@MikeyS
“Logic and reason are based on trying to understand how the world works and how people think”
Take that conclusion a step further, if they are good for understanding and describing the world they are also good for evaluating claims about it. So how might this play out in practice? You write, “I would have liked for Jesus to have being gay or married actually as it would have changed the whole ethos of the Church”
First a gay Jesus wouldn’t have a church dedicated to him, much less a religion. Second
a good understanding of Apocalypticism and Jesus probable life style tell us some important things.
Jesus was most likely celibate. He seems to have been anti family- at least according to the gospels. These choices, if you will, reflect how immanent Jesus expected that the “comming kingdom
was? Which approach here is better? Dan Brown, Secret Mark? What you would have liked? A solid understanding of the subject matter and a careful analysis? For me, the latter wins easily.
As for cherry picking, yes, I know, but what that has to do with you looking like your doing it
is beyond me. As Mothers the world over would say, If Christians jumped off a bridge, would you?
” Most people are too respectful of myth and legend even though it contradicts logic and reason and why people like Richard Dawkins are hated when they point out the lack of logic and reasoning that most relogious people have. How many people in the USA still think the universe is less than 10,000 years old?”
Do you think bitterness, anger half baked arguments, bad speculation, logical fallacies etc? are better tools? Are you saying Christians would be more accepting of Dawkins if he used these instead of reason and logic? Lets be honest, they hate Dawkins because of his conclusions not because of how he gets to them. You can’t defend a logical fallacy if it’s pointed out, but you can easily defend a knowledgable, carefully reasoned argument based on a sober analysis of the facts. Why hit a nail with a bowl of spaghetti when you can use a hammer?
If you think I need to be pursuaded about the sins of religion, you haven’t paid attention.
Celebacy is impressive to people because it is an act of self sacrifice. Are you really surprised that a male dominated society, dominated religion as well?
Deism is a joke told by posers to the rest of us.
john76 said
Well, regarding the disciples abandoning Jesus, Matthew wrote: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”
Yet that passage is not about people fleeing, it’s about rejection, but since the discussion was about Mark and not Matthew, I don’t see the relevance.
Deism is a joke told by posers to the rest of us.
————————————————————————————————
What do you mean?
Its my evolved opinion that Deism is the only belief that makes sense of our creation. All other faiths and beliefs have too many self interests that make unsubstantiated claims that are not true and thus been made up.
Thomas Paine’s ‘The age of reason’ is available free online and if people still think Deism is a joke, I would ask them the very same question. Jefferson was a Deist as well. Another Joke?
Quakerism is not exactly Deism but its close.
I’m not sure you have thought enough about the harm Christianity has done through the ages and we should not forget it. Its actually all religions that have come up with myths and half baked ideas. Nobody but nobody would do that again based on a clean sheet of paper using our brains today. As I keep saying we give all of them far too much respect and attention.
The Christian Church is made up of lots of closet gay clergy and probably always was.
There are NO real facts from biblical literature only stories, myths, legends and suppositions. Unless you can show us differently of course. Organised religion was and is based on power and man made authority that had and still does, enslave the weak minded and forces them into irrationality and throws logic and reason out of the window.
@aMikeyS
Deism is the only belief that makes sense of our creation
Self interest doesn’t prove something is made up. It is, however an insinuation that some other thing is true.
The idea of “our creation” is itself unsubstantiated and likely not true. anthropomorphism
Goodness Mikey! Jefferson, Paine? Are you suggesting that their reputation means they couldn’t hold absurd beliefs? More insinuation? Because Quaker’s might have been deists, it’s true!?
18th century deism is different for the sole reason of intellectual development: At one time it probably made a lot of sense to accept Geocentric theory ( The sun and planets revolving around the earth) Today we would be rightfully suspicious of someone who went around describing themselves as a Geocentrist. Not a joke for Ptolemy to advocate it but definitely for Einstein to have done so.
“I’m not sure you have thought enough about the harm Christianity has done through the ages”
Hpw exactly is that relevant to the discussion about whether Paul was a Roman mole/provocateur or whether someone drew a sword during the arrest? What makes you think that, Mikey?
spiker said
MikeyS said
There are NO real facts from biblical literatureEhrman would disagree. Take a look at DJE
Sorry, what I meant was something Bart Erhman has said himself. Historical evidence depends on the sources and how long we can go back. Basically saying modern history where there are multiple sources, newspaper clipping, archives and even in situations where people are still living, eg Was President Clinton a real person and what did he do while in office is far more easier to prove than an event 6000 or 2000 years ago and especially given modern video and recording media etc etc. Even Pres Lincoln is along similar lines.
