Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Don't care on October 30, 2008, 01:42:49 PM
-
My only comfort will be my waving to the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell.
http://www.thegodmovie.com/?gclid=COON_O--z5YCFRJ4xgodil-vyQ
Bowling for Columbine did it to the gun culture.
Super Size Me did it to fast food.
Now The God Who Wasn't There does it to religion.
The movie that has been astounding audiences in theaters around the world is now available on a high-quality, feature-packed DVD. Own the taboo-shattering documentary that Newsweek says "irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed."
In this critically acclaimed film, you will discover:
* The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus
* The Jesus of the Gospels bears a striking resemblance to other ancient heroes and the figureheads of pagan savior cults
* Contemporary Christians are largely ignorant of the origins of their religion
* Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes
From exposing the hidden history of Christianity to lampooning the bloody excesses of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (which caused Gibson to attempt legal action against the documentary), The God Who Wasn't There pulls no punches.
Directed by award-winning filmmaker (and former Christian) Brian Flemming, The God Who Wasn't There includes stimulating interviews with:
* Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation
* Robert M. Price, Jesus Seminar fellow and author of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man
* Alan Dundes, Professor of Folklore at the University of California at Berkeley
* Richard Carrier, historian and author of Sense and Goodness Without God
* Barbara & David P. Mikkelson, authors of the Urban Legends Reference Pages at snopes.com
* And many others
Dazzling motion graphics and a driving soundtrack propel this uncompromising film that the Los Angeles Times calls "provocative - to put it mildly."
Special Features
The special features on this DVD are both generous and carefully selected. As DVD Talk puts it: "This DVD delivers the film in a quality presentation, with extras that quadruple the amount of content in a positive way with no filler."
The superb commentary tracks on this DVD are not the usual "making of" chat but instead consist of original material that director Brian Flemming crafted to deepen the experience of The God Who Wasn't There. The two separate tracks are:
* "The Atheists." This lively track features evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). Topics discussed by this towering atheist figure range from the horrors committed in the name of God to the power of science to combat "religion and all other forms of superstition." Relevant audio from other interviewees is also woven into this timely and candid examination of irrational beliefs.
* "The Scholar." This track delves deep into the Jesus Myth hypothesis with pioneering scholar Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle). If you are intrigued by the possibility that Jesus Christ did not exist at all, you will find this audio track fascinating. Doherty has been studying for decades the evidence that mainstream academics are only beginning to discover. Prepare to be astounded.
The DVD also includes more than one hour of additional interviews on video. These illuminating extended clips did not make it into the fast-paced main feature, but many viewers nonetheless highlight them as a favorite part of the DVD. Topics include:
* The Rapture. Soft-spoken Rapture-believer Scott Butcher explains why he is certain that everything in the Book of Revelation is about to come true. (However, he is unable to explain where he got the idea that all airlines have a rule that at least one pilot in the cockpit must be a non-Christian, lest both pilots be Raptured at once while the plane is in flight.)
* Legend. Barbara and David P. Mikkelson, the creators of Snopes.com, discuss the creepy lessons behind a certain urban legend popular among Christians.
* What God wants. Philosopher Richard Carrier performs a thought experiment in which he asks, if there is a God, what does he want? The results are both hilarious and difficult to dispute.
* Who needs God to be good? Author Sam Harris disputes the notion that morality has any relationship to dogma.
* And many more.
We'll let DVD Talk describe one more special feature on this packed DVD: "There's an excellent slide show titled 'Explore the Myth,' which looks at the stories about Jesus and traces them throughout time, examining their effect right up through today's dangerous extremist conservatism, which has left America fractured. Viewing the slide show on DVD-ROM [any Windows or Mac computer with a DVD drive] will open Web sites related to the material."
And there's even more compelling material for you to discover on your own...
This DVD is sure to be a valued contribution to your DVD collection. Many buyers report watching it again and again, showing it to friends, and always finding something new and fascinating with each viewing.
-
Bowling for Columbine did it to the gun culture.
Super Size Me did it to fast food.
Now The God Who Wasn't There does it to religion.
Sooo... they promote their movie as a distortion of the truth that largely will preach to those that already believe it and just annoy those opposing it, ultimately fading into obscurity as it gets dismissed as propaganda?
Also, there is nothing new under the sun:
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/library/doubts-napoleon.html
(i.e. the same arguments were made hundreds of years ago and responded to in a most satirical way. Using the same arguments, Archbishop Richard Whately disproved the existence of Napoleon...)
-
I'm not a great believer, and yet this strikes me as... completely retarded.
-
With luck, after trashing Christianity, the authors will get the idea of doing the same to Islam . . . with an entirely predictable consequence.
-
With luck, after trashing Christianity, the authors will get the idea of doing the same to Islam . . . with an entirely predictable consequence.
Or they can get introduced to some Maronites.
-
Eh; (many) Atheists feel just as much need to proselyte as many of us that believe in a Supreme Being. I find it a bit amusing. "Must save the heathen (Christians / Muslim / etc) from their dark ignorance!"
-
Bowling for Columbine did it to the gun culture.
Super Size Me did it to fast food.
Now The God Who Wasn't There does it to religion.
Says who?
Bowling for Columbine made me buy more guns.
Super Size Me made me go to Wendy's a couple more times a month.
The last flick is supposed to make me go to church less?
Yeah, sure, ok.
-
* The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus
Yeah, Peter, James, John-all of those guys-had no idea that Jesus was human or even that he existed. :rolleyes:
* Contemporary Christians are largely ignorant of the origins of their religion
Maybe so. What bearing does this have on the reality of Jesus?
* Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes
Again, maybe, but so what? It's not even relevant to the question of whether Jesus existed or not.
