Case against Christianity
The standard argument, used by apologists in countless books and all over the internet, for Christianity is that the alleged resurrection of Jesus makes the most sense out of the historical record. My argument against this is:
Every culture, civilization, and religion in history has reports of miracles. In India in particular, there are many resurrection claims.
So if we place the accounts of Jesus's resurrection next to all the other reported miracles, it looks a lot less impressive.
So we are free to believe what we want.
I also wanted to point out that Christians have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark, and even Paul were real Apostles and could write Scripture. So there is a hole in the Bible
Every culture, civilization, and religion in history has reports of miracles. In India in particular, there are many resurrection claims.
So if we place the accounts of Jesus's resurrection next to all the other reported miracles, it looks a lot less impressive.
So we are free to believe what we want.
I also wanted to point out that Christians have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark, and even Paul were real Apostles and could write Scripture. So there is a hole in the Bible
Comments (274)
Huh? There is barely any 'historical record' of Jesus, save a pair of fleeting mentions by Tactius and Josephus, and neither makes any reference to his resurrection. So there is no possible way that this is a 'standard argument' unless you've (1) made this up or (2) taken what other people have made up for face value.
I'm talking about the Gospels. They have much historical detail, so they have historical value. The question is about the resurrection. My argument is that although they have four well written accounts, someone can compile a record of 100 other alleged resurrections that each, individually, might not have much authority, but taken together presents a case that resurrection happens outside Christianity.
Then I ask the Christians: are we really unreasonable to say that resurrection just don't happen so the records are flawed? Are we not within our rights then to reject the Gospels?
Then you aren't talking about 'the historical record'. At least no more than you would be if you were talking about Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
For me one who admires the example and teachings of Jesus would qualify.
Belief in Jesus as God in the flesh, the physical resurrection of the dead, and the Bible as the literal word of God itself all seem beside the point and the musings of intolerant theologians.
Love and the golden rule seem to be the best teachings and the best of religious doctrine, the rest just seems to lead to conflict and violation of the fundamental basis of good behavior.
By the eleventh year of my dozen year long parochial school catechismic indoctrination (edification), the conspicuous failure of my teachers - highly and widely learned, even brilliant, Jesuit priests - to explain away the seminal fact above with any historical and defeasible reasons (even by my naive 15-16 year old standards) had driven me to apostasy and then out of the church and christianity - which to my mind then and still now 4 decades on - is refuted thus. Quibbles about "the resurrection" are beside the point; failure of prophesy by an alleged "divinity" proves that the prophet himself was not "divine" and, therefore, that the Nicene Creed was merely a fiction and political expedience required of the bishops (church fathers) in order to appease Caesar.
Less than a year later I encountered Nietzsche ... :fire:
Not taking any sides on the issue but the only person known to have asked for proof of the resurrection was Doubting Thomas but all Jesus did was show Thomas his (Jesus') wounds but that, if you really think of it, is proof of crucifixion, not death [followed by resurrection]. Is there no way someone could be crucified and yet live? The diagnosis of death is a not an open and shut case even in modern times. How accurate are the instruments used to determine whether a person is dead or not? ECG & EEG, tools that are the mainstay in diagnosing death, must have a margin of error. The only conclusive sign of death according to an article I read long ago is putrefecation of the body and if a rotting corpse returns to the land of the living, that's what I'd call true resurrection - miraculous in every way. Unfortunately, animated rotting corpses aren't in any way connected to the divine and are usually viewed as evil zombies with a taste for brains.
I remember when I was 13.
How is History, and pre-History verified and provable?
Its, according to all the reading ive done about it, accepted that Jesus was a person in history and that it was believed he was a miracle worker.
I think thats all you can argue really. A historian cant accept supernatural claims.(supernatural: acts or happenings that do not happen within our natural laws) Plenty of them do believe it happened but I dont think they can historically prove it.
My point was that Jesus was supposed to give authority to the Apostles. But it's possible that Paul fooled everyone and was false and that L uke and Mark were just writers. So you don't have a way t o argue how half your New Testament is inspired
1. It's a history book
2. What is your definition of 'inspired'?
3. Paul was just a man/preacher
As far as Jesus existing, @StreetlightX mentioned the passing references by Tacticus and Josephus. The first was actually just a mention of Christians existing and being the followers of one Christus (which has its own possibility for not even being equivalent to Christ as we know it), and the latter is thought to be near certainly doctored due to its super disjointing placement. Seriously, if you haven't read it yet, it's worth it for a laugh. Josephus is like, "And the Jews suffered greatly during this time. Oh yeah, and there was this Jesus guy who was the Messiah. Hurrah. Anyways, we kept on suffering..."
Thank the secular contemporary world that has all its basis and foundations in Christianity.
Yep, facts is facts. Or they're at least borrowed inferences. Just take a look at the OT/Wisdom Books; the proof of pragmatism. Is it just coincidence(?).
I am amazed that people are making assumptions that were refuted with Bruno Bauer in the 19th century ... but in the 21st.
Bruno Bauer was a german philosopher of the 19th century who theorized that christianity owned more to stoicism than to Judaism and that Christ did not exist as a historical figure. On his "Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics" he argued that Jesus was just a literary figure. In "Christ and the Caesars" he argued that christianity was a synthesis of the stoicism of Seneca the Younger and of the jewish theology of Philo as developed by pro-Roman jews such as Josephus.
Even people who - still today - argue the Jesus is not a historical figure use Bauer's threefold argument:
That the New Testament has no historical value.
That there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ dating back to the first century.
That Christianity had pagan or mythical roots.
I just made a comparison with your argument that Jesus may have been the culmination of several jewish and other religious preachers with the fact that Bruno Bauer also saw Christianity as a simple "mixture" of several different beliefs.
The New Testament does, at least in some parts, have some notable historical accuracies, but things like the supposed people needing to go to their ancestral homes to be censused for taxing, which as far as I know has no base and would be a disaster and very illogical if actually played out, really makes a good case to question the historicity of what it is saying. After all, if we can't verify something so major happening, why should we accept that a single individual described in great detail was also actually as described? Not trying to repeat myself, but it seems pretty sound, even if it is an old argument.
That it is a mixture of ideas, or that Jesus is a mixture of people, is just one possibility. Jesus being a mixture could, theoretically, be separate from Christianity being a mixture of things.
I think modern Christianity, especially in its traditions, can be said to be much more a fusion of those things than one might argue original Christianity was, but that alone isn't really a case to justify taking a stance of accuracy in the Bible though imo
My problem with all this questioning of the historical legitimacy of the Bible is that all this questioning is only possible, because today's society was built by those who took it as an absolute truth. The bible is absolutely full of allegories, myths, and opinions, however, belittling its historical importance as a historical basis for our society, is something that is only possible thanks to itself. You don't see muslims out there questioning whether Muhammad was a historical figure, or buddhists questioning whether Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha - was one too - and Siddhartha lived almost 700 years before Jesus -. We can only do it because Christianity has given us that freedom.
Quoting TimefulJoe
Not even the apostles knew what Christianity was; each interpreted the "Logos" in a different way, so St. Thomas in 52 AD in India created the Indian denomination. St. Paul interpreted it in a way that, after him, was interpreted in other more diverse ways - Council of Nicaea, Council of Chalcedon, etc ... -. Christianity is today the culmination of all European history of the Late Classical Age, and of the entire Middle Ages. The problem is that questioning this brings all the metaphysical and religious chaos that Nietzsche has already said. The moment we became aware that Christianity was a human construction, it lost all its value, along with all its historical legitimacy. This is a problem.
Quoting TimefulJoe
No problem :smile:
Whether or not we ever became self-aware of its tentative historical accuracy plays no part in whether it really ever was accurate at all. That baseline accuracy is what I was getting at.
It has definitely played a crucial part in shaping Western society (especially), but not in ways unique to it. I fail to see how that would somehow put it above criticism, even if they were unique to it. Are you saying that because the Bible's historicity has come into question so have all the principles we have derived from it for the production of our society? While I would agree that is essentially what has been happening, any principles worth keeping could be kept simply because they're worth keeping. If they get us where we want to go, then that pragmatism is arguably justification enough.
Just because the people before us accepted the whole Bible does not mean that the whole is actually worth accepting. It's more so that parts of Christianity, which they accepted in the whole, were generally beneficial. Their belief that it was historical did little more than motivate them to continue with the system as a whole, that system containing the parts that did well for them as a society (and that they arguably already accepted as beneficial, thus accepting them in their religion was merely a second self-affirmation). The reason I say the beneficial parts are not unique is that those parts are mostly, "Don't murder," "Don't steal," which are almost universally agreed on throughout the history of civilization. Not murdering each other is a requisite to successfully living together, after all, and people were living together and had laws about not murdering each other long before any Abrahamic laws came around. Too much credit is given to the Bible for shaping Western thought and especially Western progress. The Renaissance and wide-spread acceptance of coffee did leagues more for creating the progress of the West than a belief in the Bible, though the Bible was an integral part of pretty much everyone's lives.
If other religions started majorly questioning their historicity, the societies heavily influenced by a belief in the historicity of those religions would probably have a similar development, such as if that were to happen en mass in Saudi Arabia; however, people would find other motivations, like mere pragmatism, to continue with the parts that undoubtedly work for them. Thing is, some of them have already moved on from that troubled phase. We can see the effects of Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian thought permeating Asian culture whether or not the general populace ascribes to them as a whole or think that Buddah, Lao Tzu, or Confuscious actually existed as real people.
The real problem begins with Christology. At least so far this conversation has not started.
The early Christians were quite fond of Seneca, and one (or more) of them even took the trouble of writing up a forged correspondence between him and St. Paul. Tertullian referred to him as "our Seneca." The influence of Seneca and Stoicism in general on Christianity is quite clear. There's some speculation that Paul was influenced by Stoicism because he came from Tarsus, then a center of Stoic philosophy. Neo-Platonism was influential as well.
Christianity as we know it is quite a remarkable hodgepodge of pagan philosophy, pagan religions and the Jewish tradition. Necessarily so, I think, as early Christians struggled to impart some intellectual substance and dignity to Christian doctrine by borrowing lavishly from ancient philosophy, such as the concept of Logos which appears, quite unexpectedly, in the Gospel of John. Its success was, as well, assured through its assimilation of popular pagan beliefs and practices, and its very un-pagan intolerance and exclusivity, which became more apparent as the Christian emperors ruthlessly suppressed paganism. Perhaps that was the Jewish influence.
