Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"I don't wish... have to point out once again..." -Jan
LOL!
Yeah Blu and millions of others.
On this one point, you are truly out of touch.
With all due respect.
Do you even pay attn to American Repub bible belt politics?
Yeah, you can count em all on one hand, lol!
You may be able to get away with saying such in some deluded circle of social scientists or elsewhere in our theologically illiterate America but I've studied / followed world theologies (incl their histories and eg, H Smith, etc) all my life - more than Sam Harris I might add also suspect - and when you make this pronouncement apparently you do not know how silly it comes off. Not unlike someone earnestly asserting a demon causes schizophrenia. Yes it is THAT out of touch with the reality on the ground. On this point you really need to sober up. But then we've had this same exchange before. I even suggested to you to go live in St Marys KS for a year and talk to the locals. An off-beat sectarian perspective, my ass. Be part of the solution not the problem. You're learned for chrisakes, you should know better. Sheesh.
Talk to Norton on American religio-politics. Maybe he can set you straight on this point. Yeah, many do ACTUALLY believe there is a little ghost put into the little embryo at conception by an angel; and that the devil is REAL; and that Jesus is God. And it is umpteen millions we're talking about here - not a few - umpteen millions that reach back centuries upon centuries- it is certainly NOT just a few minority sects and it is not "just" a modern evangelical interpretation.
Nor does it matter if the literal belief comes (a) from the bible or (b) from the neighbor or (c) from the local father or pastor. This is all distraction. What matters is that they believe it.
Right now go find Cragman and ask him.
Silly silly person. REALLY!
But no, like Paul R, I already know you won't do the work. Not any of it. Meanwhile that must just be Blu's cousin sitting in jail in KY right now. Eh? lol
The whole lot of you - from wherever it is - whatever side - run interference (cover) for the fundamentalists on the topic of truth-claims. It really is plain as day. And you all should be ashamed. I know I would be.
.....
"Christian students of mine... including those who claim to believe the Bible literally, are actually unfamiliar with it, relying on preachers to tell them what it says"
"...Catholics and Orthodox are growing as many people turn away from literal interpretations..."
Which is it? a few, a "particular sectarian interpretation", or (2) millions upon millions? Are we to believe the few like Blu are all just in your class, students of yours? Do you have the ability to extrapolate from the few in your class to the great wide world? I swear in such matters you are more a walking contradiction.
EDIT
You know, I've often thought after our exchanges and reading your posts that you'd make a great gov bureaucrat. You'd fit right in... imo... in some kind of interfaith agency or program. I on the other hand, not so much. :)
"Some scholars argue that our society is returning to the conditions of the Roman Empire and Christianity is becoming more like the Christianity of the first century - diverse and divided." -Jan
"In answer to fructose's question of where are those who look at the Bible as allegory or myth..." -Jan
Apparently you completely - COMPLETELY - missed the point. I'm talking about religious leadership - not excluding Paul R here - getting real with their fundamentalist congregations and setting them straight here and now in the present in the 21st century and telling them the bible stories are not for real, that they are only myth, in other words fiction, works of literature. Get it now?
I was NOT talking about filling still more books on library shelves with ways of reconciling r and s. There is no reconciling. Either (a) Jesus rotted in ground like his brethren and parents; or (b) he ascended into heaven for real, in a for-real sense, just like the bible story says Elijah did, just like Islam says Muhammad did. Get it now?
EDIT
Paul R and Largo (I will include Largo based on his post a few days back) right now could inform Blu, eg, straight up - face to face post to post - the bible stories are fictitious as far as their supernatural content or character. That is what I'm talking about. Will they Jan? That is the leadership I'm referring to that is MISSSING.
"And congratulations to Lorenzo for his excellent Bible literacy and balanced view as presented."-Jan
Yeah, and you are doing the judging?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Hey Paul R, Blu is a literal fundamentalist.
So what?