These types of anti-religion screeds have been around for thousands of years. :yawn:
-
Silly humans.
It's important for you all to understand that ALL religion is wrong!
=D
Religion continues to be the primary carrier for the idea that there are consequences -- of some kind -- for our actions. Morality, if you will.
If we can just get rid of the whole "consequences" concept, we can entice people to engage in whatever heinous stuff we dream up.
We'll need some kind of substitute . . . hey -- let's use science! . . . so we can explain away anything awkward that shows up. And then . . . yeah . . . we can do a little ad-hoc science of our own, once we've moved "science" into religion's old slot, and we can justify anything!
This will be great!
And, since we're in charge of what gets to be called "science," we get to be in charge of everyone!
Hah! The power! It is ours!
Ahem. Anyway. Religion is Bad, m'Kay?
-
* Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes
Why is this 'alarming'?
-
Why is this 'alarming'?
They associate it with this, I guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)
-
Why is this 'alarming'?
Presumably, the authors are rather firmly convinced that this event isn't going to happen, have convinced themselves that it's completely unreasonable to believe it will based on the assumption that the bible is purely fictional. (An assumption that they themselves have a stone cold belief in...) Therefore they find it alarming that almost half the country believes that this event will occur in the near future when they consider it impossible to ever happen. That's my guess.
-
"Quote
* The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus
Yeah, Peter, James, John-all of those guys-had no idea that Jesus was human or even that he existed. "
You DO realize that when the Bible says "The Gospel According to ____" that the individual's name in the title is NOT the name of the person who wrote the Gospel. The Gospels were written by groups of people 70-80 years after the death of Christ, written down from two generations of oral history. The Gospels are very inconsistent, if not outright contradictory.
You also must realize that the meat of Christian theology has it's roots in the letters of Paul, and that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus Christ, and he is not concerned with the life of Christ at all, but rather with the conduct of new early Christians. Paul's letters could easily exist outside of Christ.
-
"Quote
* The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus
Yeah, Peter, James, John-all of those guys-had no idea that Jesus was human or even that he existed. "
You DO realize that when the Bible says "The Gospel According to ____" that the individual's name in the title is NOT the name of the person who wrote the Gospel. The Gospels were written by groups of people 70-80 years after the death of Christ, written down from two generations of oral history. The Gospels are very inconsistent, if not outright contradictory.
You also must realize that the meat of Christian theology has it's roots in the letters of Paul, and that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus Christ, and he is not concerned with the life of Christ at all, but rather with the conduct of new early Christians. Paul's letters could easily exist outside of Christ.
You do realize that none of that has anything to do with them not being aware of the idea of a human Jesus?
-
With luck, after trashing Christianity, the authors will get the idea of doing the same to Islam . . . with an entirely predictable consequence.
No chance. People attack Christianity because it's acceptable in today's society and there is no chance of their being killed in retaliation. Attacking Islam is neither permitted nor survivable.
-
"Quote
You also must realize that the meat of Christian theology has it's roots in the letters of Paul, and that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus Christ, and he is not concerned with the life of Christ at all, but rather with the conduct of new early Christians. Paul's letters could easily exist outside of Christ.
Paul did claim to have met Jesus in a supernatural experience on a road. That is why he converted. You are incorrect.
-
What did "Supersize me" do to fast food?
Last time I checked, a small drink from Wendy's was friggin' huge.
-
Therefore they find it alarming that almost half the country believes that this event will occur in the near future when they consider it impossible to ever happen. That's my guess.
I do not share any of the beliefs of Christians, apart from a core belief in objective morality.
Yet I do not find it in any way alarming that people believe Jesus might return, or whatever else people believe I don't agree with.
-
I do not share any of the beliefs of Christians, apart from a core belief in objective morality.
Yet I do not find it in any way alarming that people believe Jesus might return, or whatever else people believe I don't agree with.
Well, while you don't find it alarming, clearly the author did. Or, far more likely - my theory is completely wrong about why that is alarming to the author.
-
I do not share any of the beliefs of Christians, apart from a core belief in objective morality.
Yet I do not find it in any way alarming that people believe Jesus might return, or whatever else people believe I don't agree with.
The people who write these kind of books (Dawkins) and make these kind of movies think that their religion (atheistic, humanist, materialist etc) is so obviously correct that anyone who dares disagree must be a blithering idiot. Not agreeing with their dogma is proof, to them, of mental incompetance. And teaching your beliefs to your kids is child abuse. And the Bible is full of hate speech.
-
Because . . .
"Religion is BAD, m'Kay?"
And science isn't something you have to actually learn -- we have Scientists for that.
Just listen to them, believe in what they tell you, and -- despite the human race being the world's biggest problem -- you can have redemption.
And remember, kids, Religion is Bad, m'Kay?
=D
-
The Gospels are very inconsistent, if not outright contradictory.
Have you ever actually read them? They do have their small contradictions, but just because some mention events that others don't, that doesn't automatically discredit them.
Paul's letters could easily exist outside of Christ.
You've obviously never read them. I seem to remember them mentioning him.
Religion is not silly because everyone believes in something that they can't prove, ergo, they have faith. I think it takes alot more faith to believe that all matter had to come from nothing some time before the big bang, than to believe that a powerful being created matter.
It had to come from somewhere! You can't get something out of nothing!
-
You DO realize that when the Bible says "The Gospel According to ____" that the individual's name in the title is NOT the name of the person who wrote the Gospel. The Gospels were written by groups of people 70-80 years after the death of Christ, written down from two generations of oral history. The Gospels are very inconsistent, if not outright contradictory.
You also must realize that the meat of Christian theology has it's roots in the letters of Paul, and that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus Christ, and he is not concerned with the life of Christ at all, but rather with the conduct of new early Christians. Paul's letters could easily exist outside of Christ.