As for Jesus, I suspect there was a person who served as the inspiration for the legends which arose, just as I suspect there likely was a person who inspired the very similar legends of Jesus' contemporary, Appolonius of Tyana.
Humanity - speaking here of the general masses that makes up our species - is not able to deal with the problem of existence without an eternal father figurehead who can have all the answers for everything. We - again, speaking of all humanity - are not able to rationalize that pain, tiredness, injustice, and all these characteristics that we think as being bad, exist, have always existed and will always exist, and there is nothing we can do to exterminate them. The universe without an answer is something that destroys humanity self-esteem. That is why without a God - and his laws, values, rules, negations and affirmations, etc. - and his "codex" we would not know how to differentiate "good" from "evil", nor is pragmatism able to sustain - through a long term period - these set of characteristics. And now, a question for you: - Do you really think that humanity would be totally pragmatic for its own good?
Quoting TimefulJoe
Whether unique or not, christian dogmas were the ones that most assimilated the greek concepts of individuality and most importantly, of freedom. Christianity, even though it could be a false belief, is useful for maintaining the spirit of humanity as something worthwhile for continuing existing and moving forward, without letting the darkness of decadence, and more importantly, of nihilism to befall us. In addition, Christianity was able to take old laws and codes - as from Hammurabi, and Cyrus - and transform it into something more rational and less animalistic, where the punishments would be more complex than a simple "imprison him".
Quoting TimefulJoe
Progress does not exist - in my view -. Society exists, because we build it, what we will do with it in the future, depends simply on our actions right now. Humanity is not an idea of the best, a journey to the transcendental, it simply is, and Christianity - and all other religions ever created - is a way of interpreting and living this existence, and in my view, it is one of the more liberating and that really focus on the "best" of humanity. At least I think it is, because if otherwise we would not be discussing religion in a forum on the internet.
Quoting TimefulJoe
You can be sure that this will eventually happen with Islam. Just give it time - while Christianity is 2020 years old, Islam is only 1400 years old - Muhammad started his preaching around 630 AD - - so they still have 600 years to become secularized.
Practically what christianity did. Very well resumed. Hypocrites using hypocrisy to their advantage.
Quoting tim wood
It was a tendency from the 3rd to the 7th century - perhaps the Islamic hordes invading Roman territory - already then, the Byzantine Empire - made them realize that it was a very useless topic to spend their time discussing -.
There are many holes in the Bible.
Jesus appeared in a time and place of religious and political ferment. He was not, by any means, the only inside agitator.
It's pretty clear that Christianity did not spring from the head of Jesus in the same way that Athena sprang from the head of Zeus. Presumably there was this man, Jesus, who was an itinerate Jewish preacher. He apparently had a Jewish following comprised of an inner circle (people like Peter and Mary) and an outer circle of people who heard him preach. Then he was executed. There was apparently a transition period in which the Jewish followers of a Jewish preacher coagulated into a separate religious group.
A century later, give or take 15 minutes either way, a Beta edition of Christianity was up and running. The BIG QUESTION is, What happened between Jesus and Christianity? Fact is, we don't know precisely what happened, especially in the first 75 years or so. There are clues. There are fragments. Some early editors started putting things together around a hundred years after Jesus.
Unless somebody finds a lost archive of everyone's sworn statements starting with Mary and Joseph, we just aren't going to have an objective historical record. Too bad, but that's life. 99.9% of ancient writings have been lost. The written remainder of two very literate cultures, Classical Greece and Rome, fill a few library shelves.
If Jesus is a questionable historical figure, Christianity has solid credentials. Most religions don't spring from somebody's head like Athena from Zeus. They gather and form over time, picking up momentum.
I suppose you have read some of the skeptical scholars' studies of Christianity's early history. If not, it's a fascinating field.
Why does it (still) matter whether Yeshua ben Yosef was a historical figure or not, when, in fact, "the prophesy" at the foundation of Christianity's soteriological creed had failed so conspicuously? It's a rationally undeniable historical fact that "The Second Coming" did not happen +1900 years ago as prophesized by "the Christ"; therefore, the 'Case against Christianity' is made and, all but apologetically, closed, no?
Tell me what I'm missing - other than "faith".
From what I've seen, its a pretty standard argument among NT scholars and especially apologists that the historicity of Christ himself is the best explanation/most consistent with the record. And certainly there are apologists who argue for the resurrection as historically sound as well, but I doubt that this is anywhere near so common or typical, and obviously the arguments for it are incredibly weak (not least because there has never been any confirmed/corroborated/observed resurrections of this sort in all of human history).
Quoting Gus Lamarch
My point is that you can only question and point out the errors of Christianity thanks to Christianity.
Christians insist the former - that when Jesus said ‘I am the truth, the light and the way’, he meant himself, not any other individual. Ever since, this has been interpreted to mean that Christianity has a monopoly on salvation, it is the only valid religion. But you’d have to wonder what that means, in light of the enormous conflict within Christianity itself about ‘the one true faith’.
From an Indic perspective, Christ is an exemplar of the God-realised sage, a peripatetic wanderer who taught whomever would listen about ‘the way the truth and the life’. When asked whether he was holy, the reply was ‘not I but the Lord within me’. That is more in keeping with the gnostic understanding of Jesus, which was ferociously suppressed at the formation of the Christian church by the highly organised Latin ecclesiastical machine (although it ought to be noted that the gnostic Valentinus came within a few votes of being declared Pope in the second century AD).
Notice that one of the major differences between Buddhism, as a spiritual movement, and Christianity, is that the former is centripetal, the latter centrifugal. Buddhism is based on the ‘passing of the torch’ of understanding through the various monastic lineages, indeed many of the early schools of Buddhism are named after influential monastic leaders. But it’s very much a networked model with no central authority. Catholicism, by contrast, was highly centralised, with the Pope representing absolute authority.
I think, overall, this is because it’s a much easier model for domination, conquest and control. Belief is much easier to manage than knowledge. And that gnostic element, save for within a few underground or monastic streams in Christianity, was snuffed out early in the piece.
There’s a web essay, Christianity has Pagan DNA, which starts:
A lot about that essay is questionable but it certainly contains a grain of truth.
Christianity does't exist. That is, it was not an entity in the past. PEOPLE are who existed. They held various views and often condemned each other. Out of this some of our modern ideas arose. But we can criticize the crap that was mingled with it
Early Christian writers Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Augustine, and others all mentioned that the earlier Roman religion was similar to Christianity. They were worried that people would believe Christianity borrowed from the Romans, so they made up the story that the devil knew Christianity was coming and mocked it ahead of time. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2.14) mentioned that historians had "written the history of Mithras in many volumes." But these have almost completely disappeared because of efforts of Christians in the Dark Ages.
Point well taken.
That's yet another example of the false paradigm that theologians, philosophers, lay people tend to propagate. Meaning, the false narrative of a perfect book---the Bible.
It's worth repeating the reality of human finitude. We know the following circumstances: lost Gospels, Spinoza's forbidden texts, early church politics precluding certain controversial subject matter and interpretations, religious-based exclusions (the book of Sirach from the Wisdom Books is omitted from the King James Bible but included in the American standard Bible), metaphor, allegory, interpretation errors et.al.
Does that mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater(?). If one's disposition should adopt such attitude, what are the broader implications in our world of information(?). Philosophically, perhaps it begs the questions about what kind of truth should Christianity represent...is it pragmatic & utilitarian, is it objective, is it subjective, is it phenomenal, inspirational, existential, etc.etc.. .
Early Greek philosophy and Christianity borrowed ideas from each other (OT/wisdom books).
Christianity is a societal organism as complete as a multi-billion dollar company today. Christianity is a religion, religion is an institution through the church; Christianity is an entity made up of people. On the larger scale of history, individuals - apart from a few rare cases - make no difference, but large bodies - such as the State, Religion, companies, etc ... - do.
Quoting Gregory
Fact. There is no arguing against this statement.
Quoting Gregory
Again I repeat. I think you lost my point. We all are here right now, writing on the internet, on a philosophy forum, talking about christianity, just because christianity build this secular world where every opinion is respected and we can argue about it. Try doing this on a civilization where the religion is still strong. We both would be imprisioned, or even worse, dead. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't criticize.
There's an argument that the conception of 'the One God' was depicted as a deity precisely to displace the pagan Gods of the ancient world, who were descendants of the Indo-European pantheon (this was all shown by Max Mueller in his ground-breaking studies of 'linguistic archeology'.)
So the only concept that made sense in that cultural context was to talk in terms of God and Gods - with the 'Biblical God' said to be superior to the lesser deities. Like Baal, Jupiter, and so on, but 'the only one'. It was a ubiquitous feature of all ancient cultures. But again, the Buddha never presented his teaching in terms of God or gods (notwithstanding that they still form part of the narrative background).
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Completely agree. Far different story in the PRC.
Let's enjoy it well, because it won't last until the 22nd century.
BUT, this is a philosphy forum, and whatever is considered, needs to be considered in those terms. (Logging out, I have to work.)
No, don't get me wrong. What I meant is that our way of life - secular - will not survive this century - while Christianity is slowly dying, Islam grows more and more -. I'm really pessimistic about the future of the West - we are going towards the second fall of Rome - or third of Thebes if you consider the "Fall of the Bronze Age" - -.
"Deus vult"? "Inshallah"? Amor fati ... :sweat:
If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: Christianity, Woo-Woo, etc will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of Christianity, Woo-Woo, etc but of every human, all too human decadence and endeavor. Only a singularity can save us.
I'm really curious now: - If we eventually achieve it, what do you think will become of humanity?
Quoting 180 Proof
That's why I think we - the west - will fall in this century or the next one.
Just as it was with the roman religion, and with the greek, and it will be with Islam, and it will always be with any religion. Every religion is a method of life, a way of thinking and contemplating the world. When this dogma weakens, you have civilizing peaks - for example, the apex of the "Bronze Age" - 1300 BC to 1200 BC -, the roman "Principate" between the empires of Nerva and Marcus Aurelius - 96 AD to 180 AD -, and the contemporary West - 1945 to ? - which are subsequently followed by an economic, societal, religious and cultural collapse of that civilization - or as in the case of the Bronze Age, civilizations -.
It's almost as if, when you give freedom to people, they normally will throw it at the garbage.
Enjoy it while you can.
I will. You don't have an argument. If Christianity gave us freedom of thought, we have every right to use it against the bad points of Christianity. We are not in contradiction
Did you read my previous answer?