Literal fundamentalism (aka fundamental literalism) is a problem in today's world struggling to adapt. (If you haven't noticed.)
No, the problem is when someone who's a fundamentalist in any human endeavor decides to forcefully impose their will on others. A distinctly human problem.
The world's religions are an incredibly rich source of wisdom. You continue to simply see myth as not true as in there could be no Zeus. In doing so the point/essence of these stories flies right past your head.
The great genius of Christianity was to turn myth into historical reality which is, Ironically, something you continue to do by saying its merit or lack thereof rests on that same historical accuracy.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
You should be addressing Blu.
Just one lame ass excuse or lame ass justification or lame ass rationale after another.
Shame.
.....
"a fundamentalist in any human endeavor..."
LOL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Jan, own up.
You've never read Dawkins' God Delusion. Have you?
What about you Paul?
Have you read it cover to cover?
.....
"The great genius of Christianity was to turn myth into historical reality..." -Paul R
Are you sober?
What's that phrase Largo always uses referencing the bottle?
Maybe that applies here this morning?
Such crazy talk is a conversation stopper.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Such crazy talk is a conversation stopper.
Well, to be honest, I hadn't considered such a cogent argument: Touche'.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
The great genius of Christianity was to turn myth into historical reality...
which taken to its limit seems to suggest that there is a power in "fact" (in this case, the suggestion of "historical fact") over the assertion of "received knowledge" (whose origin is difficult to ascertain, hearing voices 2000 years ago might have been an indication of "miracle" but today it probably gets you a diagnosis of schizophrenia).
why is the implication of "historic fact" so important that it sets Christianity aside ("genius") from other religions, and doesn't that ultimately plant the seeds of doubt in the Christian religion, its authority ultimately unprovable by the standards of "fact?"
As Jan pointed out, there are a number of Christian writings that didn't get into the Bible. The historic "facts" being the diversity of Christian philosophy and theology, and the choice of some set of writings over others to codify the religion.
However, if fact is so important, when one starts to investigate the facts things don't seem as simple as they are presented. If we pursue scientific "fact" to support Biblical accounts we are probably going to be disappointed in the Bible... while wise in the dealings of people, it fails on its knowledge of the physical world. Not surprisingly because of the advances of what we know about that world.
The facts matter simply because the "laws" of behavior derived from the Bible (and the orthodox teachings of the church, you pick) seem much more plausible if based on fact, rather than on something someone made up to tell a very good story as a parable.
It might be a great and compelling story, but if the story is shown to have "stretched the truth" of what actually happened, the story's authority suffers somewhat...
The interesting connection with this discussion and the recent "What is Mind?" thread focus on "experience" is that while we take our "experience" as authoritative, it might not be "factual." How one negotiates a balance is interesting, and how one learns from the differences important. Science practice is all about this... religious practice not so much.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
why is the implication of "historic fact" so important that it sets Christianity aside ("genius") from other religions, and doesn't that ultimately plant the seeds of doubt in the Christian religion, its authority ultimately unprovable by the standards of "fact?"
With Christianity the plethora of myths involving virgin births, death and resurrection and interaction with deities from Orpheus to Dionysus and beyond are placed within a specific historical time frame. There is efficacy in fact, no doubt, and that efficacy is appealing to those desiring to believe. Doubt is nothing new with Christianity. it was, after all, a Greek in the 5th Century BCE who said, " as to the Gods we can not know as our lives are too short and the question is too complex."
Christianity is a kind of Hellenized Judaism that transcends any particular culture so that any proselytizer can declare syncrity with other religious persuasions but, again, with the added selling point of historical context.
I think the millions of believers would argue with the notion that Christianity is ultimately "unprovable." After all, it is a religion of faith and if there were proof what would be the value of faith?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
The basis of Christianity is that a human being named Jesus or something like that some 2000 years ago was actually the son of a god and this Jesus bent the laws of nature and
physics by performing miracles, pissed off the Romans, and was killed by them, etc.