You DO realize your two paragraphs contradict each other? Paul's letters = oral history ?
-
"Quote
* The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus
Yeah, Peter, James, John-all of those guys-had no idea that Jesus was human or even that he existed. "
You DO realize that when the Bible says "The Gospel According to ____" that the individual's name in the title is NOT the name of the person who wrote the Gospel. The Gospels were written by groups of people 70-80 years after the death of Christ, written down from two generations of oral history. The Gospels are very inconsistent, if not outright contradictory.
You also must realize that the meat of Christian theology has it's roots in the letters of Paul, and that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus Christ, and he is not concerned with the life of Christ at all, but rather with the conduct of new early Christians. Paul's letters could easily exist outside of Christ.
I'd suggest a little more research on your part if you want to be taken seriously on this matter. I'll leave it at that, along with a bit of wisdom from an undeniably (formerly) corporeal person:
"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so."
----Will Rogers
-
You can't get something out of nothing!
Truism.
It had to come from somewhere!
Did it? Perhaps matter always existed in some form or another. This is what I personally believe. It's my understanding that matter can not be created or destroyed - and I have no reason to believe that it could have been at any point in the past. Additionally, if it did have to come from somewhere - where did god get it from? Matter can't simply be created out of thin air, as you noted. To suggest otherwise would be seemingly contradictory.
I swear, I'll never understand or be able to accept religion. :| The concepts are just flat out foreign - almost surreal - to me.
-
E=MC^2 ?
-
I do not share any of the beliefs of Christians, apart from a core belief in objective morality.
Yet I do not find it in any way alarming that people believe Jesus might return, or whatever else people believe I don't agree with.
Exactly my position. In my opinion if somebody wants to waste their time in prayer, it is their time to waste and if it provides some comfort to them then good deal. I respect their beliefs as long as I am not forced to participate in them.
-
E=MC^2 ?
Right, so matter and energy are, after a fashion, interchangeable. We'll run with that.
Okay cool. The first law of thermodynamics; the conservation of energy. Like matter, energy can't be created or destroyed either, yes? So the total sum of matter and energy in the universe, while it may shift one way or another (as governed by E=MC^2), is a constant - which leads back to square one.
Exactly my position. In my opinion if somebody wants to waste their time in prayer, it is their time to waste and if it provides some comfort to them then good deal. I respect their beliefs as long as I am not forced to participate in them.
This is a very good stance to adopt. Each to his own.
-
"I swear, I'll never understand or be able to accept religion. undecided The concepts are just flat out foreign - almost surreal - to me."
the older you get the less you'll use never, darndest thing
-
the older you get the less you'll use never, darndest thing
Perhaps. Time will tell, I suppose.
-
Perhaps matter always existed in some form or another
I know I don't have enough faith to believe that. I think that everything had to have a beginning, and the only way for it to get there would be an extremely powerful god, who would obviously transcend matter.
In the end it all boils down to faith. You can't prove everything. I have no idea where god came from, and I can't explain how he would transcend matter, or how he would create it. I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something could come out of nothing, or that something physical and changeable like matter could have always existed.
-
I'd be interested to know what, or who, has them convinced that there was no actual, living Jesus of Nazareth. So far as I know, his existence is not seriously disputed. Which is not to say that His deity or the things written about Him are not disputed.
And I do find it amusing that the person who wrote the article thinks that The Second Coming equals fundamentalism.
-
Thermodynamics is fine as far as it goes.
Physics is also fine . . . as far as it goes.
Among all the "random" data that eddies about us, there are those data to which we cleave and use to stabilize all the other -- apparently random -- data.
I, too, have such data.
One datum of which I am completely certain is that the human condition extends beyond what is physical. Said differently, there is an aspect of humanity that cannot be explained by physics (and, consequently, thermodynamics), and that aspect is non-physical, non-mortal, and directly affects the physical world.
Physics is a science developed in the absence -- one might say the denial -- of this datum. Physics is not alone in this, as the other "hard" sciences share this attribute.
Consequently, there will be failures to predict in the world of physics (yeah, I'm picking on physics, 'cuz it's the most obvious). Also there will be derivations that depend on assumptions made in the absence (denial?) of this datum. The "Big Bang" comes to mind. We're willing to suspend the laws of physics so that we can have a theoretical starting point. It's kind of a, "look, we have to start somewhere, and these orbital calculations won't wait while we solve the 'angels-per-pinhead' problem, so let's just start with a Big Bang, okay? Can we just take that as read, and get on with the math?"
And I'm okay with that, as far as it goes.
It is, however, rather too easy to forget that humanity is not some great algae experiment gone wrong.
There is somebody home. Individually. For everyone.
And until physics can address that, we're gonna have assumptions that we know are broken but we use them anyway, and from time to time we will get results that don't map to anything we already think we understand. And those results will be largely dismissed and relegated to some knowledge scrap heap, until decades later when Olaf Sauerkrautsson goes, "Hey, you guys remember that anomaly back in 1997, with the unpredicted field measurements? Well, you won't believe this, but . . ."
And so it goes.
Religion? It does a good job, generally, as the carrier for morality, but it also carries clues to aspects of humanity and reality that science is loathe to contemplate.
I mean, here you are, a scientist, and some crackpot wants you to take into account something that can't be seen, can't be weighed, can't be measured, but which can directly impinge on the physical world. Right. That's sure gonna happen.
Hey, I have an idea! Let's call it magic! 'Cuz that's kind of what you're asking this poor scientist to do.
And yet . . .
There is something there.
There is somebody home.
And science still hasn't been able to deal with it.