"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
The obvious reading of this is that Jesus thought the Second coming would happen soon. Of course, it never happened. Christians will reinterpret this to say that the resurrection was the first stage of the Second Coming. But if Christians can reread and reinterpret Scripture, what right have they to attack the Koran? Modern Muslim apologists have all the arguments they need to defend any passage you choose to attack
I see. You don't seem to have a distinct point/argument then
It's at least as good as the argument for Christianity presented in the OP.
Any religion is based on the belief of its followers. Obviously, if the "end of times" did not happen when Jesus predicted, it was not because of God, but because of human error. This belief that he eventually will return to create the "Kingdom of God", as long as Christianity exists, will continue to be believed. The same thing with Islam. They believe that Allah - that if translated, becomes "God", but people don't get that - will return at the "end of times" to judge every person. When will the end of times be? Never, because it is a religion, and "religion" is a human construction for giving us purpose. While it makes sense to belive, we - humans - will believe - humanity is just like that -.
Quoting Gregory
My position is that you only have the privilege to criticize the world around you, and the religion that founded your civilization, because it is weak - you live in a secular world -. We are the blatant symptoms of this weakness - An atheist - my case - and a questioner of the legitimacy of the Bible -.
Did watch the youtube short "singularity"? :smirk:
Here's an excerpt from an old post on an old thread Purpose of Humans is to create God on Earth:
Quoting 180 Proof
(Follow this quote's link to the original full post a
for my wild guess answer.)
:rofl:
Point well taken Wayfarer.
Yeah.
Quoting 180 Proof
Congratulations, you are more pessimistic - or realistic - than me. :down:
If Jesus was God and promised he would return in that generation and didn't, than God is at fault
You haven't made much sense at all so far
You forgot that I already mentioned that I believe that Jesus was a historical figure, but not that he was a divine figure.
Quoting Gregory
Indeed, it is difficult to see meaning in opinions that go against what you take to be truth and you are not open to change.
You haven't presented a logical alternative to my agnosticism so I can't be open to it
Life is not just made of logic and reason, if it was, we wouldn't need to be humans!
And I am not here to convert you, I am here to discuss; but it seems to me that you took it somehow to being personal, so I will end my participation in this dialogue here. Good morning/Good night
I just didn't know what your point was. Gn
Just what ideas of ancient pagan philosophers do you think would have to be rejected if a specifically Christian theology is rejected?
As far as I'm aware, no pagan philosopher had any idea supporting the belief that Jesus is the Son of God; that Jesus is one in being with the Father; the doctrine of the Trinity; the resurrection of Jesus; the Ascension; the Immaculate Conception; the Second Coming, at which the living and the dead will be judged; or any of the beliefs that distinguish Christianity from other religions, or from deism, pantheism, and panentheisn for that matter.
Christian theology resembles pagan philosophy only to the extent it isn't distinctively Christian--when what is distinctively Christian is ignored or disregarded.
Much was incorporated from Plato, neo-Platonism and the philosophy of late antiquity. Platonism gave Christian doctrine a philosophical framework especially the Greek-speaking Fathers, including Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Philo, but there’s a large number of them. The anonymous ‘pseudo-Dionysius’ also advocated a kind of Christianised Platonism, or Platonic Christianity.
But then, of course, Christians closed the Platonic Academy (although it might have been moribund by then) and burned down the ancient Library of Alexandria.
There’s a strong tension in Christianity around all of this - ‘what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem’, and ‘The wisdom of the Son is foolishness to the Greeks’, among others. Arguably, this is one of the major factors behind Protestant fundamentalism. Luther himself thought Aquinas did ‘the devils work’. Those two elements were able to be synthesised in some cultures -like Eastern Christianity - but not in others.
For myself, I have found the logic of Aristotle’s hylomorphic dualism to be persuasive. More than that, though - any real metaphysics, I contend, has to rest on the reality of universals, or of intelligible objects, such as natural numbers. This was the subject of centuries of debate between the nominalises and Scholast Realists - which, generally speaking, nominalism won. And ‘history is written by the victors’, no more so than in this matter. So that is how we came to a one-dimensional culture which only accepts matter as real.
Sorry, but I don't think you answer my question. I don't see how the claim that the rejection of Christian doctrine entails the rejection of some of the ideas of pagan philosophy follows from the fact the Christian Fathers borrowed from pagan philosophy in an effort to support Christian doctrine.
You are right
I'll try to summarize my point in the best possible way:
- Christianity is the basis of all western civilization today, and every advance, progress, freedom achieved, is thanks to the weakening of the dogmas of this same religion - secularism -. However, this same secularism decays - thanks to nihilism - and eventually causes this same society to collapse. To avoid this collapse, a rational belief in Christianity would be necessary, however - as this is practically impossible to achieve -, I opt for conscious-unconscious belief on the christian faith - if it worked for a 1000 years for europe, it should - in theory - work for us -. If you don't believe in Christianity, at least pretend to do so to legitimize your values, morals, and purposes.
Even though you were apologetic to Islam before, but ok.
It's not that hard to follow; its the 'baby thrown out with the bathwater'.
I think that’s a pretty good attitude - I feel the same way. I’m reading a current title, Tom Holland, Dominion, which is an account of the historical impact of Christianity - not from a Christian apologist but from a cultural historian. (Review here. ) It makes the point that legacy Christian cultural attitudes are hugely influential even amongst those who reject it.
It might interest you to know that the famous German philosopher, Juergen Habermas, came to a similar realisation in the early 2000’s and engaged in a series of dialogues with then-Cardinal Ratzinger (later the Pope) about the place of religious values in today’s secular culture. Habermas in no way converted to Christianity through that, but acknowledged something similar to what you’re saying.
You might like the book Action by Maurice Blondel. Friendly recommendation
It's like being conscious that it's all a lie, but still following it because it created the world you live in. It's like a "conscious-ignorance" if I can put it in that way. And thanks for the recommendation, I'm going to take a look.
Quoting Wayfarer
Interesting. I will look this in more depth.
Quoting Gregory
Thanks for all the recommendations, I will definitely give it a look - and if I'm interested - I will read them.
That's not how I feel about it. When I was around school-leaving age, it was the 1960's, Woodstock generation, counter-culture, Beatles discovering Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, LSD. At the time, I believed more in the Hindu-Buddhist cultural attitude of religion as 'path to enlightenment' through higher consciousness. At that stage I too felt Christianity was false - like the 'fossilised remains of a once-vital insight'. Not that it was wrong, just that it was learned by rote and practiced by many people who had no real connection with the truth behind it and that it's original meaning was lost.
Subsequently I studied comparative religion, to get an idea of what 'enlightenment' meant in various cultures. This changed my attitude towards Christianity also, in that I began to interpret it in symbolic terms. Seen through that perspective, it can be highly meaningful. But I'm still mindful of the fact that two people can profess membership of just the same school or sect and have completely different understanding of what it means.
One of the sages I encountered in my search was Joseph Campbell, author of Hero with a Thousand Faces. It's now legendary that this book also inspired George Lucas and was the source of the mythology of Star Wars. Campbell too was not 'a believer' but a kind of cultural psychologist. Here's a quote of his which I think nails a lot about what is happening in 'religion in the public square':
[quote=Joseph Campbell]Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.[/quote]
The case against Christianity? They can't tell the difference between wine and blood. Their theology and ethics involve our being forgiven for something we didn't do. They discourage criticism and encourage immorality.
There is more, but what more do you need?
It refers to the sin you inherit from your father and mother, which is the condition of being someone distinct rather than no one distinct.
:death: :flower:
...yep. And they think this reasonable - to punish a child for the offence of it's parents.
Take a bit of time and careful attention, if you want to learn about the argument I find most convincing against the God of Abraham, and look at Epicurus' Problem of Evil, and all that that entails.
Augustine apparently started the idea that babies were evil because they committed Adam's sin with in while in his balls
Crazy but the world is insane now, so I wouldn't knock him for it. Too much Augustinian splooge to clean up to worry much I guess.
I found you a brand of Christianity that isn't burdened by such ideas. https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Original_Sin
There is a hellish aspect to double-binds. Conditions where one is absolutely damned by the vision of his/her course of action. Somewhere a person has been told to choose between the life and death of a loved one by perceived coercion but the choice is false insofar as the outcome is unchanged (the choice is and or is not a choice). Crimes are committed.
I think God's condition is one that resembles a double-bind of either perpetrator or victim. As is the case with sin, we are potentially all victim-perpetrators unaware, or aware insofar as we have the capacity to be aware. Maybe the trolley problem is lurking and the trolley is moving way too fast. Whatever happens, happens.
Quoting Gregory
Which groups do you feel need to be "arranged" in matrimony?
I'm not going to argue with you over exegesis. I'll just say that even traditionalists priests who believe homosexuality is a sin will sometimes openly call themselves one of Christ's brides
The "bathwater" are the beliefs peculiar to Christianity, such as the beliefs I've mentioned, which can easily be thrown out without disposing of the ideas of pagan philosophy, the "baby."
As regards the 'doctrine of original sin' and 'the fall of man' - these are symbolic representation of facts of the human condition. Obviously a lot of religious doctrine is encoded in tropes and metaphors which are unintelligible to current culture, but that doesn't mean the underlying conditions to which they refer have simply vanished or gone away. What's more likely is that they will simply manifest in different forms, different tropes, and different metaphors.
As I already referred to a few posts back
That descibes about 95% of what passes for conversation on this topic, on this forum.
I 'rejected Christianity' aged 13 and am not a churchgoer or biblical believer. But I still think religion stands for something real and meaningful.
Gotta love how versatile theology is. "there's a meaning there, even if it makes no sense..."Quoting Wayfarer
:rofl:
It makes no sense to you, you show no interest in it or knowledge of it, other than barging into conversations with pictures from popular media and casual sarcasm.
I think there is a serious case against Christianity and many reasons for doubting it, but ridicule doesn't convey anything about that.
Quoting Wayfarer
What?
Anyway, I will go away again, posting here is just a habit, and probably a time-wasting habit.
If I wasn't interested I would not post. Indeed, the topics supposedly addressed by religion are the most important of all. My objection is to religion obscuring what is important.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yep. TIme to go do some weeding. In the garden. Outside.
Interestingly enough the Bible seems to make proving it impossible. Not a mystery with a bit of thought but interesting nonetheless. Passages such as there will be those who do great and wonderous things, miracles, etc. but they are misleading. As well as the bit in Revelation that states no one shall add to it.