This is all well and as fine a reason to start another religion as any other.
Or it it?
To me it all comes down to this - IF this is all true then why is the historical record of this man Jesus very sketchy, and particularly given that the first mention of him was fully more than two generations of humans after his supposed death and resurrection, in fact it is over 100 years later that the first written accounts can be traced to.
There are no eyewitness accounts, none, that were written at the time this man walked the earth. To me personally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
What did "god" make it so damn difficult for humans to have real time and multiple and irrefutable proofs, records, eye witness accounts of this man Jesus in action in those days?
The Buddha never claimed to be a god yet there are volumes of eye witness accounts of him
and he lived on this earth before Christo came upon the scene did he not?
Right or wrong and i invite you to post how wrong I am on this so I can be educated, it just
seems clear to me that the entire plausibility of the essential historical record that removes any doubt regarding the Jesus story is very lacking, in fact void of critical verification.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Welcome to the thread, Cragman. I knew I could draw you in.
It's all in fun here.
Tell us the age of the earth.
Now I don't mean in Paul's mythological pedagogical or consoling whatever sense but in a for real sense, you know like how the strength of ropes are measured or how lumber is tested to meet building code. That kind of sense, iow, factual sense. As YOU understand it.
.....
"Doubt is nothing new with Christianity..." Paul R
again, this is just silly in the context in which it was written.
"Doubt" today is worth a great deal more than it was 2,500 years ago. Because, to the extent it exists, say for eg, in the mind of Harris, Dawkins or hfcs... or in the mind of any modern secular progressive who is worldly and armed with a science education, it is based in fact, a great deal of it. Or, if one prefers, in a great body of knowledge. Not so much 2,500 years ago, the time to which you allude.
"Doubt" 2,500 years ago was pretty baseless and pretty speculative.
Not to mention reason here either. We know a great deal more about that biological faculty in today's world as well.
You're shootin blanks, man.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Sorry Crag, disagree.
Nobody's called anybody names here since WB left.
Even then, he was the only one in a long time.
That is, besides "silly rabbit" "purile rube" "mountebank" "pointy hat" and a couple others. Which are nbd, really.
C'mon stick around. Paul R is so far up his imaginary ivory tower - and his head so deep in mythology theory and practice - nobody of my ilk can reach him. Maybe you can.
Tell him you think the bible stories are more than just myth - way more - and like me you are fundamentally interested in the truth. Educate him. Let him know that your preference is a belief system based on truth and not myth. Anything less is a deal breaker.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
You see, Norton, Jan believes or else wants others for whatever reason to believe that a lot more people took the bible stories as truth in the 20th century, say, than they did in previous centuries (eg 18th, 17, 16th... 11th).
There on that point specifically I was hoping you'd weigh in and help me set her straight. This really is one of those areas I think where even a little common sense can be employed assuming even a most elementary level of history, Am and European for example, in the figuring. But maybe not.
It's not far from the truth that probably 90 per cent of folks in European 15th century Ireland to Germany believed the bible books (as read to them, taught them, of course, because 90% COULDN'T EVEN READ in the first place!!) to be a truthful (therefore fundamentalist) acct of world history and its workings.
I only wish for Jan and Paul the best - that in their next life they might come back under the auspices (otherwise the yoke?) of a fundamentalist traditional Christian family and village of the 15th century - either Irish or German - where they would get the chance to experience first hand its consoling, empowering, emancipating nature in all its full-on expression.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
Read Titus flavius Josephus vespasianus, born in Jerusalem, lived most of his life in Galilee, probably a Pharisee, and leader of the first Jewish revolt in Galilee. Later a slave of Vespasian, later still, a free Roman citizen granted by Vespatian when he was Emperor, and present with Titus at the fall of Jerusalem. His birth name was Yosef Ben Matityahu ( Joseph son of Mathew)
He was born in Jerusalem but lived most of his life in Galilee and would have been very familiar with Jesus, and was a contemporary of his Brother James, an early church leader. He would have been between 25 and 32 when James was killed.James was probably more influential than Peter and Paul. As bishop of Jerusalem, he lead the church in Jerusalem and it, not Rome, was the center of the church until the fall of the Temple. It wasn't until he was gone that Paul ( and Peter) took over the church. A seminal event in the life of the Church was when James called Paul back to Jerusalem and read him the riot act for preaching to Gentiles and forced him to recant ( Acts). It didn't stick.
