main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Jabba-wocky, Aug 1, 2013.

  1. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    What does that even mean in this situation? Which human being requires "the fewest assumptions" to assume they were selected out of the entire human race as a historically unique instrument of a divine, omnipotent being that will be used to permanently and definitively elevate the status of the Jewish people, with whom said deity has a special and millennia long relationship? How can we possibly tell? Did you think through this comment at all before you made it?
     
  2. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    It means, the suicide bomber vest is almost done and it'll be used in a thread shortly. The words "DAWKINS AKBAR" will ring out moments before a mighty bang.
     
  3. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    timmo always seemed more of a Hitchens than a Dawkins.
     
  4. Moviefan2k4

    Moviefan2k4 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2009
    This reminds me of a question I've posted in similar threads here, but maybe not this one: does any sane person ever allow themselves to be murdered over a known lie?
     
  5. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    I don't think that allowing oneself to be murdered over something makes it automatically true.

    As far as the sanity of either Jesus or anyone else you may be discussing, I don't really care whether they were sane or not.
     
  6. GenAntilles

    GenAntilles Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 24, 2007
    A lot of spies seem to hold to their lies unto death.
     
  7. Moviefan2k4

    Moviefan2k4 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2009
    No, but one of the most often-repeated accusations I hear from nonbelievers is the Apostles made it all up. For that to be true, they'd have had to willingly surrender their lives for a known lie. Of them all, only two weren't executed (Judas Iscariot and St. John); the rest were butchered for refusing to abandon their claim of Christ being risen.

    That's your prerogative, but there's only three options when people make claims: lying, insanity, or honesty. A person can allow themselves to die for something they believe is true, but its very rare for them to do the same over the reverse.

    How do we know they're fully aware of those ideas being false?
     
  8. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Because they are the ones who made up the lie. Come on.

    Everyone gets what you're trying to say. Really. But this is an awful argument. Move on.
     
  9. PRENNTACULAR

    PRENNTACULAR VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2005
    I literally just posted that those ARENT the only three options and that, indeed, those options aren't mutually exclusive.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. Moviefan2k4

    Moviefan2k4 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2009
    They'd need a motive to do that, and something to gain. This doesn't mesh with first-century Jewish culture, where Jesus was accused of heresy by the Sanhedrin, and sedition by the Romans. The disciples had no fame or fortune to attain by spreading the news of the Resurrection.

    How is it an inherently bad argument? If someone's not lying, and evidence exists to prove they're not crazy, what other option exists besides honesty?
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    What evidence exists to prove Jesus wasn't crazy sorry?
     
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  12. timmoishere

    timmoishere Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 2, 2007
    That's your prerogative, but there's only three options when people make claims: lying, insanity, or honesty. A person can allow themselves to die for something they believe is true, but its very rare for them to do the same over the reverse.[/quote]

    There's a fourth option: Jesus' claims were invented by the ones who wrote the gospels. Remember, no documents of Jesus' life were written until over 20 years after his supposed death. Not one contemporary historian wrote about him while he was alive. That's a pretty big indicator right there that the entire thing is a fabrication.
     
  13. Rogue1-and-a-half

    Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 2, 2000
    There's a fourth option: Jesus' claims were invented by the ones who wrote the gospels. Remember, no documents of Jesus' life were written until over 20 years after his supposed death. Not one contemporary historian wrote about him while he was alive. That's a pretty big indicator right there that the entire thing is a fabrication.[/quote]

    That would fall under the lying category though, wouldn't it?
     
  14. PRENNTACULAR

    PRENNTACULAR VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2005
    there's a fifth option, which i already brought up. jesus could have been two of them at the same time, or even all three. or he could have just been a moral teacher who has a bunch of other, mystical sayings attributed to him. there's a ton of other options, really.
     
  15. Moviefan2k4

    Moviefan2k4 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2009
    That would also fall under the lying category. When you get to the root of the issue, there's only the three options I originally listed. If they had nothing to gain by deliberately fabricating a knowingly-false belief system, why would they allow themselves to be massacred over it? If they were crazy, then why do so many accounts both Biblical and otherwise match with the four Gospels? Sure, there's minor differences because each of the writers were tackling the narrative from their own viewpoint. But ironically, atheists would still complain if all four were 100% identical.
     
  16. Ramza

    Ramza Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 13, 2008
    I like how you have to artificially conflate "Jesus could've been lying" with "everyone who wrote about Jesus was knowingly lying about everything" to make this incredibly unconvincing "gotcha" actually hold any water. Frankly I don't see how you've excluded the possibility that his followers thought he was telling the truth and then some people embellished details later to make it seem more awesome than it actually was.

    And, actually, I'm not even seeing how you've ruled out the possibility that they're lying through their teeth, save for some unfounded speculation that "Nobody dies over a falsehood." Maybe they did and got their heads chopped off right as they were sobbing about how they'd made the whole thing up. Or maybe they thought that what their lies could potentially accomplish outweighed their own lives - maybe they thought what "Jesus" had to say was important enough that they could die for it.