The premise of your OP seems to have nothing to do with Christianity specifically but rather applies to all religious texts. Nothing that nobody saw today can be known. Even extends beyond religion it would seem. On the topic of resurrection from a spiritual/metaphysical standpoint it isn't uncommon. It was alleged to have been performed by Jesus as well. Others have done this through what is said to be darker means ie. necromancy or "lichs". And of course from a scientific lens, there are things like zombi powder or nerve toxins and the like (see Romeo and Juliet). To a person living in times before our own any such act would in fact appear to be divine.
Point being I'd like to see an argument specific to Christianity that doesn't simply apply to all religion across the board.
Whether you like the fact that christian theology is like this, does not change the fact that you only live the way you live, in the world you live in, thinking the way you think, thanks to those same dogmas. You may disagree with the doctrines, but they practically built what you live in today. If you prefer, there are two other Abrahamic religions in the world - Islam and Judaism - but I am pretty sure that a free and individual life like the one that Christianity provided you will not have. And if you decide to follow the path of questioning - like atheism - like myself - or agnosticism -: - The future is reserved for hegemony, and a theist one.
Thank you for clarifying, I was wondering what infinite stupidity was responsible for the incompetence in which we live.
Did the I Ching predict this for you? It is contingent that Christianity preceded freedom. It could have been another way. slave is not condemned in the Bible, for example
Today's stupidity and incompetence is the result of the secularization of Christianity, not of the christian faith. Christian faith with all its dogmas, laws, morals and values ??still exists and is there to be studied, the point is that with secularization, decadence arises and with it, nihilism. Without a homogeneous faith, which dictates how life should be lived - according to God - Man gets lost in his own sea of subjectiviness. There is no more the absolute, because the only absolute thing that existed was God, and we have killed him.
History tells those who dare to study it that everything attached to it tends to repeat itself. From Thebes, to Rome, to the West. The world is born, grows, has its apex, and collapses. The collapse is always preceded by a time of extreme economic wealth, globalization, high-level of education, tolerance and extreme individual freedom.
Quoting Gregory
It could, but it wasn't. There is no changing the past.
Quoting Gregory
So far only I have been the one to declare my point in how to adapt to theism. And it was through an "conscious-unconscious" belief in it. So, what do you bring me as an alternative to Christianity?
I wasn't aware of this? You mean a real, concrete absolute, verifiable just like the moon? Or do you mean that humans believed that God was absolute?
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Preconditioned by what? Every cult projects nihilism in the absence of its values, this is all part of the original conditioning. You are speaking of a symptom caused by the very thing you defend.
You propose a Christianity which doesnt t retain belief that it can prove its own truth. This is a fiction. Christian arguments are refutable, so it is not a valid "alternative" . We have to try something else
Oh dump the blinders already.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
If you want a religious tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
jorndoe provided a validate rebuttal to your claims. For my part your insistence on religion is just bizarre, it displays uncritical allegiance to shallow platitudes that circulate through apologetic domains.
I see nothing unreasonable in Gregory's statement. There is a view, put forward strongly by Josh Mcdowel and others, that there is somehow 'proof' for Christianity and the existence of Jesus. There is, I believe, what is called circumstantial evidence, however, one is free to believe what one wants:
As I understand it, there are some artifacts that support the view that Jesus existed and what happened was described in the Gospels (with some differing accounts). I am not sure that Occam's razor, when applied to the story of Christianity, would not yield the simplest possible explanation is that a figure named Jesus existed, people believed He performed miracles, He was crucified, and that He rose from the dead. In fact, crucifixion was very real at that time, so were the instances of various rebels and movements during that time, under Roman rule, I think that is not disputed.
It may be that there is no way of verifying any of the historical records that have been handed down to us. If may be that there are ways to verify the historicity of a document, but that could be applied to the New Testament writings as well.
It comes down to belief, which the Bible and Christian tradition has made no secret about, that it is belief without proof. In fact, the very same New Testament Gospels record not only the appearance of Jesus to his disciples and to many others after His death, but that having seen Jesus in person after his death, appearing to them 'some did not believe'.
So we are free to believe what we want. I want to however explore the view that Christian Apologists use in defending the Gospels a little too strongly - it is fine to preach to the choir, but when approaching people who are do not believe in the gospel story, modern day Greeks as it were, a different approach is perhaps more useful.
The Wikipedia article on Josh MacDowell says it very well, in my opinion:
McDowell's approach to apologetics falls under what Protestant theologians classify as "classical" and "evidential." In either of these approaches to Christian apologetics, it is assumed that arguments defending the Christian faith can legitimately be directed to both believers and unbelievers because the human mind is viewed as able to comprehend certain truths about God. Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, questions this methodology by arguing that since unbelievers partially suppress and resist the truth about God (as Paul states in Romans 1:18–20), the problem of unbelief is also an ethical choice and not simply a lack of evidence.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell
Two different approaches.
a) "it is assumed that arguments defending the Christian faith can legitimately be directed to both believers and unbelievers because the human mind is viewed as able to comprehend certain truths about God"
b) "Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, questions this methodology by arguing that since unbelievers partially suppress and resist the truth about God"
I personally think the second one is more on practical, since even Christians suppress the truth and have biases in their beliefs and exhibit wilful ignorance in some instances. In any case, one must be very careful not when approaching anyone with prejudices that one wishes to change, and the more scientific mind would be better approached by not telling them that they were made by God and should be able to comprehend the truth for this reason alone.
The old tactic of showing only the rotten - and rare - cases of degradation in Christianity. Classic!
Stauch, Marc; Wheat, Kay (2015). "12.1.2.1:The Sanctity of human life by H.Kuhse". Text, Cases & Materials on Medical Law.
"If we turn to the roots of our western tradition, we find that in Greek and Roman times not all human life was regarded as inviolable and worthy of protection. Slaves and 'barbarians' did not have a full right to life and human sacrifices and gladiatorial combat were acceptable... Spartan Law required that deformed infants be put to death; for Plato, infanticide is one of the regular institutions of the ideal State; Aristotle regards abortion as a desirable option; and the Stoic philosopher Seneca writes unapologetically: "Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal... And whilst there were deviations from these views..., it is probably correct to say that such practices...were less proscribed in ancient times. Most historians of western morals agree that the rise of ...Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life is valuable and worthy of respect."
Lecky, W.E.H. (1920). HIstory of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne. Gushee, David P. (2014). In the Fray: Contesting Christian Public Ethics, 1994–2013.
"Christianity formed a new standard, higher than any which then existed in the world...The justice teachings of Jesus are closely related to a commitment to life's sanctity..."
Duffy, Eamon (1997). Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes.
"The Industrial Revolution brought many concerns about the deteriorating working and living conditions of urban workers. Influenced by the German Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler, in 1891 Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum novarum, which set in context Catholic social teaching in terms that rejected socialism but advocated the regulation of working conditions. Rerum Novarum argued for the establishment of a living wage and the right of workers to form trade unions."
Just a few references in terms of the benefit that Christianity has brought to humanity. Feats as "the improvement of the working conditions of the proletariat during the industrial revolution", which the current socialists and leftists claim as the feats of their ideology, were also accomplished by the effort of Christianity. It must be really desperate to know that by deconstructing the Christian faith, you end up deconstructing yourself...
Quoting jorndoe
And here you use the argument that the german masses that joined the Nazi party at the time, really knew and followed the true dogmas and morals that the party elite followed. This argument of yours is nothing more than historical revisionism that favors your tantrum against Christianity.
It is funny that all this discussion puted here is only possible thanks to christian values and development. You, with all your resentful arguments against Christianity, are living proof of what I affirm.
And here you are, questioning this very belief you believe to not be truthful. So go then and convert to Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, it doesn't matter what religion you'll follow. This secularism will too happen to it sometime in the future. History proves it.
I practically projected to you how the real "intelectuals" of this forum noticed how meager your way of thinking and arguing is, and how your pseudophilosophy is nothing more than an ideological doctrine, and yet, here you are, continuing to expel words without any depth. I think that expecting you to realize that is asking too much from someone so mediocre ...
No I only realize that none of those religions are provable, so I believe whatever I want to believe (in the sense of "belief"). I don't contradict truth
Quoting Gus Lamarch
What about Leo X's decree against Luther? Are we to burn heretics to death like it suggests?
Quoting Gus Lamarch
:D You misunderstand. There's no desperation revisionism tantrum. There are a few historical facts that you (seem to intentionally) omit and now downplay (with a bit of raving). I'm not passing judgment in particular, but pointing out a few things your preaching missed; I can post more if you like.
By the way, if Christianity is the divine moral go-to, then why didn't the Bible say "slavery bad, don't"? See The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 4, for example.
What's with the "socialists and leftists" anyway?
If you want to make your case you will have to do better than ad hominems and self-assertions.
I did ask you a few questions that you never answered (for which you bear the burden of proof):
'You mean a real, concrete absolute, verifiable just like the moon? Or do you mean that humans believed that God was absolute? [Nihilism] Preconditioned by what?'
I suppose a relevant question then is: would you go by the Bible as the truth of the matter (by definition), maybe try to make excuses for the Bible, or do the right thing in any case (even if not going by the Bible as the definition)?
And I am saying that this "tolerant" belief where everyone can believe what they want, does not endure, and only weakens. At some point - in the near or distant future - a new religion will be strong enough to turn itself hegemonic, and with it, new virtues and values ??will be created - the most probable candidate is Islam, but who knows if the west will not create a peudo-christian marxist belief and eventually synthetize that as a religion. -.
Quoting Gregory
Luther had created the fragmentation that would eventually become the main symptom of the eventual secularization of Christianity - individual interpretation of the gospels -. And it is obvious that Christianity - as it was hegemonic until the end of the 15th century - would reach the Enlightenment anyway, with Protestant reform or without. Luther with his religious dogmas of "trying to return to a more "pure" and "faithful" church" was nothing more than individual resentment of someone who did not have what others achieved in the institution of the church. Contrary to what some say, where "the Catholic church was anti-Semitic during the Middle Ages", Luther was one of the first Christians - not to be confused with the term "Catholic", as Luther was already calling himself a Protestant - to advocate a real and conscious seek to problematize and criticize european jews. Quoting Luther:
"What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews":
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians ... Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb … Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside ... Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them … Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country ..."
Luther was neither a Christian nor a scholar, but a simple resentful who had been given the power to communicate to the world - until then, Europe - through the mass printing of his writings. Thanks to him, we live in a period where a "pantheon of interpretations of God" exists. For these and other reasons, it is logical that the Pope - being a strong and charismatic leader - Leo X, would act fast against this heretic. Not only was the stability of the church at stake, but the entire structure that kept its values ??and morals intact.