Being of Priestly background and claiming Hasmonian Royal ancestry, Josephus probably at least met James. It would have been hard for him to hang around the Temple and not have known of him.
His accounts of James and Jesus are from contemporaries on all sides. Good places to start are his " Antiquities of the Jews" and " The Jewish War" both written by him for a Roman audience. Most of what we know about The events in first century Palestine are from his writings. Later account from Tacitus ( Annals, book 15, ch44), Pliny the Younger ( letters to Caesar) etc come from him.
I think when you claim nothing was written about Jesus it's red herring. We only have a few books for all of Roman history at that time. I've read most of what exists. There wasn't exactly a Wikipedia of Jewish history back then, especially after the fall and destruction of Jerusalem. It's like claiming Dresden didn't exist because there aren't any records in city hall.
While you dismiss it, the old , new, and Apocriphal testament writings ARE the history of the time. Testament means history, like it or not.history colored by religious dogma, sure, but still history.
There are several Roman Emperors who only have a couple paragraphs about them written by contemporaries. The Emperors from the year of the four emperors get less than that! About what you get is " these four guys ruled that year and were killed" Imagine... You rule the World and are forgotten.
We didn't know hardly anything about the Essenes, for instance, except from Josephus until the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. There isn't any reason to believe that when he talks about Jesus he made it up.
What theology about him you believe is one thing, but to deny he even existed seem to my eye foolish, any more than to deny Buddha or Zoroaster existed seems silly.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
Fructose wrote
Nobody's called anybody names here since WB left.
Even then, he was the only one in a long time.
boy is that the truth, and it feels so good to not have to be constantly attacked by him
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
You see, Norton, Jan believes or else wants others for whatever reason to believe that a lot more people took the bible stories as truth in the 20th century, say, than they did in previous centuries (eg 18th, 17, 16th... 11th).
Jan believes that? I must have missed it
that true Jan, and if so please elaborate, has the human species evolved backwards?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Norton, just completely ignore it and move on.
.....
Back to the conversation...
Yeah, where have you been? she's been repeating it for years. Often she'll say a lot of it this literal fundamentalism started with the Evangelical mvt of the early 20th century!
Me thinks maybe a little too much Karen Armstrong or Reza Aslan or...?
that true Jan, and if so please elaborate...
NOoooooooo...
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Doubt" 2,500 years ago was pretty baseless and pretty speculative.
Doubt is doubt. When Protagoras said man is the measure of all things, exactly how was his base for that speculation any different than yours? Your "hard science" can neither varify nor dismiss (based on that science) the existence of a deity. How is your speculation different than what Protagoras stated centuries ago?
Skepticism has always been around.
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
'Voices in Our Heads'
What did "god" make it so damn difficult for humans to have real time and multiple and irrefutable proofs, records, eye witness accounts of this man Jesus in action in those days?
Elaborating on Norton's earlier post here I must ad;
Why would a benevolent being create such mass confusion among those he would wish to follow his laws? With multiple religions and gods for us to chose and obey, from extremely violent murdering warmongering cults and mass followings to bible thumping fundamentalist right wing extremists to peaceful nonviolent meditating vegetarian monks and their followers.
What madness is this? Some claim to have direct communication with their deity, hearing voices or God speaking directly to them. Others choose to follow the self appointed prophets off of every abyss. Some take the written word of prophets as absolute truth while others create their vocation around interpreting the meanings of such writings.
