And now it’s time for one of those posts that’s going to incite lots of responses. This should be fun. I understand that there are exceptions to the rules (that there are nonreligious people who oppose abortion, for example), but I really think I’m right here.South Dakota has outlawed abortion, in an attempt to overturn Roe V Wade at the national level. They may succeed. If they do, the pro-choice population will have no alternative but to try for a Constitutional Amendment.The problem I have with this whole thing is that most people have lost site of the real issue, the separation of church and state. The abortion issue is not about abortion, but rather about religious people forcing other people to obey the religious way of life. Gay rights, death with dignity, school prayer — all the same thing. Those who oppose all these issues are predominantly (exceptions noted) the same people, the same organizations, the same money. Most of the debates are not about the specific issues, but rather just cloaks around religious discussions.Their strength comes from our missing the point! When we fight these issues on an individual level, we are divided and therefore conquered! We should NOT be voting on abortion or gay rights — we should be voting ONLY on the issue of separation of church and state. When those in office agree that one religion should not rule the masses (like Iraq and Iran), these issues will go away by default.Our country is in imminent danger. We need to be united and vocal, and GOAL ORIENTED! Keep religion out of government and we keep freedom alive.
reluctantatheist:
May I ask, what leads you to believe that?
Goose,
My apologies. I managed to find the thread and you actually alluded to unnamed places in India and China that are raising the dead
on the thread About the Moral Compass – 02/24/06 @ 01:12
jcc:
Just in a ‘whatever’ mood today.
reluctantatheist:
So, if I ask again tomorrow, depending on your mood, you might say ?probably not??
jcc:
Sure…wonder where I put those pills?
Hehehehe.
Reluctant
Still on the same subject, my apologies for being unclear…
What is your position on Jesus anyway?
No i have looked at it. It makes me wonder, do you scrutinize everything historical you read in the same manner?
If you did, i think you would find contradictions that might force you to ignore much of what you’ve accepted as history up to this point.
Again, sorry for that, still on the same topic.
The reason i just won’t “go away” is that you offer no real alternative explanation of the Jesus “myth”. What i miss are conclusions and your own interpretation, based on your finds.
Reluctant
Lots of info there, i remember visiting your homepage once earlier also and browsing through this.
Do you scrutinize everything else you read in the same manner? If not, then you are not being objective.
1) Do your findings, according to you, disprove the gospels?
2) what are your conclusions? What really happened in Palestine during these years?
It seems to me, that you have presupposed that the gospels are wrong and then set out to find errors, contradictions etc. that might be used for this. Is this your approach for other things as well, for example evolution? (not changing topic, only using as example). If not, why not?
The errors you find kind of support my view at the same time. The writers were bent on delivering what they’ve seen, the even kept the seemingly embarrassing bits and stuff that don’t make sense. That supports the view that the texts are uncorrupted over time.
In a court of law (yeah, probably bad analogy), one part defends (that would probably be me in that case, however lousy i might be at it) and you would be the accusor.
However, if you do not have an alternative story as to what really happened, some kind of accusation, all you are really doing is saying that my version is wrong. But it still is the only version…
HeatheNZ
I just presented my evidence…my argument is that you have no counterstory.
Good. Now, if there is a possibility that the resurrection happened, what does that mean for you?
The gospels
1) Are historically correct regarding details of life in Palestine at the time
2) Have been accurately transmitted to us over time
3) Were written relatively short time after the actual happenings
4) Claim to be eyewitness accounts
Normally texts like this get accepted as historically reliable accounts.
Good. Now, if there is a possibility that the resurrection happened, what does that mean for you?
It means that it’s in the same category as the miniature pink flying unicorns.
“…Normally texts like this get accepted as historically reliable accounts.”
How old are you? Have you had any incidence of blunt trauma to the head recently? I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but with what you’re giving me it’s very difficult!
Goose:
Well, I considered joining the flock. My MO is usually: if I’m interested in something, I do the research. Especially something that claims to be so important.
Here I am, repeating myself again:
No, I approached it not w/any presupposition (I actually believed most of it, until I looked at BOTH sides of the coin), but w/the attitude of “Let’s see if it holds up under scrutiny.” It didn’t.
I actually also believed in evolution, prior to becoming an atheist. I actually had little info in re: to it (I’d heard of ID, but hadn’t given it a 2nd thought: newspaper article). I’d actually had the idea of trying to synchronize the 2 (foolish, foolish mortal, so filled w/hubris). I never knew about the controversy.
The more I read, the more I look at it, evolution makes far more sense. But of course, I’m biased now.
Last time I counted, there were 19 asynchronous (sp?) details between the Synoptics & John. Of an event of some magnitude (we’re talking about eternal salvation here, ya know), I’d expect a whole lot LESS errors. A few are to be expected: but Matthew was incompetent, Luke mentions Theophilus (only known xtian of that name in patristic literature occurs around 120 CE), cherry-picking (Matthew) of the OT, no good explanations for the larger ‘miracles’, lack of mention, we’ve gone over these ad infinitum.
Too many loose ends. Sorry.
Not so. Johannine comma. Extra driftwood tacked onto (was it John, or Mark?) 1 of the gospels. Asynchronous details between Luke & Acts. Egregious errors in translation between Aramaic & Greek (koine greek, no less). Did JC walk BY the water, or ON the water? Interpolation by Eusebius (Josephus). No direct mention of JC by historians IN THAT TIMELINE. Oh wait. A bit off the line, there.
I counter your argument ad populam w/an argument from silence.
MWHANK! (jeopardy buzzer).
An alternative story?
Well, there’s the Islamic story that JC survived the crucifixion, & journeyed to India, there’s the JMannuel (JC love-child of aliens, that would look great on the cover of the Enquirer), possible parallelism w/Apollonius of Tyana, composite of Yeshua & Joshua (Palestinian & Babylonian Gematra/Talmud), composite of 3 ‘false’ messiahs (Benjy the Egyptian, Yeshuda, Theudas [possibly instructor of Valentinus]), the 12 missing years of JC (Notovich).
Pick a story, any story.
Oh, you mean a version YOU agree with?
Goose:
Oh, & I forgot Docetism (JC only APPEARED to have been crucified: no human body), as propounded by the Gnostics.
Reluctant
No, a version you personally agree with. What do you believe really happened?
You must have though about it. So far you said Jesus probably existed. What about the rest?
Goose:
I really don’t know. Too much lopsided data.
“Does not compute!”
& truthfully, doesn’t really matter that much.
reluctantatheist:
So, if you are uncertain as to the authenticity of the historic Jesus, then why do you seem so certain that the claims of his divinity are false?
jcc:
Gotta admit, this made me chuckle.
Nobody’s divine. Unless someone can provide somebody who’s capable of miraculous powers that are provable.
Present day, of course.
A little doubt about historical authenticity isn’t a small leak in the dam, threatening to grow wider w/its flow.
Or, to paraphrase Zelazny, from Lord of Light, “Doubt is the chastity of the mind, & I bear its seal upon my own.”
Question everything.
A little doubt’s a healthy thing.
reluctantatheist:
I think you missed my point. Let me try again (and this is what I was getting at yesterday); you say you?re uncertain that there was a historical Jesus, yet you are certain that all the accounts of him are myth because they include descriptions of his miracles. So, what is the source of your uncertainty of his existence??why aren?t you certain he didn?t exist?
jcc:
Hey, I’m not being elected or anything (am I?).
I can’t say w/100% certainty either way.
The times were rife w/many, many alleged ‘messiahs’.
You throw a basketball at a hoop, no matter how poor your aim is, you’re bound to get 1 in (I am referring, of course, to being listened to).
As I’m a materialist, I didn’t witness the events unfold. Ergo, it’s pretty much guesswork, who existed, who didn’t, if it isn’t recorded by some reputable source.
Until someone unearths that census that Luke spoke of, which no 1 seems to be able to find.
Yeah, yeah, argument from silence. Absence of evidence, etc.
I do find the lack of good documentation fairly damning.
Or, to quote my sifu, “If it’s not written down, it’s hearsay.”