Quoting Gregory
Are you talking about the papal bull "Exsurge Domine" - Arise, O Lord -? If so, let's analyse it:
Leo X & Exsurge Domine.
"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication...."
"...we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. ... Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people."
At no point do I see an ambiguity in favor of "burning the heretics" as you said. What Pope Leo X wanted to convey with this papal bull was the message that the interception of Luther's biblical scriptures - and his followers - was tainted by his personal views on the scriptures, and that this would harm the european institution as a whole - I agree that the burning of the books only gave more arguments in favor of Luther, and that the Pope Leo X could have been more pragmatic in this regard, however, he tried to act as quickly as possible -. Luther was not doing the church and its followers a favor, but unconsciously, doing it for his own self-realization to the detriment of all.
God - in my view - had been the totality of the absolute for society because it was a human interpretation what they could be in transcendence - allpowerful, omnipresent, and omniscient, in total, "being" - . Not something physical, real, intrinsically existing in the factory of the Universe. We are talking about concepts, which, in short, are already abstract.
Quoting JerseyFlight
I do not believe that Christianity, its symbolism, theology, values ??and morals were the cause of nihilism. The christian religion - codified, already absolutely finalized - in the catholic view - - has been and continues to be used as a political and social tool, and nihilism is the consequence of our evil intentions - in most cases - when using it. The only way for a concept to be projected into the world is through the individual, and the individual uses it as he sees fit. The cause is not in the concept, but in the vehicle of its projection into the world.
I'll ask the same question I asked Gregory before:
What is the best alternative to Christianity then? If you tell me something that better deals with the concept of individual freedom, values ??and morals of what is good and bad; I convert- in the case of being a religion - or begin to follow - in the case, of being an ideology -.
Quoting jorndoe
Not for you, but for Jersey Flight.
This is my point of view about Christianity.
It has a lot of things that are bad, but it has much more things that are good, and in a time of complete subjectiveness and a nihilistic take on religion, it has the best principles to follow. -"But the Bible says nothing about slavery". So what? We'll assume now that every christian is a slavery apologist? Of course not.
What about mentioned discrimination, females, gay folk too? Just how much can be justified by a Bible reading should someone be intent on that?
The Bible does not define morals (many seem to pick-and-choose anyway).
You don't "follow" (to use your word), you develop autonomous moral agency (if you justifiably want to be/remain an autonomous actor at least).
But, hey, I certainly prefer this consequence over this/this.
You're not really claiming this is quote from Seneca, are you? I know that Christianity borrowed assiduously from the Stoics and other pagan philosophers in trying to create a intellectual basis for itself, but to claim he wrote this about Christianity is excessive even for those ever-acquisitive early Christians.
P.S. I do like the "probably correct" qualifier.
I already made my statement. I don't know how should we continue this discussion.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Stauch, Marc; Wheat, Kay (2015). "12.1.2.1:The Sanctity of human life by H.Kuhse". Text, Cases & Materials on Medical Law.
I'm not saying nothing.
On exurge dominae: read the 33rd proposition that is condemned. If you are for a religion that officially sanctions one of the worst forms of torture -capital punishment in the name of knowing "truth", well I have no more to say to you then. Christianity is as brutal as Islam. The Jews "of the Lord" in the OT killed children
And yet, here you are, living on the world it helped build...
This is a fallacious and simplified generalization. The world we live in was in large part built by science. If you remove this you have serious problems, you end up in the dark ages. Further, it was the Humanistic negations that were applied to Christianity that account for quality in the sense you are speaking. I am not saying that religion didn't play a role in man's social evolution, I am saying that it did not play the role you are trying to assign it. Trying to claim that religion, specifically Christianity, is the ideology that accounts for the quality of the modern world, is itself an ideology.
You don't believe in God but you think the most important man in the world is Pope Francis?
Just clarifying
I had to quote myself - for the second time - because I really think you didn't read it.
I'm not going to pretend to be Jesus's spouse to please you
End of the discussion.
You've accused non-Christian westerners of sinning by not becoming Christian awhile being an atheist yourself. Each person has to make up their own mind on how to save the West. Bye!
You might consider reading There is no Crime for those who have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire by Michael Gaddis regarding what was justified in the name of that higher standard, from the beginning of Christian dominance of the West. If there is such a higher standard, it's likely there has never been one so blithely ignored in all of our sad history, and by avowed Christians too.
[b]There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire (Transformation of the Classical Heritage)
Michael Gaddis
"There is no crime for those who have Christ," claimed a fifth-century zealot, neatly expressing the belief of religious extremists that righteous zeal for God trumps worldly law. This book provides an in-depth and penetrating look at religious violence and the attitudes that drove it in the Christian Roman Empire of the fourth and fifth centuries, a unique period shaped by the marriage of Christian ideology and Roman imperial power. Drawing together materials spanning a wide chronological and geographical range, Gaddis asks what religious conflict meant to those involved, both perpetrators and victims, and how violence was experienced, represented, justified, or contested. His innovative analysis reveals how various groups employed the language of religious violence to construct their own identities, to undermine the legitimacy of their rivals, and to advance themselves in the competitive and high-stakes process of Christianizing the Roman Empire."[/b]
Now this is just it, isn't it? When religion, in this case, Christianity, aligns itself with imperial power. This is when the real tyranny begins. In the United States Christianity is always trying to align itself with the power of the Federal Government and the State. It has been doing this for years.
The founders knew that religion would thwart freedom if ever it should become political, hence, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
The theocrats are at the gates and beating on the doors.
"No crime for those who embrace our cult ideology." Zeal for God trumps worldly law, and yet all law is worldly! Christianity is just an incompetent form of it.
The claim that God's law trumps worldly law is an attempt to create a false dichotomy, it is an attempt to construct a category that is immune to criticism, pure authoritarianism. I don't see our zealous egoist seeking to submit himself to fundamentalist sects, which is to say, he does not live in a Christian world and neither does he seek one out. He will not even drink the poison he is so zealously recommending.
Thank you for the kind words.
Quoting tim wood
It is really complicated to try to create a new set of values ??and morals from the remains of another set. My biggest question about this is how to make it legitimate while everyone who follows it - in a time like ours - in most cases will be aware that it is all the result of a metaphysical construction.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Fact. Values ??have always been there, however, only as public dogma, while individually - private - everyone did the opposite - generalizing -. In moments of secular weakness, I notice that people who really want to rescue these virtues and morals start popping up.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Here you take and use Christianity as if it were something real, something physical, and we all know that it is just an abstract concept and that people are the real things that then distorts and uses these same concepts. I don't know why I keep trying to argue with you since everyone here has noticed that you are pure pseudophilosophy.
As Chritianity did in the Roman civilization in the past, during its secular and globalizing phase. its a cycle and we are again doing it. We could try to stop it or even get out of the wheel completely, but then we have all kinds of people who prefer to argue while the barbarians are at the gates of Rome, or should I say, Washington - using the USA as an example -.
Weak Pope as only the secular West could accomplish.
1) secularism is strong
2) Islam is not composed just of barbarians
3) i'd rather be killed by Muslims than say I'm either Christian or Islamic. I'll follow my conscience thank you
Secularism, ladies and gentlemen! Nihilism in its truest form...
No, honesty
Why don't you become a Muslim to save you're own skin, hmm.
Let's get this straight. You guys are saying Pope Francis is strong to oppose the old teaching about burning heretics but weak in not opposing Islam. HOWEVER, what would the new Christianity, founded on the basic ideas that Jesus is Lord, say about abortion?
But my dear man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far superior (and more specific) to anything that was ever produced by Christianity. You will not even live in your own Christian world. It's too extreme, suffocating, dogmatic, primitive, lacking any kind of philosophical intelligence. So what are you here engaged in, based on your own philosophy, juvenile provocations to appease the cravings of your ego. What you say is not serious, and neither is your manner of discourse, it is nothing more than an exercise in self-assertion to bolster delusional feelings of power. How could it not be, this is what you signed up for, mighty man, when you decided to reduce the world to the size of your ego.
If I have to, I would do it. We are not yet at the point of time where forceful conversion is being made by the state. - Saint Augustine only converted to Christianity after the "Edict of Thessalonike" of 380 AD by the roman emperor Theodosius I. The edict stated:
"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict."
- Augustine converted in 386 AD and eventually became one of the most recognizable and important saints of Christianity -
True enough, but, it was only created because the people who created it lived in a christian west, where freedom and individuality is valued.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Third time I quote myself here because people only read what agrees with them.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Finally, the "revolutionary humanist" monster showed itself!
A speculation.
Christianity's effort to combine what I think is the foundation of Western civilization (ancient pagan philosophy) with peculiarly Christian doctrine and scripture ultimately failed because that doctrine and scripture became increasingly incredible (by which I mean less and less believable). When that happened, the end of Christian dominion in Western thought resulted in despair and disregard of reason and morality.
There came a point where the miracles, the resurrection, the immaculate conception, the trinity, the stories of the saints, the claim that Christianity was the only true path to salvation, couldn't be accepted as convincingly true. Then efforts were made to explain the more unlikely aspects of doctrine and doubtful claims of scripture by characterizing them as not literally true but otherwise profound. Christian apologists and theologians began to sound more like deists than Christians, something which began much earlier, in fact, when Augustine and Aquinas and others took on the task of interpreting ancient philosophy in such a manner as to justify, however awkwardly, Christian doctrine, or at least to be compatible with it by a version of special pleading.
But unfortunately (at least I think so) Christianity's emphasis and insistence on its peculiar beliefs overwhelmed its uncomfortable assimilation of pre-Christian philosophy, especially as far as its "flock" was concerned if not its shepards. So as Christian doctrine became unbelievable, and God was despaired of, nihilism and other alternatives were accepted by some. God being dead, all was permissible, etc.
So perhaps nihilism is the result of the failure of Christianity, or that failure contributed to it.
I dont think people are picking up on what you are expecting them to. You might want to try expanding on what you mean, break it down, instead of just repeating it. Just a non-hostile suggestion.
(imagine this in a high, English style dialect, framed in a tone of up and down expression): Monstrous, you say, because I drew out the implications of your own egoism? I do say, I mean, after all, you are the one who accused yourself of it. I mean, where ever did you get the notion that it would be a good idea to lead with it as a description of yourself?
I think people are getting what they want from my answers.
Quoting JerseyFlight
This person is a proof of it.