So I guess, for the time being, we're gonna have religion.
Who knows? Once science figures out how to account for this "spirit" thing (call it a soul if you prefer), we may still have religion.
Maybe religion will look a lot different.
Meanwhile, I say that we attempt to eliminate religion at our peril.
-
ArfinGreebly, fantastic post.
I've always wondered if someday science will be able to analyze the human brain - its self just a physical structure of molecules - and figure out exactly how consciousness work. Can science deduce the human mind down to an algorithm?
I believe if and when that day ever comes, we'll have to ask ourselves some tough questions about religion, and the nature of humanity.
-
ArfinGreebly, fantastic post.
I've always wondered if someday science will be able to analyze the human brain - its self just a physical structure of molecules - and figure out exactly how consciousness work. Can science deduce the human mind down to an algorithm?
I believe if and when that day ever comes, we'll have to ask ourselves some tough questions about religion, and the nature of humanity.
That's an extremely interesting subject.
I personally don't believe it's possible to reduce it, even in theory, because the most important aspect of consciousness is the subjective experience, and not the brain function involved. In fact, the only reason brain function is interesting is for what it can tell us about the subjective experience of the person we're studying.
For example: You can't show someone an equation and say "see, that's what red is" and then expect them to have the whole idea of what the color red means. You need to actually see red to get the full skinny on what it is for something to be red.
It's the same with consciousness-the experience of it is what is interesting, not the biological markers associated with it. Hence, no scientific measure will ever be able to fully account for it, because scientific measures are by definition not subjective, and consciousness is in its essence entirely subjective.
-
ArfinGreebly, fantastic post.
I've always wondered if someday science will be able to analyze the human brain - its self just a physical structure of molecules - and figure out exactly how consciousness work. Can science deduce the human mind down to an algorithm?
I believe if and when that day ever comes, we'll have to ask ourselves some tough questions about religion, and the nature of humanity.
Or what if they find that there is more than a bio/chemical machine to what humans are? What if they find that there is in fact an animated self conscience energy in the machine that could exist outside the machine?
I believe if and when that day ever comes, we'll have to ask ourselves some tough questions about the materialistic bias in science and the nature of humanity.
-
My only comfort will be my waving to the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell.
I don't dispute that you're going to heaven, or that they're going to hell. But all the same...
-
I don't dispute that you're going to heaven, or that they're going to hell. But all the same...
Yeah, anyway, I'm sure this film will be a no better and no worse contribution to the world than Expelled.
-
Came in late here but...
I usually won't post in religion threads other than to say which side of the lines I stand on. However, this just hit a button in me this morning.
Let me be plain when I say this: I am not attacking any other member on here.
This
The people who write these kind of books (Dawkins) and make these kind of movies think that their religion (atheistic, humanist, materialist etc) is so obviously correct that anyone who dares disagree must be a blithering idiot. Not agreeing with their dogma is proof, to them, of mental incompetance. And teaching your beliefs to your kids is child abuse. And the Bible is full of hate speech.
sort of hit me 'odd'. I have seen and heard this thinking from time to time, and the thing about it that I've seen, is that if a believer turns this same thinking around and says the same but opposite about the non-believer, the believer is now thinking wrong from the non-believers standpoint. Same type of logic, but now it's wrong???????.
As some say, I have done made arrangements for my fire insurance.
We are each free (in my opinion one of the greatest things God has done for us) to choose as we see fit and believe as we each see fit. However, my take on it in regard to the movie is:
Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Each must decide for themselves.
-
Yeah, anyway, I'm sure this film will be a no better and no worse contribution to the world than Expelled.
How is that a response to what I wrote? Not that my comment was terribly expository. =)
I'm just not sure that a religious person should feel "comforted" that others are going to hell.
-
Sorry fistful. I was agreeing with you. I involuntarily winced when I read that in the OP. I should have written:
Yeah.
Anyway, I'm sure this film will be a no better and no worse contribution to the world than Expelled.
-
Responding in no particular order:
I said the Gospels were written down from oral history. Paul's Letters are a different thing from the Gospels, technically. A Gospel is a different type of writing from a letter, and the two need to be understood in different contexts. So when I say the Gospels were the result of a community effort to transcribe oral history, I do not mean the same for Paul's letters.
Paul's letters were (mostly) written by Paul himself. Paul being a former Hellenized Jew convert to Christianity who lived in the first century AD.
Yes, I have read the Bible. Several times for my own purposes, plus at least once through for a Christian Theology class, once for a Biblical Literature class, once for a Christian Classics class, etc.
Yes, the Gospels are very inconsistent. Take "The Christmas Story" as an example. The pop culture Christmas story is often an interesting amalgamation of the Jesus narratives of both Matthew and Luke, trying to get them both to make sense at the same time. One example only.
I do not see why this is such a big deal to people. The whole Bible, Old Testament and New, is filled with inconsistencies and oddities. This does not mean that God doesn't exist, or that Jesus was a hoax. It just means that the book was written and redacted by human beings, many many human beings, very few if any of which witnessed the events they describe firsthand. A much fuller understanding of the Scripture can be reached if you just take a deep breath and say to yourself "God did not physically write this down himself, and I can deal with that."
"Have you ever actually read them? They do have their small contradictions, but just because some mention events that others don't, that doesn't automatically discredit them."
Like I said, yes I have read them. Why is it than whenever someone tries to have a critical discussion of the Bible people start freaking out and going into defensive mode? It is unnecessary. I am not a Christian myself, but I have a lot of respect for Christians and a fondness of the Christian tradition. Not trying to discredit. Trying to say that some parts of this movie might have interesting points to make (however if they do it Michael Moore style, it will probably suck).
