvious attitude, + the need to spell things out, as if we are all ignorant children, is just that), you, as an Xtian, need to start practicing Agape.
http://www.answers.com/agape – definition # 2 – “1. Christianity. Love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity.
2. Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.”
Somehow, nothing you’ve said thus far reveals all of that.
That’s Psalms 14:1.
See, I didn’t even need to look it up.
Let’s clear the air here:
Myself, & many of us here, are very familiar w/all your trappings. Scriptures. History.
I suggest you step back, & think before you post next.
You’re rude, insulting, acting like a bigot, pretentious, oh, I could use a few choice invectives.
You are no better, nor worse, than any of us.
You’re a guest in someone else’s home.
As am I.
But I’ve been here a lot longer. & I’m amid friends here.
So take it down a couple of notches.
& quit judging others. It’s against your own rules.
Please.
openureyes
Two reasons: As a soiciological phenomena, religion is a facinating subject. I think you would be forced to conceed that many millions of non-Xians (I would include Xians) are deluded in their theistic belief systems. Reason Two: Theism esp. Xianity impacts our everyday lives in many subtle and not-so subtle ways. We need the rhetorical ammunition to protect ourselves from such unwelcome and unwarrented intrusions.
Superior to what/who?
See answers to your first questions.
Wrong. I do not believe in god or gods precicely because the concept lacks credibility. It is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence. the actual evidence is scant to the point of irrelevancy (in supporting such a claim). If there were some verifiable, testable, extraordinary evidence, then I would believe. Again, despite millions of people searching for hundreds of years – no evidence of this type has been found.
I’m not sure what futilie exercise you think I am caught in. I assume you mean trying to prove there is no god or gods. If so, I am not trying to prove such, just show, through reason and logic, that it is unreasonable (to the point of self-delusion) to assert that there is a god or gods.
Wow, you sure have a vivid imagination. This is a tragically disingenuous comment. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that supports an assertion that god or gods are more than human inventions. If such evidence were to be presented (verifiable repeatable, testable, etc) then I would reconsider my position. The possibility is always there, the liklihood of that possibility is currently negligable.
The problem here is that your previous statement (that I assume you are referring to) contains no logic. Or rather it contains unsupported assumptions. If evolutionary theory was based on unsupported assumptions then it would not be a scientific theory – I guess it would be akin to a theistic belief.
Huh? Are you referring to evolution and equating it to a theistic belief system? Noone “believes” in evolution on faith. We look at the evidence (yes there is a LOT of evidence), and ask ourselves is this the best explanation currently available. If other evidence comes to light that contradicts the theory, we adjust or abandon the theory. Such is the process of science. Scientific theory can be disproved, but never proved (I think – mathematics excepted). To say evolution is empty is plain ignorant, to to say it is uprovable is in a purist sense accurate, to say it is a belief system is disingenuous.
I don’t demand proof – some extraordinary evidence would do – even a cogent logical argument.
You mean between reality and fantasy.
Look, theists are forever telling us they are right and we are wrong. Please note: We assert NOTHING. All we are saying is that theistic claims are mutually exclusive and extraordinary. If any brand of theist has some equeally extraordinary evidence to support their beliefs, then by all means present it. If theists have no such evidence then it is unreasonable to accept their claims as reality – epeciially when there is evidence strongly suggesting that their claims are bogus.
Are you challenging me to deny that I am a hypocrite, because I choose to discuss something in which a do not believe? I fail to see the hypocracy. I discuss Harry Potter books too. That would count as equally hypocritical based on the merits of your charge. So yes I do deny the charge, but not because I live in denial, rather because the charge is spurious.
You need to check your definition of a god. My understanding is not immortal, nor omniscient, nor omnipotent, etc. The two are different concepts.
Sure I can accept that possibility. That is precisely why i do NOT assert there is not god. Rather, I see insufficient evidence to justify an assertion that there is a god or gods. Again the onus is on those making the assertion to support their claims. theists consistently fail to do so.
Finally something we can agree on. Humankind is insignificant in the cosmic scheme. But I thought theist put humans at the center (exceting god and his cohorts) of the universe…..? Things unknown cannot be assigned a truth value. They are by definition unknown – therfore their truth value is NULL.
That’s just silly. “Intellect, knowledge and human understanding” are very different concepts to the concept of a god.
You obviously have no idea what Gnosticism is.
Maybe the something is invalid?