Not if what they want is a clear answer. Maybe your right and everyone talking to you is a bad actor, but if you used some charity when considering why your message isnt getting across then you might also consider the possibility that people do not understand exactly what you mean. (Rather than having some shortcoming or bias that prevents them from doing so.)
If you then ask why they arent getting it you can consider that you might need to expand on your ideas so that they do, as opposed to just repeating the same thing you yourself notice they didnt get the first time.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Well if that was proof, it would only be proof of one persons error.
Spinoza advocated something similar. He believed that intelligence is too uncommon to allow humanity to live without the guidance of religion.
[quote=Bertrand Russell]So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.[/quote]
Not that I can recall. And in fact Paul was quite adamant that intelligence was to be destroyed by God:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought." 1 Corinthians 1:19
I don't know whether it's the case, but I wonder whether Paul wrote this letter after he visited Athens. I suspect his encounter with the Athenian philosophers didn't go quite as well as it's said it did.
What makes you think that? (The Athenian exposure bit)
Nothing, but a universal Christianity is IMPOSSIBLE because they will be divided on that issue
So secular martyr, bad. Christian martyr, good. Explain!
I just love the picture of this.
Athenians: "Did you just say faith makes you right?"
Paul: "yes, that's right, I said the righteous live by faith."
:lol: :lol:
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Shaivism and Christianity are cultural phenomena. Culture isn't a Christian phenomenon.
Yes, I agree completely with that.
Quoting Gregory
How can a "secular martyr" exist if secular people don't have a purpose to die for, a way of life to die for, values to die for, etc... Secular people only have their own subjectiveness, which destroys them from the inside - implosion of society: The ancient near east saw that, the romans saw that, and we are seeing it happen again, and we are doing nothing to prevent it -.
Quoting Gregory
I'm not defending the concept of an ecumenical church, but of Christianity as a whole, with all its ramifications - being it catholic, orthodox or protestant -.
Quoting jorndoe
Yet, it molded culture in a way that the two of them were intertwined.
What they want is not an answer because they already think they have one - subjectiveness -.
False in everyway. Believing in super-Daddy and his son Superman (jesus) may give some people meaning, but we find meaning in other ways
Quoting Gus Lamarch
This is a distinction without a difference. You seem to believe Christians should unite and force secularists to be Christian in order to defend the West. You don't even believe in the West in that case though![s][/s]
End of the discussion - again -.
You keep saying that. You obviously want to be Christian but can't believe and your solution is to force others to be Christian
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I think the traditional tenets or doctrine of Christianity are no longer believable in the "literal interpretation or meaning" to the educated and informed mind.
The way moderns interpret and understand the world is not compatible with literal Christian doctrine.
For this reason, I think, traditional religion is doomed unless unless it reinterprets or reinvents itself in a more figurative or mystical or mythical sense.
Myths have meanings, stories have lessons even if they are not literal true or historically accurate.
One can look at falling church membership and attendance particularly in the Western World as evidence that the Church is becoming less relevant in the modern age.
Nihilism still lacks appeal as a worldview and the most common response is "spiritual but not religious or not affiliated with any traditional organized religion". Non the less most people think there is some larger meaning or purpose to life even if they can no longer accept the literal teachings of the church.
Have you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or Heretics by G.K. Chesterton? Christianity is resistance to change. What you propose couldn't happen for another hundred years or so
Lewis and Chesterton argue that it's impossible to reduce Christianity to a couple of beliefs and ethical rule. To try to do this in order to fight Islam is irrational. Let the Christians and secularists unite and fight side by side if there is an invasion..
Or culture molded Christianity.
It's a guess, really, but I think an educated guess.
We have only Christian sources for this (the Acts of the Apostles if I recall correctly), but Paul visited Athens and is said to have been horrified by the various temples and statues of pagan divinities. So of course, he began preaching. To everyone he could, naturally, but among them eventually were some philosophers characterized as being Epicureans and Stoics. The Epicureans supposedly thought he was a "babbler" and were dismissive. The Stoics supposedly were interested in what he had to say, but their interest was limited and narrow, they thought he was advocating new gods of some exotic kind, and they were unpersuaded.
So it seems Paul's efforts to persuade/convert the philosophers were all for nought. I think his denuncian of wisdom and intelligence--something I find rather odd, myself, being a fan of both--may have been motivated by his failure. He may have found that the philosophers interrupted his preaching with annoying questions, and resented the interruptions (and the questions). Just a guess.
It wasn't the sole instance of early Christians being irritated by philosophy. Tertullian asked "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Very little it turns out. Of course, Christians began to assimilate philosophy themselves, especially during the long repression and persecution of pagans by the Christian emperors, which was fairly systematic commencing with the reign of Theodosius. The schools of Athens were closed by decree of Justinian.
Interesting, thanks.
Except perhaps here in God's Favorite Country. There are those among us who seem to relish the "old time religion" and glory in its defiance not only of science but common sense. They whimsically think that humans cavorted with dinosaurs; are healed by TV evangelists, attend mega-churches, build creation museums. In many respects thing haven't changed here since the Scopes trial.
It's one of those events that make me wish time-travel was possible. I'd be a fascinated onlooker.
Every culture, civilization, and religion in history has reports of miracles. In India in particular, there are many resurrection claims.
So if we place the accounts of Jesus's resurrection next to all the other reported miracles, it looks a lot less impressive.
So we are free to believe what we want.
I also wanted to point out that Christians have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark, and even Paul were real Apostles and could write Scripture. So there is a hole in the Bible”
-------------------------------And in another quote responding to StreetlightX--------------------------------------------
“I'm talking about the Gospels. They have much historical detail, so they have historical value. The question is about the resurrection. My argument is that although they have four well written accounts, someone can compile a record of 100 other alleged resurrections that each, individually, might not have much authority, but taken together presents a case that resurrection happens outside Christianity.
Then I ask the Christians: are we really unreasonable to say that resurrection just don't happen so the records are flawed? Are we not within our rights then to reject the Gospels?”
- Gregory
I want to make sure that I have a good understanding of your argument here, because I am unsure how you get to the conclusion you make based on your premises:
1) If a miracle is merely one claim in a multitude of miraculous claims, then it is “less impressive” (*and potentially less likely to be true*)
2) Many Cultures/Civilizations/Religions have reports of miracles, including a numerous amount of “resurrection” claims & Jesus’ resurrection is one of these many claims
C1) the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are “less impressive”
3) If Jesus’s Resurrection is less “impressive”, then “we are free to believe what we want” about these claims
C2) See C1 --- We are free to believe any, or reject all, of these claims
**I assume (and if I am wrong. please correct me and I will be glad to rework my response), that by suggesting a miraculous claim is “less impressive” because there are many miraculous claims made throughout the world, you are alluding to a judgement about whether or not it is true and whether or not any miraculous claim is true. I inferred this because of your answer in the second quote **
While I do think that the Resurrection presents an interesting case for belief in Christianity, I agree that the argument you proposed entails some kind of, “freedom to believe whatever you want” about the multiplicity of miraculous claims. However, I certainly don’t believe that this leads us to subsequently, “reject the Gospels” and consider all miracles as false. I think that this is one of Hume’s arguments about miracles (that even if miracles are possible, we shouldn’t believe them because there are so many and they, or their religions, contradict). Certainly, if there are a multitude of these “resurrections,” one would have to consider the evidence for each and then appropriately decide whether or not each claim is as valid as the next. That is how you would determine if it is fair to accept/reject any other theory.
Just because a miracle is possible, it does not mean that all miracles are then more likely to be true; or probable. Say for example that you are fishing in a body of water. You might assume that it’s impossible you’ll catch anything if the body of water you choose is the pool in your backyard and you didn’t put any fish in it. But, if you were to catch something there (a miracle), you wouldn’t then believe that all pools have a higher probability of having fish in them, you’d probably believe that something specific happened in your pool.
It is a matter of possibility, and the probability is something to be deduced later. I think that the defense of miracles, specifically the Resurrection, rests on the acceptance that they are possible, but highly improbable, events, but that after considering the evidence and alternative theories, one can reasonably conclude that a miraculous event is the best option. This same framework should be applied to any miracle claim, and often is to dismiss claims where: no one else witnessed it or it was not attested by other sources. It seems that this argument really only emphasizes the need for investigating these claims carefully, not to dismiss them. Let me know what you think!
Yeah, we're dastardly like that. I have a question... Why do people who think that Jews are super-organised and super-villianous always announce themselves? Aren't you at all worried I might tell the rest of the Jews that you're onto us? I mean, if we brought down Rome, imagine what we're doing with today's technology. It's almost like you have to be stupid to think this stuff.
No ethnic or religious group in the past exists today as they did before and vice versa.
We're all just random people saying things and identifying as things, under one law or Constitution. It's when that fact is ignored specifically the belief some are magically immune from it and its effects is when bad things happen.
Gregory,
By saying what you’ve said in the earliest post, your argument may follow this form:
1.Jesus’s resurrection is the gist of Christianity because it’s a miracle.
2.For us to ever accept a religion/faith, it must has something peculiar/exclusive.
3. Miracles of resurrection are reported in every culture, civilization, and religion in history.
4. Therefore, embracing Christianity isn’t the best choice.
And I believe this argument is faulty because every one of the 3 premises is problematic in its own way. For premise 1, resurrection is much more than a miracle. Besides the fact that resurrection itself is a miracle, it is the core of the Christian Gospel which meaning isn’t equivalent to any other miracle.
And resurrection, although one of the most important foundations in Christianity, isn’t the whole importance of Christianity because resurrection can’t be separated from all of the former events that ascribe it meaning(including Jesus gives people full mercies, washes away their sins, crucified, tormented and died, while the reality of resurrection hasn't taken place), and the other thing is that people follow Christ not because Jesus’s died and resurrected — Peter was a follower of Christ before Jesus even died.
You didn't say premise 2 explicitly but I believe you’ve suggested that way by saying that Jesus’s resurrection seems a lot less impressive when knowing that there are a lot of such miracles in other culture or religion. And this premise is also not true: The reason for us to accept a faith is about the goodness it brings to us or what about it that’s gonna make ourselves better, and it doesn’t have anything to do with wether it’s exclusive to other religion, culture, etc. For example, it is less likely that someone is a Christian because she thinks that it’s distinctive that Jesus could resurrect — the basic idea of premise 2 may work for many other conditions but our belief’s just not based on that.