I’ll say it again, at risk of repeating myself:
were I the deity, I’d make damn sure everything was documented w/a larger degree of accuracy. We are talking about humanity, damnation, etc. Big stuff.
jcc said:”…?why aren?t you certain he didn?t exist?”
If I may(my apologies to RA),
The point RA made was that there are multiple historical accounts of what happened, all are grossly different. This IS the source of uncertainty!
This is not to say that he didn’t exist, that’s not the point at all, he may or he may not, who cares! What it does say is that one or all of the accounts, including your prescious bible among them are LIES!
reluctantatheist:
What did I miss here??the first person, eye-witness Gospel accounts of Matthew and John weren?t written down?
jim:
Really? You mean there are huge disparities in their accounts of really important points like: his parent?s names, where he was born, who his inner circle of Apostles were, how he was killed, and, oh yeah, his resurrection?
That?s very interesting?on the one hand you say he may or may not have existed?of which, the primary evidence for his existence would be the Gospels, but on the other hand you categorically state them to be lies. So, like reluctantatheist, I ask you: if you?re so certain it?s all lies, then why can?t you say for sure he didn?t exist?
jcc:
Wow, I take a nap, still goin’.
No, there’re disparities in re: the crucifixion, for 1. Singular occurences in only 1 gospel as opposed to others. Too many disparities.
Why is this such a harping point for you? Jim said it very well:
This seems disingenuous, to say the least:
Sure they were.
Later. Post ex facto.
Your logic seems to be as follows:
If
A existed, then
B could’ve occurred
Ergo, A & B are correct.
A = JC existed, and B = miracles said to have been done.
About right?
Umm, I think that if one story says that Jesus survived the crucifixion and travelled to India and the other says he was resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of his father, I know somebody’s lyin’ to me. I’m not sayin’ which one, just they can’t both be true.
And yet your threshhold for determining the truth is this:
“Normally texts like this get accepted as historically reliable accounts”
Well, which one is the reliable account? Don’t answer that, I already know which one you’re going to pick.
Or they are both lying! Or perhaps they are exaggerating the truth. Embellishing, could that be it, I say facetiously? If somebody writes it down, it must be taken as fact, right? People back then wouldn’t lie would they? How many people could read back then anyway! No one would know. How would you try to create a political movement amongst people who were uneducated, poor and desperate? Throw in some magic, perhaps? Fantastic stories about hope and eternal salvation? And on and on and on…
I never said he didn’t exist. I said he may or may not, it doesn’t matter. If a guy existed and 40 years later someone embellished the story of his life for political or personal gain, the fact that he lived does not prove the stories to be true.
It could be that there was a guy named Jesus who lived in the middle east 2000 years ago. We know that stories were later written about this guy. These stories are embellishments, fabrications, lies. Or he might not have existed at all or his name was actually Pedro, it doesn’t matter.
His actually living does not prove the stories true!
“…if you?re so certain it?s all lies, then why can?t you say for sure he didn?t exist?”
The same reason you can’t say for sure that ‘body thetans’ don’t exist.
Goose asked:
How about the box position?
The Kama Sutra recommends it for men of…um…smaller size.
karen:
Ummm…what page is that on?
Oops.
RA
Depends which printing of the book your looking in!
Chapter VI, verses 12-22 cover the box though
Heh…ahem.
Reluctant
Ok, so you don’t know what really happened.
But you are sure that nobody’s divine? What makes you sure of that?
You’ve mentioned several things that make you think the gospels aren’t accurate. But what do we make of it? You said it yourself – you don’t know what happened.
So we still only have the gospels as the so far most accurate and reliable description of Jesus’ life. Nothing else more credible has been presented.
Now, if one is so bold to claim that neither the miracles nor the resurrection (which i take you mean by saying Jesus wasn’t divine)occured then one would suspect that there was a good theory, backed by the evidence you’ve found, supporting this.
Otherwise the claims made in the gospels, and the gospels themselves, remain. No?
Reluctant, you must have some thoughts about who Jesus was. Especially given the amount of information you have looked up concerning it all. Everybody forms an opinion about things, you don’t just choose to remain indifferent.