This descending into religious psychobabble. I have discarded god-tinted glasses – many years ago. Show me some extraordinary evidence for the rest of you fantasies and we’ll have something substantial to discuss. Until then they can safely be considered wishful thinking – or self-delusion.
HeatheNZ:
What then, in the cosmos, do you consider to be of greater significance? Do stars understand calculus? Can galaxies build hospitals? Can black holes contemplate their existence? Do quasars use imaginary numbers? But, most importantly, do interstellar nebulae have free will?
This is a response (long!) to the two articles below by Frank Zindler, which I got a link to from a man who calls himself “Robertangel” on IMDbpro.com. Anybody have any comments on my response? I’m open to any criticism.
WHERE JESUS NEVER WALKED
http://ftp.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html
DID JESUS EXIST?
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
Robertangel,
The articles by Frank Zindler are impressive in some ways. He?s certainly well read and thorough, at least in certain areas. I learned from reading them. But I think there are some problems in his position.
In particular, look at this passage in the ?Did Jesus exist?? article. Unfortunately, I have to quote at length to make my point.
?Apologists, as they grasp for ever more slender straws with which to support their historical Jesus, point out that the passage quoted above is not the only mention of Jesus made by Josephus. In Bk. 20, Ch. 9, ?1 of Antiquities of the Jews one also finds the following statement in surviving manuscripts:
?Ananus? convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.?
?It must be admitted that this passage does not intrude into the text as does the one previously quoted. In fact, it is very well integrated into Josephus’ story. That it has been modified from whatever Josephus’ source may have said (remember, here too, Josephus could not have been an eye-witness) is nevertheless extremely probable. The crucial word in this passage is the name James (Jacob in Greek and Hebrew). It is very possible that this very common name was in Josephus’ source material. It might even have been a reference to James the Just, a first-century character we have good reason to believe indeed existed. Because he appears to have born the title Brother of the Lord, it would have been natural to relate him to the Jesus character. It is quite possible that Josephus actually referred to a James “the Brother of the Lord,” and this was changed by Christian copyists (remember that although Josephus was a Jew, his text was preserved only by Christians!) to “Brother of Jesus” – adding then for good measure “who was called Christ.”
Zindler goes on in a footnote to define the term ?Brother of the Lord?:
?Originally, this would have been the title born by a member of a religious fraternity associated with the worship of Yahweh, who in Greek was always referred to as kurios (‘Lord’). This was carried over into primitive Christianity, where we know from I Cor. 9:5 that there existed a governing class coordinate with apostles that was called “Brothers of the Lord.” Misunderstanding of the original meaning of the title led to the belief that Jesus had siblings – an error that can be found already in the earliest of the canonical gospels.
?Interestingly, the embarrassing passages in the gospels where Jesus is rude to his mother and brethren would seem to derive from a period where a political struggle had developed between apostolically governed sects and those governed by “Brethren of the Lord,” who claimed authority now by virtue of an alleged blood relationship to Jesus – who had by then supplanted Yahweh as “Lord.” The apostolic politics of the gospel writers could not resist putting down the Brethren Party by having Jesus disregard his own family. If Jesus didn’t pay serious attention to his own family, the argument would go, why should anyone pay attention to their descendants? This is the only plausible explanation for the presence of such passages as John 2:4 (“Woman, what have I to do with thee?”) or Mark 3:33 (“Who is my mother, or my brethren?).?
Now, Robertangel, for one thing, I?m not sure what the evidence is for the ?religious fraternity? mentioned in the first paragraph of the footnote, but maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt on that. But I think it?s extremely significant that he accepts the historicity of this person named ?James the Just,? who is supposedly a member of a Christianized version of it. But don?t you think it?s a bit problematic that the apostles would have made jabs at the ?Brethren of the Lord? who claimed a blood relation with Jesus, if Jesus were fictional? Especially if Paul mentions ?James the Lord?s Brother? by about 55 AD in Galatians 1:19? I suppose this mention and that of Josephus are the reasons Zindler thinks ?we have good reason to believe [he] indeed existed.? But my point is, whether the apostles would have made jabs at them or not?and I think what Zindler says there is pretty plausible–they would have no reason to claim blood relationship with someone who never existed.
Now, I?ll admit that one could say these passages only say there was a group of people called ?Brothers of the Lord,? and that the identification of ?Lord? as referring to the figure Zindler calls ?Jeshua ha Netzer? (?the Savior, the Branch?) came later. But the problem I see with his whole theory is that it requires that this mythology develop rather quickly. First, Paul wrote in 55 AD of someone named James the Lord?s Brother, and about the same time, in I Cor. 8:6, he refers to Jesus as ?Lord.? Zindler thinks that at this time, the idea that Netzer was a reference to a place called Nazareth had not taken hold yet: that would happen over the next 20-30 years and eventually be stated in the gospels. He points out that Paul never calls Jesus ?Jesus of Nazareth.?