For premise 3, as I said, resurrection is the core of the Christian gospel, so it’s not equivalent to any other miracles alike — I assume you’re suggesting the miracles that bring the dead back to life in this argument’s context. According to my knowledge, miracles that resemble resurrection in other culture or religion that I can think of including reincarnation in Buddhism, Hinduism and ancient Chinese culture, and former Egyptians also believes that people can rise from the dead, but none of these entail what resurrection entails. So this premise is based on an asymmetrical analogy.
Also I don’t see the relevance for the part in which you’re saying that we have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark or Paul were real apostles who could write the Scripture. I assume you consider this to be a loophole in the Bible because you’re suggesting that if they were not real apostles, they wouldn’t have traveled along with Jesus, which could then put the truthfulness of Jesus’s deeds, also the truthfulness of the very Scripture in doubt. However, what I’m trying to make here is that it doesn’t put the Scripture or Jesus in doubt, for 1)It’s very not likely that the Apostles are not real apostles — if you read the Scripture you’ll find that Peter writes incessantly about Paul and vice versa, and 2)It doesn’t matter even if they are not because Bible isn’t the only document where Jesus is recorded, Jesus is a real character whose deeds and life stories were attested by many historians.
Christians accept the Bible because they believe it is a historical document. They don't see miracles as anything unusual. However!, if you point out all the many miraculous claims in other faiths and cultures, they are put in a dilemma. Either they are to accept all this miracles, or reject miracle claims as improbable. Now they might say the devil performs miracles. But I see no reason to believe that Jesus was not from the devil. He cast out demons? Yes, but could he not do it while being in cohort with Satan himself? Could not they have been fooling people? Could not Satan have given Jesus his soul back after he died??
I'm arguing this from a Christian perspective. The reasonable thing to do is to doubt miracle claims in general, regardless if we have several documents from the 1st century speaking of a single event like this.
Thank you
It's not about Jews in particular. Religious documents, like the Book of Mormons for example, were written in order to take over a region of people
Several points:
1) etymology is not a real science, so everything about ancient history is doubtful
2) The original 12 Apostles alone, it can be argued, were given authority to write Scripture. So if something is not written in the new Testament by them, a Christian can quite possibly reject it. Peter could have been wrong about Paul. So a lot of the new Testament can not be proven to be Scripture, unless you are a Catholic I guess
3) Christian historians are obviously influence by their faith when they read about miracles from other religions. If we have a bunch of miracles, it is a reasonable position to say they are all forged from imagination. This might not be the only position one can take. But the evidence is NOT strong for the Christian position. There is simply no way to prove from history that Jesus was God
4) The Christian God is said to be not contingent but necessary. Therefore He wills the Good necessary. But He is said to be free as well. Therefore He wills the Good necessarily and freely. This may be possible in a supernatural (imaginary) being, but still I see no room left in God for Him choosing (within His nature) the Good in the face of pain and suffering. Therefore man has the ability to be greater than God. All this shows is that the Christian God is an impossibility. He never existed and never will. The Atonement (taking people's guilt and putting it on a innocent person) is just another nail in the coffin
What a silly idea. That'd be like if I nuked your country and after hunting down and killing whoever remained (in a hysterically unnecessary painful fashion- it even cost me money, time and even men to do so, but oh well!) and repopulated it with my own people... the idea you could even begin to think that others who come after me should receive anything but the warmest embrace as if from a brother... is just bonkers. A sure sign of mental deficiency.
Eh. Punish? No. Restore order? Of course.
Besides, that statement doesn't have anything to do with what "they think is reasonable"- it's simply "what is". You can like it or you can dislike it, couldn't be any more irrelevant. It'd be like you saying I said I think it's reasonable for people to drown if they're underwater for several minutes without some sort of breathing apparatus.
I mean, aside from vocalizing your opposition to reparations for slavery- things like justice, wrong being made right, equilibrium/equality, and yeah I suppose vengeance are pretty central themes in society. The difference is one teaches forgiveness or at least discourages bloodshed under the idea that a much more powerful entity has promised "Vengeance is mine".
At what level of decadence have we reached so that this is open to debate...
Are you seriously proposing that Jesus was revived not by the divine grace of God the Father, but by Satan for some reason that even you can't argue in favor of? If so, please, share you "hypothesis" - whatever this word means at this point - with us, because I'm really, very curious about it - in truth, not so much in the "hypothesis" itself but more on how you'll articulate and distort christian theology to make it agree with you.
Jews would say I am correct
Can you please asnwer my question?
Prophecy has to be unpredictable, highly unlikely, not deliberately fulfillable, and certainly written earlier than the event. This is not the case with the Jesus figure
So it's reasonable to wonder if the writers of the NT embellished on rumors from 40 years prior.
Again, there are miracles in every religion probably in history.
Religion has been proven to be a drug. If mushrooms are discovered to have been plentiful in Galilee
in the first century, the game is over
The world has all the reality it needs in order to exist. It came from potentiality, quantum uncertainty, and an infinite vagueness that cannot be put into words. Through gravity, perhaps, it leaped into actuality and finitude
We don't know enough about Jesus to say anything definite. He could have been a black magician whom the devil raised from the dead and who deceived everyone in think he was God, had died for them, and should be worshipped as equal to anything divine and above all creation
I think @JerseyFlight would agree with that, but only after saying how much of a stupid person I am from saying how he should agree.
But what is more probable:
1 - That Jesus was a jewish apocalyptic heretic preacher that eventually was killed and made legend, then god by his followers and after centuries of mixing political, cultural, economic and even personal opinions on the myth, Christianity was born.
2 - Jesus was really a transcendent person that was killed and resurrected by Satan.
3 - You will say that you believe in what you want.
I do believe what I want. But what I want is good. Piety is not a virtue. Are there indications Jesus was evil? Yes. He said you had to hate your family in order to be his disciple. He said he came to bring violence
I don't think your stupid. You are capable of having a conversation. I just have studied this matters in depth for many years
If I am not mistaken, you said earlier you didn't believe in God. If you want Christianity to win over Islam but are willing to be Muslim if you have too, it seems you believe based on your emotions. Which you are claiming I am doing
That quote is for Flight and not for you.
Quoting Gregory
Yeah, we both know thats not true, but ok.
In that we agree.
Quoting Gregory
So let me read them...
Quoting Gregory
Can you please find and write down the sources for these intriguing findings of yours, because I never read any of this in the Bible, neither did any of the bibliologists and historians that I studied about.
Quoting Gregory
That's right, but I'm not proud of it.
Quoting Gregory
All of us - who live in western society - should want, and help in any way possible, that our future is this.
Quoting Gregory
You again distorted information. I explicitly said that if I had no more choice, and that western society had already lost - as was the case with the roman civilization when saint Augustine converted to Christianity - I would convert by pure pragmatism.
You can wtite a pamphlet to try and convince people you're right. You can't create one to "take over Rome and the west". The spread of Christianity did not rely on the Bible, but on violent world and church leaders. Conflating outcome and intent is a conspiracy theorist play.
I believe your argument is:
1. If every culture, civilization, and religion in history has reports of miracles – specifically resurrection
claims.
2. When placing the resurrection of Jesus next to them it looks a lot less impressive.
3. Therefore, Christianity is no better or more correct than any other religion / belief.
I am a bit uncertain of how you jumped to the conclusion (3), but I think this is in line with what you are trying to argue. I agree with your first premise, there is no refuting it. However, I would disagree with your second premise because there is a lot that you are not accounting for. Jesus did not simply resurrect from the dead, but he was the only person to do so who not only predicted his resurrection, but who made the assertion that he was (and is) God in the flesh. CS Lewis does a great job of highlighting Jesus’ claim to be God and not just a great moral teacher because he did intend to leave us thinking of him as a great moral teacher. If Jesus claimed to be God, predicted his resurrection, and physically resurrected, then your claim that his resurrection looks a lot less impressive compared to others is false. In fact, if these three things that I have listed are true then I would suppose there has never and will never be a more important resurrection than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not only because of who he claimed to be prior to his resurrection, but because of the ramifications it has on the eternity of all. His teachings are no longer only lessons on how to live a morally exceptional life, but on how to achieve life itself. I make this claim because if we are destined to live in eternity with God or apart from God our eternal life would take far more precedence over our earthly “life”.
Additionally, you make the point that Christians have no way of knowing whether the authors of the gospels and Paul were real apostles who were even educated / qualified to write scripture. I believe you have a misconception of who the writers of the gospels were, with the exception of John, because none of them were actually apostles of Christ. The gospels are simply historical accounts or records of the life of Jesus as understood by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In fact, Luke was a physician who addressed both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts to a man of great esteem, Theophilus. As for Paul, there is no denying that he is an apostle because of how much he did to expand the gospel of Christ. Additionally, he was a Pharisee before he came to Christ, and thus received great education. If I understood your last claim correctly, you believe scripture was written with the intent of it becoming scripture. I find it hard to believe that the authors of the New Testament books knew that their writing was going to be canonized by the church three hundred years later and regarded as scripture. Additionally, Paul was simply writing letters to different churches with the hope and intention of keeping them focused on Christ.
Quoting Gregory
It is true that we shouldn’t know about history merely by etymology,
and it’s reasonable for non-Christians to question such problems like Paul isn't the real author of the Pauline Epistles.( mainly the most controversial Hebrews, other letters of Paul are recognized in academia that they were all written by Paul himself) However in this case, in the church Pauline Epistles are just the traditional name/designation for a bunch of letters, if there are historians inside/outside the church who can provide conclusive evidence of the true author of a particular book/gospel/letter, then the church would just change the scope of Pauline Epistles, and I don’t find anywhere in Bible talking about that the original 12 Apostles alone were given authority to write Scripture, if there is I hope to know.
The gospels and the epistles are wildly accepted as historical materials (because they pass all the conditions for a material to be used in historical study), and there are a lot of evidence suggesting that Jesus and his deeds( healing, teaching, performing miracles, resurrection) were real, choosing not to believe doesn’t effect the reality that they are very significant evidence.
So the question is now simply that, are we supposed to accept Jesus, who is mighty and resurrected, as God.
Hopefully these answer your question about the truthfulness of the New Testament.
Quoting Gregory
God is good so everything He does is just in His justice, but something He doesn’t do, so He can only honor our freewill. Even if human cause sufferings He too mercifully only does good for those things. There’s something I believe to be the core nature of God, that God is not, and can’t be love; God is not, and can’t be mercy, He is just who he is. Also why does this follow that man has the ability to be greater than God.