Life is difficult enough without acting and thinking based on supposed 'voices in our heads' and the only explanation I can think of for people who claim to have 'heard the word of God' in their minds is that;
A. They are experiencing an altered state due to starvation, dehydration, mental disorder, extreme illness, stress, duress, or any other brain altering or coercive influence.
B. They are lying for whatever reason.
C. They are told by their religious teachers that God speaks to them through their conscious.
From first hand experience I can also ad that the peer pressure exerted by families, friends, churches, social groups, and parts of society as whole upon those who chose to leave their faith is enormous. One can be made to feel as though they are part of conspiracy and a betrayal if they so chose to declare themselves as a non-believer or an atheist. In some cases depending the severity of religion the consequences of escape or emancipation can be dire.
In many cases to leave the religion you were born to can be difficult. To live, to work, to find joy in that without an allegiance to a religious faith; it's more than many can hope for.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Your "hard science" can neither varify nor dismiss (based on that science) the existence of a deity.
verify?
anyway, we know what you meant... and while it is true by construction of the deity, what is left for the deity to be responsible for?
the reverent people of the Northeast were preached to not to use lightning rods, the preachers feared it would anger God by taking away one means of displaying his anger (the proverbial lightning bolt from God)... and indeed, pointed to a rare northeastern earthquake as a demonstration that God would employee other methods to show his displeasure...
it's been a while since the populace of the United States believed that lightning bolts were dispatched with divine intention.
we have pushed the story of physical cosmology back to the big bang and beyond... so God is not necessary in explaining "how we came to be." A reasonable, scientific explanation exists describing 13.82 billion years of the universe...
human behavior is reasonably explained in terms of animal behavior, and the evolution of behavior is a natural consequence of the evolution of life... life has existed on this planet for 3.4 billion years, not including the time prior to the most recent resurgence, a resurgence after the likely destruction of original life prior to the 'great bombardment' early in Earth history... we don't think life is very rare...
if you don't accept the scientific notion that there is no "reason" for existence, then you naturally try to find that reason outside of science... while it is the most likely case, one can't "prove it" (which science wouldn't do anyway) and therefore, the reasoning goes, there might just be an explanation..
yet every explanation has to avoid any scientific evidence against it... and so the construction. It is why "conspiracy theories" are persistent, they live in the places which cannot be confronted with any direct evidence... and the lack of evidence allows for some to make all manner of speculation.
this is the "god between the cracks," but the problem is the cracks continue to get smaller and smaller...
one can reasonably take the limit, that is, eventually the cracks will be so small as to eliminate any meaningful possibility of a deity existing...
in any event, the existence of a deity, or the nonexistence is currently totally irrelevant to science, it is a non issue.
there is no need to invoke a deity to explain the world.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
one can reasonably take the limit, that is, eventually the cracks will be so small as to eliminate any meaningful possibility of a deity existing...
This is pure speculation in the tradition of Protagoras. Which cracks will fill and which will become chasms awaits what happens in the future and there is no specific evidence in front of us.
we have pushed the story of physical cosmology back to the big bang and beyond... so God is not necessary in explaining "how we came to be." A reasonable, scientific explanation exists describing 13.82 billion years of the universe...
What happened at or before or if there even was a big bang remains speculation. The universe may be 13.82 billion years old but this is currently open to dispute and certainty eludes us. God may or may not be a necessity to an explanation of “how we came to be” but here again certainty or scientific experiments of a repeatable nature with the same outcome lead us in neither direction.
if you don't accept the scientific notion that there is no "reason" for existence, then you naturally try to find that reason outside of science... while it is the most likely case, one can't "prove it" (which science wouldn't do anyway) and therefore, the reasoning goes, there might just be an explanation..
How can there be a “scientific notion” that there is no reason for existence where is the repeatable evidence for such a notion? You’re speaking of a speculation based on what?
there is no need to invoke a deity to explain the world.
There is no need to invoke deity and presently there is no need not to.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!