Now, one thing that I consider very important to recognize about Paul is that he does not hold the concept of Jesus? deity. What he says in I Corinthians is quite incompatible with that (see I Cor. 8:6 and 15:28). He does not equate Kurios (?Lord?) in 8:6 with ?God,? and it has been pointed out, even by the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, that lots of people could be called Kurios at that time. Sometimes it was just a way of saying ?Sir? or ?Mr.? Not that Paul denied Jesus? deity: the point is, the concept never even occurred to him. It isn?t until the gospel of John that that concept enters Christian literature. Even passages in the other gospels that are sometimes translated as ?he fell down and worshipped him,? when Jesus helps someone, don?t prove a belief in his deity, because the Greek word really only means to ?bow before? someone. So the claim Zindler makes that Jesus ?had by then supplanted Yahweh as ?Lord?” is really questionable. Even John doesn?t make Jesus ?equal to the Father? (John 14:28), and the idea of their equality as members of the Trinity wasn?t fully established for centuries. It?s important to recognize that ?Lord? has two different meanings: sometimes it is just the Greek word that means ?lord? or a respectful form of address, and sometimes it?s the traditional Jewish way of pronouncing Yahweh?s name so as to avoid profaning it. Paul?s discussion in I Corinthians shows that we should not confuse those usages.
To sum up, I guess my point is, if it took centuries for the ?mature? Christian view of Jesus? deity to develop, why does Zindler think that this whole mythical figure of ?Jesus of Nazareth? could develop within 40-50 years? The existence of books like I Corinthians and Galatians from the 50?s shows that people were talking about someone named Jesus for some time before the gospels were written. But if Zindler is right, somehow by about the 80?s, at least, most Christians had forgotten what netzer (?branch?) referred to and were beginning to make up stories about a place called ?Nazareth? where he grew up. Now, I do think that the similarity to netzer explains Matthew?s reference to ?He shall be called a Nazarene? (2:23) as a biblical prophecy. It?s been pointed out many times that there really is no such statement in the Old Testament. It probably is a confused reference to Isaiah 11.1 and Zechariah 3:8, which speak of netzer. But the fact that Nazareth is similar to netzer doesn?t necessarily prove that it never existed. Lots of coincidences happen in real events.
The reason I said Zindler assumes the meaning of netzer was forgotten is that we have passages like John 1:46 (?Can anything good come out of Nazareth??) that imply a problem with his being from Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, where many thought the Messiah would be born. So all the gospel writers were assuming it was a geographical place. And this assumption must have been in place for awhile, because it?s clear that people were applying some ingenuity to the problem of how Jesus could be born in Bethlehem if he grew up in Nazareth. You see two different attempts to reconcile those things in Matthew and Luke, whereas John doesn?t seem to care whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Consider this, too. Netzer in Isaiah 11:1 must be a reference to a Davidic figure, because it speaks of the netzer as ?from the stump of Jesse,? David?s father. Now, if the determination of ?the Savior, the Branch?s? place of origin is purely a matter of imagination, as Zindler claims, why would any Christian ever have said it was anywhere but Bethlehem, where the Davidic Messiah was supposed to come from? That?s why I have thought that the efforts to reconcile the two places of origin in Matthew and Luke is so significant: it shows a tension between a ?Jesus of history? (from Nazareth) and a ?Jesus of faith? (from Bethlehem).
As for Zindler?s discussion of the archeological difficulties in identifying Nazareth and other places, I have to admit I don?t put as much weight on that sort of thing. Not that archeology isn?t important, but the conclusions of archeologists seem to change from year to year. What he says about those things, while interesting, reminds me of the Holocaust deniers who say that some of the death camps never existed based on aerial geology surveys. Archeologists need to do their work, and it will be helpful, but I think the internal evidence of the biblical text or other texts like Josephus needs to be looked at first, because, while certainly not perfect, it?s at least relatively unchanging.
I?d make a similar point about his drawing from Origen. That was quite interesting, but it?s important to recognize that Origen was in that area two centuries after Jesus. The Romans had devastated that area over that time, so it wouldn?t be too surprising if it was hard to identify places from 200 years earlier.
Ted Gemberling
this is very good
this is related article
this is very good
related source