Hi Gregory,
Although there are a few conclusions in your post that I do not know from what it is that they follow, such as “So we are free to believe what we want”, I think your overall argument looks something like this:
1. If an argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus makes the most sense out of historical record, then the alleged resurrection of Jesus must possess extra evidence or additional support or look more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2. The alleged resurrection of Jesus does not possess extra evidence or additional support or looks more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
3. Therefore, the argument for Christianity based on alleged resurrection of Jesus does not make the most sense out of historical record compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims. (1,2 MT)
4. If the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus is a successful argument for Christianity, then the alleged resurrection of Jesus must possess extra evidence or additional support or look more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
5. Therefore, the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus is not a successful argument for Christianity. (3,4 MT)
Although Premise 3 could also be contested, my objection is aimed at Premise 4. It seems to me as though it is not necessary for Jesus’ alleged resurrection to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity. If an argument is to be successful, then it must be both valid and sound.
1. If it was possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record, then it is not necessary for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity.
2. It is possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record.
2a. If the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could be both valid and sound (and thus successful) without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims, then it would be possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record.
2b. The argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could both be valid and sound without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2bi. If warranted belief in the truth of a proposition requires sufficient evidence and not compelling evidence (which is the highest degree of evidence), then it is possible for the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be sound without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2bi1. There is sufficient evidence.
2bii. We know that an argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could/has been formed, so it is possible.
3. Therefore, it is not necessary for the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity. (1,2 MP)
"Saint" Augustine was a self-worshipper who said babies burn in hell. And if you don't know well know verses of the Bible that is not my fault. You chose a 6 instead of a 7 and want Jesus now to bail you out
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I said that was their intent. You can't prove otherwise
And he has been known as a Saint for more than a thousand years. That's a win to me.
By Satanists
All fields of study about ancient cultures' beliefs are based on etymology. If you don't know the language you can't know what they knew. Language passes through history, so you have travel that path, day by day, back to 33A.D. in order to truly know what happened. It's far back in history, language changes every decade. Persona meant mask originally. Now it means personhood. Sophia meant wisdom, but the Sophists were not wise.
"Satanist Christians". You have a contradiction there, one of your propositions is wrong, and I think it is that of "Satanists".
Satan is a force, not a person
Then I was quite accurate in describing you as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist nutjob.
For saying that they make up things like every religion in the world?
Explain
No, for describing it as a conspiracy theory to take over the West. Standard anti-Semitic delusion.
Rome conquered them first
And that was intentional, as evidenced by the huge scale military action. That is not, therefore, a crazed conspiracy theory.
The Bible is a religious text and so inherently conspiratory. They used it against Rome and won.
You understand that the Bible didn't exist then. The Roman Catholic church collated the Bible after the fall of Rome.
It as written by a group of scribes in the 1st century, if you trust history.
The first Christian bible consists of The Gospel of the Lord as preached by Paul the Apostle and referenced by him with the phrase "my gospel" on three occasions as found in the original Epistles of Paul. Within the Epistles are: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, Ephesians, Laodiceans, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians. It was written in the year of 144 AD by Marcion of Sinope (85 AD - 160 AD), a shipbuilder and son of the Bishop of Pontus. And of course, it is the first we know of, it could have been earlier versions.
The individual books were written over a much greater period of time, along with a great many more texts that are not in the Bible. The Bible was collated in the 3rd century and became standardised in the 6th. Your Jewish conspirators played a very long game, didn't they. Precisely how did they plot to make Christians hundreds of years later collate the book to bring an end to an empire that was already ending/ended? Jewish sorcery, perhaps?
Your being ridiculous. All religions do this
Philosophy, people! LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
You don't believe in anything
And you're not proposing philosophy by saying there is a unified personafied trinity of a God nature somewhere out there?
Is there a buttery in a cosmic cup drinking cool-aid under a green sun? More probably than there being a God
But you are right, talking about historical documents will be influenced by whether you believe in God, aliens, or whatever your belief system is..
All religions plan for people from different, as yet non-existent religions centuries later to take over the world? News to me. To what end and how?
Nothing can be prove in philosophy in the sense of a Aristolean deduction. I don't trust Christians philosophical intuition at all
Religion is most usually fanatical. Have you seen this forum lately?
There are basic structures in philosophy which can be agreed upon as the basis for further discussion. These can be thought of as axioms, similar to those found in, for example, Euclidean geometry. To simply deny proof of anything negates the need, or even a purpose, for discussion. Regards.
No, everything can be doubted, even non-Euclidean geometry. Why does doubt scare you?
Curiously, I sit here not feeling scared at all. I've no problem with doubt. It has its place. There are even times when it doesn't, as when I'm in the middle of the street with a car bearing down on me. I do not, as a rule, take time out to doubt its existence and wonder, if it is actually real, whether it will hit me.
Regards.
The practical and the theoretical are separate parts of the mind
We seem to have come round to my statement: "Is it not a raison d'etre for philosophy to seek and discover the truths, if any, underlying beliefs? If one starts, a proiri, with the belief in a god informing his/her reasoning, where lies truth?"
Nice chatting with you. Gotta go now.
In this case, disregard all the existing philosophy in the world. By the way, end the forum too, as it is full of people with "faith".
Oh my self!, it is ridiculous how the staff lets this kind of madness endure in the forum.
If you want to go back to that. You need a transcendent reason to act good? I don't. The three monotheistic religions of the West are Satanic. A good religion, to give an example, is the Way of Orthodox Unity in Daoism. Gragan-Tiger Mountain in the Jiangxi province and Mount Longhu are there sacred cites. Their Pope is the "Celestial Master. Daodejing and Zhuangzi started this ancient tradition which has over 1200 books in their Bible, which is divided into 3 parts, or "caverns".
Then go somewhere else. We like to talk about INTERESTING things on this forum, not Christian crap all the time
You missed the point of my statement:
You are not interesting.
I have many interesting threads. You have none. Let this thread go and I'll post on other threads instead
I've seen you, you seem fanatical. But that is not an answer to the question asked.
What religion people do all the time. They are on a drug
Why I still try to discuss with someone who argues like a child? Good Day/Good Night
It is not anti-Semitic to say Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all Satanic.
When I say Satanic, I say it's an evil system of belief. Evil comes from evil sources
Tell you what:
We'll be pretty happy without your conspiracy theories polluting the forum. Thank you very much!
Rome certainly conquered Judea. Pompey first sacked Jerusalem, and then effectively ruled it for some time through its client kings, the Herods. Then it became a Roman province. The Jewish nation was for the most part tolerated indirect Roman rule, and Rome for the most part tolerated the Jews and the Jewish nation, accepting them as peculiar but respecting their religion because it was ancient. After Judea became a province, though, the Jews became subject to Roman taxation and direct Roman rule, which were resented. This resulted in revolt, ending in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE by the legions under Vespasian and then his son Titus, both of whom became Emperors. Roman soldiers may be seen carrying loot from the temple in Titus' triumph on one of the reliefs on his Arch in the Forum.
The Jews revolted a second time, only to be crushed by the legions of Hadrian after three years (132-135 CE). Hadrian renamed Jerusalem Aleia Capitolina.
At the time of the second revolt against Rome, Christianity's influence was growing but it was already distinguished from Judaism as it had been since Paul's time. Paul's Christianity varied from that of Jesus' brother James, and both had their followers.
Christianity never conquered Rome, nor did the Jews. Christianity assimilated Rome. It became Rome, but not by conquest.
I honestly enjoy reading your comments, they are always original in their thought and interesting. I see you have your own style and concise way of making points. I am not being condescending here. I have seen you make many intelligent points. I hope the moderators will see that though your approach is sometimes idiosyncratic, it really brings an out of the box quality to this form. :smile:
Claim among many others made in the bible with no external supporting sources.
Quoting Josh Vasquez
It was written and thusly claimed in the bible that he predicted his resurrection then in the same documents he was claimed to have done so.
Quoting Josh Vasquez
Was this really a claim made by Jesus? All we know is the bible's claims of what he said as well as other theological claims that remain unsupported but are also suggested as explanations.
Quoting Josh Vasquez
Stop saying Jesus claimed that this was the case. The bible claims that Jesus claimed these things and also claims that they occurred exactly or approximately as depicted.
Quoting Josh Vasquez
Emotional pleas are rather weak tools to convince others of the veracity of your claims.
Quoting Josh Vasquez
They are a mixed bag of claims that people claim are historical and theological speculation that christians claim is to be taken seriously rather than take what is said with a grain of salt. These miracles are not only claimed to have occurred but it's then strange that even if we accepted the one or few descriptions of an event that occurred correctly described what happened exactly were also supposed to be forced into assuming the author(s) were correct in their theological explanations of the event (that he was god and this is why this miracle could occur, that he was virgin birthed, that he could resurrect).
Yea, in the case of Christianity, rather a lot.
Yeah, Hippyhead, talk about love of the Christian religion... Jesus is and will be his own Anti-Christ.
(Slam dunk! Gotcha!!)
Haven't followed the recent arguments but has there been any refuting of my post on this thread earlier as of yet?
Who could say, @god must be atheist .. perhaps God sent angels to dampen the flames and instill values and hope to all who will listen, to the incalculable fury of those who were chosen to oversee the punishment of the damned. Even the stoic patience of an eternal being could grow thin one might imagine.
Even if this is true... what you imagine... it does not refute the truth in the Bible that indicates that God and Jesus Christ are two fucking horribly sadistic evil bastards. Well, bastard, that's only Jesus.
Biblical interpretations aside, perhaps God didn’t require the immense bodily suffering by God’s own incarnation in place of that sustained by a sinful humankind as justice/payment for all sin. Might God have become pacifistically turn-the-other-cheek incarnate, performed numerous unmistakable miracles before experiencing a brutal death, followed by his resurrection—all to prove there really was hope for all? Maybe Jesus—who may have had a great sense of humour—didn’t die FOR humans as payment for our sins (the greatest mostly resulting from unchecked testosterone rushes), but rather his vicious murder occurred BECAUSE of humans’ seriously flawed nature; and due to his not behaving in accordance to corrupted human conduct, particularly he was nowhere near to being the blood-thirsty vengeful behemoth so many wanted or needed—and so many Christians still do to this day—their savior to be and therefore believed he’d have to be?
Our collective human need for retributive ‘justice’—regardless of Christ (and great spiritual leaders) having emphasized unconditional forgiveness—may be intrinsically linked to the same unfortunate morally-flawed aspect of humankind that enables the most horrible acts of violent cruelty to readily occur on this planet. Thus, we may be making God’s nature in OUR own vengeful image.