"Paul did claim to have met Jesus in a supernatural experience on a road. That is why he converted. You are incorrect."
I am not incorrect. This is quite different from meeting Jesus in the flesh and hanging out with him while he healed the sick and drew out demons. Paul's focus is very different from the Gospels. He doesn't talk about Jesus' life or birth or death in the same way the Gospel writers do. It is much less important to him. Paul's letters are the earliest canonical Christian writings. The Gospel writers wrote after him. The Gospel writers are answering questions like "Who is this Jesus guy? Where did he come from? What did he talk about?" Paul doesnt really care about that stuff. He cares about questions like "What does it mean to be a Christian?" He forms the meat of Christian theology.
This is what gives birth to the "conspiracy theories" that Jesus never existed, Paul founded the religion and made up Jesus, etc etc.
Understanding context, and a critical reading of the bible doesnt make you some sort of blaspheming heretic.
-
"Quote
* The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus
Yeah, Peter, James, John-all of those guys-had no idea that Jesus was human or even that he existed. "
You DO realize that when the Bible says "The Gospel According to ____" that the individual's name in the title is NOT the name of the person who wrote the Gospel. The Gospels were written by groups of people 70-80 years after the death of Christ, written down from two generations of oral history. The Gospels are very inconsistent, if not outright contradictory.
You also must realize that the meat of Christian theology has it's roots in the letters of Paul, and that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus Christ, and he is not concerned with the life of Christ at all, but rather with the conduct of new early Christians. Paul's letters could easily exist outside of Christ.
Yes, I do realize that the titles of the gospels are not necessarily the name of the person who wrote it. Unless you're arguing that Peter, James, and John (only one of whom might have written a gospel, by the way) are fictional characters and that everything about their interaction with Jesus is fiction too, I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.
If you are arguing that, it wasn't clear to me.
-
I have seen and heard this thinking from time to time, and the thing about it that I've seen, is that if a believer turns this same thinking around and says the same but opposite about the non-believer, the believer is now thinking wrong from the non-believers standpoint. Same type of logic, but now it's wrong?
This is a very poorly constructed sentence, so I'm not entirely certain I understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that sometimes religious people fall prey to the same logical fallacy as the atheists I referred to? If so, I agree.
-
Ah, the "existence implies (demands) creator" argument. Problem is, no one ever offers to explain the existence of the creator. To me, the basic argument leads to the infinite onion,
existence=>creatorn=>creatorn+1
and the question of whether this universe is the heart of the onion or merely (!) one layer with, perhaps, an infinity of layers within as well as without. Also, who or what will create the layer stemming from our existence.
-
I am not arguing that Jesus and his disciples never existed. I have no basis for that. There is no evidence AGAINST their existence. However, there is no concrete evidence FOR it, either.
Think about it like this. What about the characters in Homer's epics? Did they exist? Well, they must have, because they were written about and many people did believe in them for a very long time. Well, this is not a very strong argument for their historicity.
And if these Biblical characters did exist, there is little reason to believe that what we know about them is very accurate.
None of this is supposed to challenge anyone's faith.
Also, have you read many of the non-canonical Gospels? Some of these writings contain a lot of information about the life and deeds of Jesus, and contain even more contradictions. And there is really no reason that the information in these Gospels should be taken any less seriously than those that made the cut.
The main thing that I agree with from the original post is the bit about many Christians not understanding their own faith. There are so many people who take their religion very seriously who do not understand its origins very well, and don't care too. I think that is a shame because there is a rich and interesting history here if you take the time, effort, and I suppose the RISK to look at it. I say risk because I think a lot of people are a little shy about doing this because they are afraid it will shake their faith. But I believe that if your faith is solid, you'll be fine. =)
And no, I would not make an ARGUMENT saying that Jesus never existed.
I do, however, argue that his historicity is up for debate.
-
The problem I tend to have with religions is that they allow infinite punishment for finite transgressions. I cannot think of anything that could warrant an eternity in a lake of fire, that could be done by mortal men. Even the worst of people upon the earth does not deserve an eternal punishment.
-
I am not arguing that Jesus and his disciples never existed. I have no basis for that. There is no evidence AGAINST their existence. However, there is no concrete evidence FOR it, either.
Think about it like this. What about the characters in Homer's epics? Did they exist? Well, they must have, because they were written about and many people did believe in them for a very long time. Well, this is not a very strong argument for their historicity.
And if these Biblical characters did exist, there is little reason to believe that what we know about them is very accurate.
None of this is supposed to challenge anyone's faith.
Also, have you read many of the non-canonical Gospels? Some of these writings contain a lot of information about the life and deeds of Jesus, and contain even more contradictions. And there is really no reason that the information in these Gospels should be taken any less seriously than those that made the cut.
The main thing that I agree with from the original post is the bit about many Christians not understanding their own faith. There are so many people who take their religion very seriously who do not understand its origins very well, and don't care too. I think that is a shame because there is a rich and interesting history here if you take the time, effort, and I suppose the RISK to look at it. I say risk because I think a lot of people are a little shy about doing this because they are afraid it will shake their faith. But I believe that if your faith is solid, you'll be fine. =)
And no, I would not make an ARGUMENT saying that Jesus never existed.
I do, however, argue that his historicity is up for debate.
Actually, there is significant evidence of the existence of Jesus. If you wish to cast doubts, not only must you include Homeric heroes, you should also include Alexander the Great or Hannibal in your doubts of existence. Simply because many people have written about them is not a reason to accept their existence.
After all, how could any one person accomplish the amazing feats attibuted to these purported men?