Erhman says that historical evidence going a long way back like thousands of years when most people were illiterate and no means of recording and photocopying then any evidence has to be weighed against the quality and reliability of the sources and in in the case of biblical literature, any non biblical sources etc. Therefore the evidence is based on assumption and probablilty and because there is hardly any corroboration from NON biblical sources, then how reliable is the OT and NT when the only writers were those who pre disposed to myth and legend and supernatural events like the mircacles and the resurrection?
Its highly likely that Jesus lived and was crucified. But that is a long way from all the other stories that abound. I’m speaking of the main claims associated with religion, rather than whether someone lived or not.
Just on Thomas Paine and Jefferson. OK, I don’t want to use authority to boost any claims but TP is worth a read anyway and he makes one fundamental point about religion and that is anyone that claims that God spoke to them or so and so did miracles then nobody who has NOT seen this for themselves are not obliged or compelled to believe them. Christianity claims that God is active in the world indeed as the OT does and so IF that is so, should that same God be surprised if agnostics and atheists think he should reveal himself to each and every undividual irrespective of the time and place, religious or non religious?
Doubting Thomas made the same point didn’t he?
Why does it seem God only seems to intervene in places and times when few can verify it? Why not in the 21st century? Three quarters of the world are non Christian, the NT says all non believers will be sent to hell. It also says that Jesus is the only way to the Father etc. So is God happy with all most of his creation, most who are good and moral people, all going to that place, when he can intervene at any time to put all that right? Jesus spoke to Paul and yet stayed silent to Muhammad and ALL Popes since the first one called Peter?
Something seems amiss somewhere? Apolgies, things can go off topic very easily with me!
@ MikeyS
Yea I’ve almost made the same formating mistake as well
“Erhman says that historical evidence going a long way back like thousands of years when most people were illiterate and no means of recording and photocopying then any evidence has to be weighed against the quality and reliability of the sources and in in the case of biblical literature, any non biblical sources etc. Therefore the evidence is based on assumption and probablilty and because there is hardly any corroboration from NON biblical sources, then how reliable is the OT and NT when the only writers were those who pre disposed to myth and legend and supernatural events like the miracles and the resurrection?”
Not sure but it sounds like your mixing what Ehrman has said with your own thinking. Conclusions about the evidence are based on probability, but Ehrman wrote that the sources had to be critically examined and scholars have devised tests to figure out what most likely happened. Bias is not something new to Historians and the fact that it can influence how events are recounted, is built into the historians methodology.
I don’t think we disagree on whether the gospels are reliable etc, but, as I’ve noted before
there’s an important distinction between my impression and what I can prove. It’s hardly difficult to listen to the rationalisations, mental gymnastics of modern christians and not extrapolate to to what the gospel writers were doing, but that’s not evidence. Maybe the question is do I want
my case undercut by someone catching me using speculation in the place of evidence and then being able to discount my argument because of it. They will discount my argument for sure, but I’m not giving them ammo and you shouldn’t either.
I’m still not sure what you mean about me not thinking enough about the harm done by religion.
“Things can go off topic very easily with me!”
You’re not alone there Mike. I do that a lot, babble on endlessly skating from one tangent to another. Very often after writing something I have to go back and delete entire paragraphs simply because they aren’t relevant to the topic at hand! Even when I think I’ve made good arguments, points etc. In this thread, we have gotten far afield of the initial and to my mind important question of eyewitnesses. Getting a solid and unshakable answer to that question is certainly worthwhile. Getting lost on tangents becomes a distraction. Think about it this way If you’re trying to learn to hit a baseball and 10 or more balls are coming at you at the same time, it’s not likely you’ll learn to hit the ball with any skill.
In my opinion, the eyewitness question is important, but, it is, at the same time a bit misleading. Eye witness testimony is neither needed or necessarily more reliable than other ways of determining what most likely happened. ( There’s supposedly a study done by Elizabeth Loftus that raises serious questions about the reliability of eye witness testimony)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert