Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
Good ol' Wikipedia.... It does actually present a number alternative explanations. Perhaps Jesus was a lunatic? Perhaps Jesus was a liar? There are other possibilities, all of which are viable, and all of which I have examined.
Consider this: were all the guys who actually SAW him come back lying? Hundreds of them?
And more significantly, were those guys who were Jesus' followers and who later got KILLED for not renouncing their faith after having seen him come back, were they just crazy?
Would YOU die for something you didn't believe in?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
No doubt Christians believe the good story. I don't think the doubt is whether Christians believe the good easy believing story - that Jesus came along and filled up my gas tank, or that he personally told me that he doesn't want an adoptee relationship with me, or that just believe that good story humans wrote down because it's all true I swear! I think what non-believers doubt is that the good story is true.
When I look up in the sky at night, I see stars. Right there - there's a star - it's there, I can see it! But I'm not seeing a star - I'm seeing the light given off by a star that existed however many years ago that star is in light-years away. Sometimes I perceive things, sometimes I believe things, that just aren't true, for other reasons that we don't understand.
Lemmings, they just run right over the edge of the cliff, because that's what their brain tells them to do. What do our brains tell us to do? Praise Jesus!
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
Lemmings don't really do that though.....
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 5, 2016 - 10:57am PT
|
what about Paul? funny how his doctrine is a lot more like modern Christianity than Christ himself
http://doctrine.org/jesus-vs-paul/
wait, wait, lemme guess... FAITH that Christianity is based on Christ, not Paul!, even though the Bible itself and historical records tell a much different story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http:// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity
have you thought about pet care post-rapture?
http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/
Will you accept that it is possible to learn the more that Jesus said he had to tell us? Because the Holy spirit can guide us to the Truth?
John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth".
It says all the Truth. not some of the truth. Jesus himself said that there was more to tell us. When will you accept that? And when will you accept that the Holy Spirit can guide us to the rest of that Truth as Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would.
I tell you now.. reincarnation is real.
If Saint John, who put on the full mind of Christ and thus became the Christ came down from the heavens and told you that reincarnation was real, would you turn your back because its not in the bible? The only absolute Word of God is that which is written in your heart and in the testimony of Creation.
And no, I am not Saint John :-) I believe that Jesus can and does speak to people who seek him, and this is usually through the scriptures (Hebrews 1:1-4). I do not believe he will contradict himself though (2nd Timothy 3:16). If I did I would have to start looking into Mormonism and Islam.
Limpingcrab, you believe that you personally have experienced objective physical material miracles such as Jesus refilling your gas tank (and that sharing that might sway someone else's belief?) How often does that kind of thing happen? Why is that kind of thing always anecdotal information, and never objectively physically materially documented, the way science does it? Is there a conspiracy to hide that kind of information? Or do the Christian leprechauns purposefully sneak around and cover their tracks, the same way that mine do? First, I am trying to only answer questions about my beliefs, as a Christian. That story was a response to a question about whether I believe Jesus can and does do miracles. I can't think of anyone I've shared that with and was kind of reluctant to bring it up, but I thought it would help clarify my answer. I didn't start this thread to sway people, only to share what I believe if people are wondering about the motives and beliefs of one Christian who can only speak for himself. Sorry if it doesn't come across that way.
To the second part, maybe it is similar to why Jesus used parables and how earthly wisdom doesn't understand him (Matthew 13:12-14, 1st Corinthians 1:21), that those who reject him don't see or understand and it all seems foolish. But really, I don't know.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Trump
saw 1000s of Muslims dancing in the streets after 911
and that was only 15 years ago
You can't believe everything that people say or Write, it's as simple as that.
To believe anything in the bible is a fools game, they have been playing it for 1000s of years, and millions have fallen for it, just like they fall for some other religion in other countries, it's all about your tribal god.
You want the truth, become a hardcore skeptic and the truth will bite you in the ass.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Nicely said - very impressive - thanks!
For me, sharing how I believe stuff, that seems to be a little window into our belief processes, and definitely refreshingly honest. So from my perspective, we have these strongly held beliefs about truth and reality, and they're created through these belief processes that also have us believing that maybe Jesus filled our gas tank, but we just don't have any physical proof of his physical miracles, even though they occur at the rate of maybe one per Christian.
And I try not to mean that about just you or just Christian beliefs, I hope to mean it about all of us. It's humbling. But it's just so hard to notice about ourselves. Noticing it about ourselves is not a preferred part (I would say evolved psychological tendency :-) of our belief processes, the way that say learning languages is, or being swayed by good stories is.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
Do you believe that someone who leads a good and virtuous life, but never accepts Jesus as his "savior", is diminished in the eyes of God?
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Ask a Christian, a Werner, a Sarah or a Hannah, but choose someone who has the ability to listen and inquire, and shy away from all ideologies.
When someone writes: "Ask a Christian" and starts from a spesific religious point of view, the first thing that shines through is the ideology...
|
|
ionlyski
Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
|
|
I believe a Christian is someone who has faith in Jesus in their heart
Since we know quite certainly that hearts pump blood and no surgeon yet has found Jesus to be living in it, how come Christianity in the 21st century continues to insist on so many euphemisms? It would help therefore if we started off discussions using the same language.
Conversely then, why not explain that my "thoughts" that momentarily take place in my brain, concerning my beliefs in god's son, determine my eternal salvation or damnation?
Arne
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
The Warbler asks:
How can you rationalize the genocide perpetuated by your brethren over the millennia in the name of Jesus and your God?
let me guess the proper Christian answer ...
God gifted humans Free Will ....or .....God works in ways too mysterious for simple humans to understand
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
New Testament historian Bart D. Ehrman recognizes that "Some scholars have argued that it's more plausible that in fact Jesus was placed in a common burial plot, which sometimes happened, or was, as many other crucified people, simply left to be eaten by scavenging animals." He further elaborates by saying: "[T]he accounts are fairly unanimous in saying (the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying) that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened."[40]
Most likely, his dead body was scavenged by animals.
Do Christians care what Christian Scholars reveal in their scientific research?
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
Didn't Jackson Brown cruise the entire Rt.66 with his gas tank completely empty or did that turn out to be hoax?
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
Do you believe that someone who leads a good and virtuous life, but never accepts Jesus as his "savior", is diminished in the eyes of God?
straight to HELL!
Mother Teresa was a Catholic, so she is burning there now as we speak.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
To believe anything in the bible is a fools game, they have been playing it for 1000s of years, and millions have fallen for it, just like they fall for some other religion in other countries, it's all about your tribal god.
You want the truth, become a hardcore skeptic and the truth will bite you in the ass.
With all due respect, I think you're being a bit too kind to skepticism, and a bit presumptious with what it entails. Disbelieving all the Bible says is equally a fool's errand. What skpeticism tells us is what we don't know. If you want to discover Jesus solely using the scientific method, I think you'll discover there's lots you don't know. As just one example, you speculated that Jesus was buried in a common burial plot, but in fact, you don't know, and neither do I.
I do, however, know that those who wrote about Him included those who allege to have seen the burial, and the burial plot. I also know that, again, those who claim to have seen Jesus after the crucifixion allege that Christianity grew enormously on Pentecost, only 40 days later. If Jesus were such an enemy, and Christianity was growing so quickly, and the place of His burial was a common grave, wouldn't the authorities have pointed this out? Shouldn't a skeptic be, well, skeptical about that hypothesis?
That's getting a bit outside the topic Limbing Crab offered, which is to answer questions about his belief, so I'll leave it at this: skepticism goes in all directions. If I applied your standard of skepticism to the rest of classical history, there is very little I would or could believe. Disbelieving witnesses isn't, ipso facto, logical or an appropriate exercise of skepticism.
Warbler asks a good question, to which I don't have all the answers, but I would respond as follows:
1. I'm unaware of any intentional genocide on the part of Christians. Their intent was conversion, not killing. Islam was a religion spread through conquest. Christianity one that more effectively spread through martyrdom.
2. I cannot deny that some acting in Christ's name have used violence to advance what they purport to be His aims. There is no Biblical justification for doing so. The only Biblical command involved the people under the Ban in the Old Testament, who died out long ago. If you want to discuss that, we can do so, but be prepared to discuss the practices of the people under the Ban, the consequences of those practices, and the 350 years God gave them to repent.
3. All of the people killed by Christians purporting to act in the name of Christ in all history are far less than the number of Christians killed for their faith in the 20th century alone.
4. Christians are forgiven, but they still sin. See, e.g., 1 John 1:8-10. No one said Christians on earth are perfect, but then again, no one is perfect, which is why they're incompatible with a holy God without His intervention.
5. Again, with all due respect, not all cultures or religions are morally equivalent. The Baal and Molech worshippers in the Old Testament sacrificed humans, as did the Aztecs. Should Christians leave intact cultures that retain human sacrifice, if they had the ability to stop it? As for other religions, the one thing that logic does tell us is that if Christianity is correct, and no one comes to the Father except through the Son, then no other religion can be correct.
This last point is worth some emphasis. The one thing that external evidence strongly supports is that the text of the Bible authentically reflects what its authors wrote. The Gospel of John has portions of manuscripts that go back to at least A.D. 120 (sorry not to use the politically correct C.E. 120, but I can't resist a bit of sinful needling). The Dead Sea Scrolls go back even earlier. No other writings of antiquity have manuscripts that are within centuries of being that old. It would take a great deal more faith to believe that our modern Biblical text inaccurately reflects what was written than it does to believe the truth.
That being the case, we are, at least, in a position to discuss the logical consistency of religions arising subsequent to Christianity that reference Jesus Christ. For example, Islam claims Jesus is a great prophet, but not divine and not the Son of God. The problem is that the texts that are contemporary to Jesus's life say that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If so, how can Islam be correct in its characterization of Jesus? Do you really think the Jewish religious leaders arrested Jesus and turned him over to the Romans to crucify because He taught that we should be nice to one another? Isn't it more likely that His claim to divinity, together with His condemnation of their lifeless religion, infuriated them enough to kill him? But I digress.
Kevin, I don't think I can convince you to share my faith using solely logic, because some pretty smart people were unable to convince me, either. That was God's doing, and only after I was in grad school. But I, like Daniel (limpingcrab), am happy to share what I believe, and why, for those who care. I haven't looked at this thread before today, and I have no intentions of spending much time doing so, but if anyone really cares what I believe, send me an email.
Thanks.
John
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Let's see....this particular god sends his one and only son born to a human via a virgin birth to one of the possibly 100,000,000 million planets with life of some sort to be crucified in order to atone for the sins of the organisims that he created in his own image.
Now this doesn't work out very well because a goodly number of the humans this god created continue to sin. Well, the obvious solution is to subject these sinners to everlasting hell fire that hurts like (yes, hell) but is not fatal....because if it were it wouldn't be everlasting.
Now Hollywood has some pretty creative and sinister people but none of them could come up with that script.
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
Do you really think the Jewish religious leaders arrested Jesus and turned him over to the Romans to crucify because He taught that we should be nice to one another? Isn't it more likely that His claim to divinity, together with His condemnation of their lifeless religion, infuriated them enough to kill him?
Nope, this is what made him a threat that had to be dealt with:
Of all the arguments for him having been a real person, this one makes the most sense. Follow the money.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
I've always remained curious about how people approach the whole caboodle per religion, be it Christianity or any other denomination that has a codified doctrine. Not surprisingly, many, both believers and non-believers, seek to approach the doctrine in historical, even "scientific" ways, the fundamentalists declaring, for example, that a man named Jonah actually spent time in a whale's belly, or that Jesus walked on water, with the non-believers demanding "proof" that such nonsense is either true or false. And what's more, that the value and ethos of Christianity boils down to the historic verity of the miraculous. And whether we believe it all, or not.
But the applied approach is something altogether different, whereas the doctrine serves only as an arrow pointing the way to an existential experience of the spiritual, which is not some thing or object or action, real or mythological, which vouchsafes the physical and historical goings on per events in the bible.
When I studied philosophy at a theological seminar, there were always a few people who were, for the lack of a better term, touched by the "holy spirit," and lived with a grace and fearlessness denied to those clinging to doctrine. People who tried to embody the spirit of the Song of Songs, and were transformed in the process. None of them could ever tell you how it all "worked," because it was not a process they could reverse engineer back to an object. All all had the profound sense of encountering some reality greater than themselves, and which had nothing to do with objects.
The entire business about the "Holy Spirit" is a fascinating investigation. I'd be curious to hear personal accounts about this that are not bound by scripture or Jesus-speak.
JL
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
I've had Holy Spirit experiences, but with DMT and to some degree LSD.
Interestingly, these experiences have made me not an atheist. And i spoke with god(s) that were not unlike the Christian god I grew up fearing. Projection? don't know, bunch of morphing orbs and elves as well.
The church I grew up in was Penticostal, so most spoke in tongues. I tried to feel what they did, but never did.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
The Resurrection
http://skepdic.com/resurrection.html
Here's what skeptics have to say on the subject
Please read it carefully
The Resurrection refers to the alleged coming back to life of Jesus of Nazareth (or was it Bethlehem?) after he had been executed by crucifixion about 2,000 years ago. It is the keystone of Christianity.
As a child, I was taught the story that an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good creator kindly sent his son, who was one with the creator and with the holy ghost, to redeem mankind for the original sin committed by Adam and Eve. This god/man was crucified by the Romans in order to save mankind from eternity without the creator. Three days after he was buried, the story goes, Jesus rose from the dead.
As a child, I believed this story and many others like it. All the adults I came in contact with seemed to think it was true and that believing it was essential to my salvation. I didn't really understand what "my salvation" was but even as a child I knew it was better than "the eternal torments of hellfire."
I grew up and studied these and many other philosophical and religious matters in a context where I was not required to believe in order to avoid being ostracized. I eventually even taught courses in world religions, where one should learn that stories of supernatural feats like rising from the dead are rather mundane.1 I now consider these stories to be preposterous propaganda. Gods and holy men who die and rise after being crucified or drowning in a river or whatever are fabrications. That people make up such stories is easy to understand and forgive. That people believe them and take them as literal truths is harder to forgive. That parents indoctrinate their children with such stories and punish their children with threats of damnation and isolation if they question their parents' beliefs is unforgivable.
I wouldn't bother with posting an entry on this subject had I not been challenged to do so by someone who probably thinks of himself as a good Christian on the road to salvation and who thinks of me as being on the road to perdition. (I confess that in my youth I thought of myself as saved and felt pity for those who were not as fortunate as I was, having been born into a Catholic family. Eventually, I met Protestants, Jews, atheists, and other non-Catholics and discovered things were not exactly as I had been taught.)
The Resurrection is just one of thousands of religious myths that deserve to be covered in a comprehensive take-down of religions. Though I am an atheist, I don't consider The Skeptic's Dictionary to be an anti-religious website. As far as I'm concerned, if you and a billion other people want to believe in crucified gods and resurrected deities or prophets, go ahead. There are billions who believe in other gods and other resurrections and equally preposterous stories. Let them. As long as they don't try to force their beliefs on the rest of us or try to harm us or their children, let them believe in peace.
The idea that there were more than 500 witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus is pure propaganda. Where are the accounts of these witnesses? Where is the historical evidence? How could there be any such evidence except for the claims of people to have seen it happen or heard from another that he or she saw it happen? There are no eyewitness accounts. Had any Roman soldiers or Jewish rabbis seen such an event, you can be assured it would have been noted and caused a great stir. (Read Soren Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript for a Christian's view that faith, not observation or reason, must be the basis for resurrection claims.)
The stories of Jesus as a miracle worker, healer, crucified god, savior of mankind, resurrected being, etc., were all written long after his death and after other stories were quashed by the church at Rome. The main propagandist, Paul of Tarsus, never met Jesus and didn't witness any resurrections, but he did more to spread the Jesus is Christ myth than anyone then or since. The Resurrection is considered the key spiritual feature of the Christian religion, but stories of resurrected gods have a long history. Likewise for stories of miracle workers and magical healers.
Many scholars have noted what is called the "copycat thesis." It seems strangely coincidental that there are a number of key parallel lines in the stories of Horus, Mithra, and Jesus. Each story involves a virgin birth to a savior who was a son of a god, each performed miracles such as healing the sick, and each died and was resurrected.
Mithra's birthday was celebrated on December 25th. "Mithraism was a degenerate form of Zoroastrianism, the national religion of the Persian-Iranian people, this in turn having stemmed from the more primitive Mazdaism..."* Mithraism flourished in the Roman Empire from the 1st through the 4th centuries CE. (Yes, Mithraism was a competitor with Christianity for several centuries.) Zoroastrianism is still practiced by a few adherents and has a strong belief in salvation and immortality.
In his classic work Man and His Gods, Homer Smith writes:
The doctrine of the virgin birth was thoroughly familiar to the pagans. A supernatural origin had been ascribed to Egyptian Pharaohs centuries before, and Attis-Adonis had been born of the virgin Myrrha. In the disguise of a serpent, the god Aesculapius had fathered Aratus of Sicyon, Apollo had fathered Julius Caesar and Augustus, and other gods had fathered Aristomenes, Alexander the Great, Cyrus, the elder Scipio, Mithra, Hermes, Perseus and Buddha. Juno, the wife of Jupiter, was supposed to become a virgin again each year, and as a virgin was said by the Romans to have born Cybele, Demeter, Leo, and Vulcan.*
I'm not going to try to understand what it might mean to "become a virgin again." In any case, Egyptians, of course, believed in life after death, which was one of the key claims of early Christianity. It was also a central feature of Mithraism and the cult of Dionysus.
Why won't believers just admit that they accept Christianity on faith and accept that atheists reject it because it does not resonate with anything resembling the truth? If anyone believes in the resurrection because of alleged eyewitnesses or other historical testimony, they are not using their critical thinking skills (whether these are a gift from some god or a blessing of nature).
To those who say "a billion Christians can't be wrong," I remind them that they think a billion Muslims are wrong and a billion Hindus and Buddhists are wrong. Each of these religions thinks the others are deluded. I think they're all deluded. To paraphrase Stephen F. Roberts: as an atheist I reject one more god than you do; both of us, atheist and theist, believe billions of people are deluded about gods and religion; we just disagree over who is deluded.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!