As to the non-canonical gospels, there are significant reasons these were rejected: amongst them, the indications that these were actually written in the 2nd century and 3rd century. The original Gospels have indications they were actually written shortly after the time of Christ (within 50 years). Simply because the earliest extant copy exists from the second century is not an indication of the ORIGIN of the orginal. (There is debate about whether some portion of a copy of Luke exists in the dead sea scrolls from around late 30s A.D.)
I actually have studied a great deal about this and ancient literature in general.
We have more reason to believe the Bible, today, is what it was when it was written than we have to believe that the works of Caesar are anything like what he wrote.
Many Christians do not understand their own faith.
Many consumers don't understand their microwaves, either.
Simply because you don't know the history doesn't mean that it is false or that you are stupid.
You can reject the Bible, but to be consitent, you must reject ALL ancient writings for which we have no original manuscript.
-
I did not say that Christianity was "false" or that its adherents were "stupid."
Your point about not having original, concrete evidence about Alexander the Great, etc, is way off base.
We know these people existed because of what they, and their contemporaries left behind. Have you ever heard of Alexandria? Perhaps the famous library there? The work of Alexander. There are thousands of ancient sources from Greece to India that talk about Alexander. "Today was interesting, this guy from Macedonia brought his army to our country and conquered us." Its not rocket science.
Is everything written about Alexander true? Certainly not. Did he really do ALL of the things that have been attributed to him? Probably not. However, he was a real person who obtained and ruled an empire at one point in history.
The problem here is that there are no "secular" records of Jesus. There are tons of writings which say "Jesus is the Son of God, this is what he did, become a Christian." There are, however, no first century records outside of this tradition to verify. There are no Roman records of him, etc.
This is probably because assuming Jesus did exist, he was probably a rather unremarkable guy in life. There were tons of itinerate Jewish preachers traveling around the Holy Land performing miracles and attracting followers at this time.
Many Biblical events are verifiable historically. The destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Persian occupation of Israel, the Diaspora, on and on.
Again, I am NOT arguing that Jesus never existed.
However, to say that the existence of Jesus has as much historical evidence behind it as the existence of Alexander the Great is just plain wrong.
-
Actually, the great library in Alexandria came after his time. Alexander had little time for creating relics to his reign as he was busy conquering.
In fact, all the great references to Alexander came AFTER him- by those who had followed him because he was so greatly revered.
As for THOUSANDS of sources, this too is mistaken.
http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=alexander-the-great-2
About 99% of what we know about Alexander the Great comes to us through five original sources from Antiquity whose ancient works have somehow survived the ages in various more or less complete manuscripts: Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius, Diodorus and Justin. Some might like to add the late Antiquity Metz Epitome to these Big Five.
I chose Alexander and Hannibal both because of their rather extensive impact on history and their proximity to Jesus in time.
In all three cases, there is evidence that they exist- however, you accept the existence and exploits of Alexander and Hannibal without question (or with few questions). It is Jesus who gets the greatest skepticism: why is this?
-
Historically, both Tacitus and Josephus confirm the existence of a man named Jesus. I will comment no more than that
WildicouldbewontAlaska â„¢
-
Actually, the great library in Alexandria came after his time. Alexander had little time for creating relics to his reign as he was busy conquering.
In fact, all the great references to Alexander came AFTER him- by those who had followed him because he was so greatly revered.
As for THOUSANDS of sources, this too is mistaken.
http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=alexander-the-great-2
I chose Alexander and Hannibal both because of their rather extensive impact on history and their proximity to Jesus in time.
In all three cases, there is evidence that they exist- however, you accept the existence and exploits of Alexander and Hannibal without question (or with few questions). It is Jesus who gets the greatest skepticism: why is this?
I may be because he is the only one to rise from the dead.
-
Ah, the "existence implies (demands) creator" argument. Problem is, no one ever offers to explain the existence of the creator. To me, the basic argument leads to the infinite onion,
existence=>creatorn=>creatorn+1
and the question of whether this universe is the heart of the onion or merely (!) one layer with, perhaps, an infinity of layers within as well as without. Also, who or what will create the layer stemming from our existence.
I don't disagree that matter could (conceivably) have always existed. But, at least with the Christianity, there is no infinite regress. The Christian concept is of a God that exists. That is why He is called The I Am. He didn't create Himself from nothing, nor did He even start existing. To speak of His having origins or being created is a non sequitur, to Christian theology.
-
I am not talking about books written about Alexander when I say thousands. I am talking about all the many times he was mentioned by the writings of people he conquered and ruled. I am talking about the absolute fact that there is no reasonable way to argue that his empire did not exist. It existed, hence, someone had to be emperor. And whether this emperor was named Alexander the Great or Joe the Plumber does not change the fact that the man existed historically. And whether this man went all the way to India at the head of his army, or sat in the West while his generals did all the work for him has no bearing on his existence.
The fact that we are even having this discussion is ridiculous.
And why does Jesus get the greatest skepticism? Well there are a number of reasons:
-That is what this topic is about
-Compared to Alexander, records of Jesus are almost non-existent
-And most importantly, over A BILLION PEOPLE base their core beliefs about the Universe, the afterlife, this world, morality, and social behavior on the assumption that he did indeed exist. Which makes it more important and more exciting to examine critically.
I have never met anyone to whom the existence of Alexander means so much to them. However, Jesus means that much to almost everyone I have ever met. This is why it is a hot topic. Did this really need explaining?
But lets say Jesus has just as much evidence supporting his historicity as Alexander. Even then, the most we can reasonable assume is that a man named Jesus, an intinerate Jewish preacher, lived in the first century AD and traveled around preaching and healing people. This makes him no different from all the other people who did that back in the day.
What makes him different is that he was the God of the Old Testament incarnate, was crucified as a martyr for our sins and was resurrected. There is clearly no HISTORICAL evidence for this. None whatsoever.
Thats why we call it FAITH. Christians have FAITH that Jesus existed, was God made flesh, dies for their sins and was resurrected. And that is FINE. Why do you try and justify it historically? This is a modern phenomenon. I assume it is a reaction to the attacks made on religion post-enlightenment from philosophers and scientists. Fundamentalism and Christian Apologetics are modern creations.
All evidence suggests that ancient Jews werent concerned with finding records of Moses or the flood, or wether or not the first man was REALLY names Adam. It didnt matter to them, because their FAITH was more important and did not rely on trying to find a RATIONAL basis for their beliefs. Depending on or borrowing from REASON to support FAITH is useless and misguided, and it results in a weaker faith.
-
Why do you try and justify it historically? This is a modern phenomenon.
Not at all. Paul used historical fact to justify faith.
I Corinthians, Chapter 15
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
The modern innovation is the idea that something that can't be justified by evidence deserves our faith. Faith not supported by reason is stupid and dangerous.
-
The modern innovation is the idea that something that can't be justified by evidence deserves our faith. Faith not supported by reason is stupid and dangerous.
Like the faith so many have that life and sentience derived from inanimate matter/energy?
-
-Compared to Alexander, records of Jesus are almost non-existent
I believe you are mistaken about that. I think you are just prejudiced and value historical texts more than religious texts.
-
Thats why we call it FAITH. Christians have FAITH that Jesus existed, was God made flesh, dies for their sins and was resurrected. And that is FINE. Why do you try and justify it historically? This is a modern phenomenon. I assume it is a reaction to the attacks made on religion post-enlightenment from philosophers and scientists. Fundamentalism and Christian Apologetics are modern creations.
All evidence suggests that ancient Jews werent concerned with finding records of Moses or the flood, or wether or not the first man was REALLY names Adam. It didnt matter to them, because their FAITH was more important and did not rely on trying to find a RATIONAL basis for their beliefs. Depending on or borrowing from REASON to support FAITH is useless and misguided, and it results in a weaker faith.[/b]
Who are you arguing with? The idea of the existence of Jesus was stated in the OP. It was implied that we couldn't prove he existed.
How can Fundamentalism be a modern creation? Likely we see the meaning of that word differently, but to at least my ancestors, Christian Fundamentalism was simply fundamental to their beliefs. People these days simply want to be able to ignore parts of the Bible that are inconvenient. (I guess I would add that universal literacy and the Bible being available to the masses in their own language is also a modern creation.)
Also, the pastor I grew up with taught from the original greek and hebrew texts and constantly re-translated sections of the Bible as he taught them. There is a great deal of meaning and depth lost in translation often enough as well as a great deal of historical context that isn't clear when simply reading the English version. A missing or added word can change the meaning a lot sometimes. My pastor often said you could write paragraphs in English to represent the real meaning of a few words in other languages. I don't think the Bible is contradictory, but I don't expect you to understand that.
-
Yeah, anyway, I'm sure this film will be a no better and no worse contribution to the world than Expelled.
Is it possible to have a worse contribution to society than Expelled?
This movie looks pretty stupid, I personally am looking forward to Religiosity. Even though I don't like BM the movie looks good.
Also to the people wondering why we want proof today when the people of the past have not... The answer is really pretty simple. Humanity has passed to a point where we can start to understand the universe. We have both the tools and the drive to finally answer the question that our existence poses. Hundreds and even thousands of years ago we did not have the ability to do this but now we do. Therefore we no longer have to come up with stories of how we came to be. We can look at what is around us with a scientific eye and evaluate it. In other words we don't take things on "faith"
Take for instance the night sky. Long ago there were numerous theories as to what stars were. Small balls of fire hovering miles out, Holes in some great shroud that covered the earth, etc. But today we know what they are. Stars, many far brighter and grander than our own shining from all over the cosmos. Yet it is just recently that we were able to prove what they were. Before we had only theories and speculation. Man at the time did his best but he was just groping in the dark.
I in no way fault a person for their religious beliefs, we are free to believe what we wish to. However I personally prefer to take a more critical view of our existence and look for the facts. Not speculation based off an old book. I would not argue that Jesus did not exist, nor would I argue that he was not a great man, perhaps even a man with some great power. But to me he was just that, a man. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is hard to tell fable and myth from reality and truth when looking back at a time before events were documented like they are now. Even today stories that are told to others change. Legends grow and are crushed by the details that are forgotten and changed from one person to another talking about something. It makes me wonder how we will be viewed in 2000 or even just 500 years.
The real problem as I see it is that people have taken religion to the point where they looks at the result they want and try to make the facts fit it instead of looking at the facts and determining the result. That in no way encompasses all religion or all practitioners of any specific religion. But it is a practice that has become far to common.
-
Bowling for Columbine was a work of fiction, and Supersize Me only proved that eating only fast food isn't good for your health (shocking). Is that really a great pedigree to have?
-
Like the faith so many have that life and sentience derived from inanimate matter/energy?
Most science is based on strong inference (http://256.com/gray/docs/strong_inference.html): "we have cause to believe." When better evidence comes along, we have better cause to believe, or cause to change our belief. Faith is, by definition, belief without cause (and usually unchangeable.) Where science becomes religion (faith) it becomes as bogus as any other religion.
In trying to discuss religion with friends I value, I often point out that when one accepts one religion, one rejects all others. I have only rejected one more than you have.
-
Faith is, by definition, belief without cause.
Actually no, that would only be one (very poor) definition of faith.
-
Perhaps you can provide your (not necessarily better) definition?
-
Define what you will accept as "cause". If you disregard anything non-temporal/physical, then you won't accept the definition.
The meat of the matter is that Christianity (and many other religions) posits a reality beyond mere time and space, the natural world.
Self-evidently the existence of such a supernatural reality (or indeed the points at which it may interact with the natural) cannot be proven nor disproven by using methods constrained by the temporal and material (the scientific method). Thus the evidence used to support such a "non-scientific" belief will always be insufficient for someone of a purely material mindset.
-
Chuck, I'm not talking about my definition. I'm talking about what the word "faith" really means, as defined by usage. If you think of faith as "belief without cause," you're not going to understand what other people are saying when they talk about faith, or what writers have meant by it (or its cognates) in the past two thousand years.
On a site for gun owners, it should be easy to illustrate the meaning of faith. People often carry one gun over another because they have faith in that particular gun. They trust it to be reliable, or accurate, or powerful, etc. That is faith. Whether they have "cause" for that faith will depend on the person. They might have the sort of blind faith that comes from magazine articles or marketing. Or they might have the sort of reasonable faith that comes from having fired the gun thousands of times, or a careful study of terminal ballistics and bullet performance. True, the gun could still malfunction, or might fail to stop with one shot. But the person whose faith is founded on fact has made a realistic, rational choice based on evidence.
But when that gun owner tells Chuck Dye that he has faith in his gun, Chuck doesn't know what he's talking about. Because he's working with a flawed definition of faith, Chuck assumes it's a blind faith, based on tradition or personal preference.
To be candid, I think most people rely on blind faith for most things they believe in. But that doesn't mean one can't have reasonable faith in the same things, if they are supported by the evidence.
-
My only comfort will be my waving to the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell.
Are you so certain you won't be standing next to them instead? Were you true to your Christianity you would have said, "I'll draw no comfort when I see the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell. But it's never too late, and I'll pray for them".
-
Good call antibubba!
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us...
And lets jump all over anyone who tries to point out that American Christians often have a very shallow understanding of the religion!
Trivia: What is the one sin that can NEVER be forgiven?
-
White after Labor Day?
-
White after Labor Day?
No, that's a sin year-round, now. You're supposed to feel guilty for being born that way.
-
deleted for incompleteness. Somehow this posted before I was done writing it; I thought it hadn't posted at all. Sorry.
-
MW, did you forget that I has been infected with teh white gilt?
-
Are you so certain you won't be standing next to them instead? Were you true to your Christianity you would have said, "I'll draw no comfort when I see the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell. But it's never too late, and I'll pray for them".
Good call antibubba!
Those most self-confident in their grasp of Christian theology have a tendency to be:
a. Non-Christians* attempting to lecture Christians on their faith
and
b. Ignorant of, well, actual Christian theology, as opposed to the caricature erected by its historical opponents and pop culture.
FTR, there are several strains of Christian theology and some have different views on salvation. At least one of these strains emphasizes the certainty of salvation given particular conditions. If the OP subscribes to this strain, he IS certain he won't spend eternity separated from God.
* Maybe, as a sideline, I'll start obnoxiously lecturing Jews, Hindus, atheists and the odd pagan on how they are not being true to their religion (or irreligion) in some fashion, not letting my ignorance of their particular religion (or irreligion) slow me in the least.
Is orthodoxy to my misunderstanding of their (ir)religions too much to demand?
"Hey, if you were true to your religion, you'd have your son circumcised by a wild-haired old guy in the desert with a bit of sharp stone, not by some fancy-pants mumbler using sterilized surgical steel and wearing a nice suit."
"Hey, if you were true to your religion, you'd have shown that cow more deference."
"Hey, if you were true to your irreligion, you'd insist on a mathematical proof that when you turned your key and pressed the accelerator, you'd actually move your auto forward."
"Hey, if you were true to your religion, you'd kidnap a stranger, cut out his small & large intestine while still alive, drape them into the branches of a nearby oak, and dance buck nekkid to the sweet music of his death cries. "
-
"Hey, if you were true to your religion, you'd kidnap a stranger, cut out his small & large intestine while still alive, drape them into the branches of a nearby oak, and dance buck nekkid to the sweet music of his death cries. "
I'd do that, but there aren't many oaks near me, so I drape them over lamp posts. And it's too cold to dance around nekkid at this time of year. And death cries gives me a migraine, so I usually tape their mouths shut, and wear ear plugs. I'm sure whoever is watching will understand.
=D :laugh:
-
I'd do that, but there aren't many oaks near me, so I drape them over lamp posts. And it's too cold to dance around nekkid at this time of year. And death cries gives me a migraine, so I usually tape their mouths shut, and wear ear plugs. I'm sure whoever is watching will understand.
=D :laugh:
Heterodox!
:police: <--"OEO": Orthodoxy Enforcement Officer
-
Are you so certain you won't be standing next to them instead? Were you true to your Christianity you would have said, "I'll draw no comfort when I see the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell. But it's never too late, and I'll pray for them".
Yes, I am.
I didn't imply that I would draw comfort from their separation from God and Heaven, but only my own place with Him and there, despite their trespasses that could have potentially dragged me there with them.
Unfortunately, I have little faith in most of my fellow men to do the right thing, even part of the time. However I still do pray for them, and now from the implied tone of your question, you as well.
-
White after Labor Day?
No, that's a sin year-round, now. You're supposed to feel guilty for being born that way.
See? The One is changing even our fashions.
-
and now from the implied tone of your question, you as well.
Hey, it can't hurt.
-
Trivia: What is the one sin that can NEVER be forgiven?
blaspheming against the Holy Spirit
-
blaspheming against the Holy Spirit Holy Obama
Fixed that for you.
-
Fixed that for you.
OMG! You really had to go there? LOL
-
This is APS. You have to make a cutting remark about Obama at least every five posts. It's the law.