    Ultimately, though, you and I both know that your argument isn't going to convince anyone, even if it were rock solid, so I suspect you're making it just to get some self-satisfaction while reaffirming your own pre-existing beliefs, since I doubt those hang on the sanctity of this conclusion either.
     
  17. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    The people who wrote the gospels were not eyewitnesses and made stuff up (as demonstrated by "Mark's" apparent ignorance of geography) or just heavily borrowed from existing gospels (Matthew and Luke from Mark, "Q"), but it's very unlikely that they viewed it as lying. The separation between allegory and literal "truth" and whatever was muddled (see: all the soap opera bull**** about Alexander the Great, basically a ****ton of ancient history that we take at face value for some dumb reason). It's hard for most of us to understand given that we put so much emphasis on the separation between fiction and non-fiction, and erroneously view history as a set of objective facts.
     
  18. Moviefan2k4

    Moviefan2k4 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2009
    If His followers believed He was telling the truth, and then died for it, its still a lie. That does happen at various times, but I originally specified the Apostles dying for a known lie, which is much more rare.

    For any of that to have happened, they'd have needed a motive to invent a false religion in the first place. The only thing proclaiming Christ as risen got the Apostles was constant ridicule, imprisonment, torture, and eventual execution. Judas Iscariot committed suicide, and John was exiled to Patmos after surviving an attempted execution...but everyone else was brutally slain. They could've escaped that fate by denying Christ, but never did, so there has to be a reason. The only ones I can think of are insanity and honesty, but the ratio of consistency and diversity between their accounts tends to rule out the former.

    If someone chooses to reject a solidly-founded conclusion, their reaction is not intellectual, but ideological. I've said many times that a majority of atheists ultimately reject Christianity not for a lack of evidence, but because they resent the moral implications of God's existence.
     
  19. EmpireForever

    EmpireForever Force Ghost star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 15, 2004
    The way you are needlessly clinging to this "lying, crazy, or the truth" argument is very indicative of your overall mindset, thought process, and posting style. This whole sidebar argument is pointless, and nonsensical as well. Very interesting.
     
  20. Ramza

    Ramza Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Do you even remotely see the irony in acknowledging the artificial constraints of the argument in the first paragraph before decrying its rejection as irrational in the last? And seriously get over this conception of Christianity as the only alternative to atheism and vice versa, it's ridiculously narrow minded to the point of comedy.
     
  21. Arawn_Fenn

    Arawn_Fenn Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2004
    You can say it endlessly ad nauseam, that still won't make it anything more than delusional fantasy: trying to drag atheists down to your level. Or perhaps you've been conducting extensive polling of atheists, and a "majority" ( snicker ) actually claimed such things? For some reason, I tend to doubt it.

    Irony.
     
  22. PRENNTACULAR

    PRENNTACULAR VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2005
    moviefan, let me express the argument that you're trying to make, so we can then see why our objections to it are legitimate.

    you're saying that, given the historical truth of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, there are three options for how to interpret his divine claims. The first option is that he was lying when he said he was the son of god. This option purports that Jesus of nazareth was a cult leader or prophet only interested in the manipulation of his followers and building power for himself. The second option is that Jesus believed everything he said about himself, but none of it was true. This means he's crazy, and nothing he says should be trusted. The third option is that he was being honest, and what he was saying is true. In the argument you're trying to make, this last option seems like the most logical one because generally every thinking person likes jesus' message (for the most part), and obviously a universally appreciated message can't come from a crazy person or a manipulative person. SO HE MUST BE GOD SINCE HE CAN'T HAVE A COMPELLING MESSAGE AND ALSO BE CRAZY OR BAD.

    Would you agree that this is what you're arguing?

    If it is, here are the problems with that argument.

    First, probably, Jesus didn't say everything that the gospels say he said. Probably, his followers and his followers followers put stuff in their to advance their cause or to build a stronger case for their faith. As darth guy said, this doesn't fall into the lying category because in the mind of the people doing the fabricating, they weren't lying. They were reporting the meaningful, real story as they saw it in a hyperbolic (and fabricated) way that was common in that time period and is hard for us, as modern thinkers, to grasp as anything other than 'lies'. SO, that takes out option one.

    Second, all of those three options could exist together. History is full of evil people with really compelling messages. It's full of crazy people with compelling messages. Logically, there's nothing prevent Jesus of nazareth from being a liar who spoke some metaphorical truth.

    So your argument doesn't hold up historically or logically, which were the only two things it had going for it. There are more objections, and if you'd like I can go into those as well.
     
    Darth_Invidious likes this.
  23. VadersLaMent

    VadersLaMent Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
    May I please have legit evidence that a historical Jesus actually existed?
     
  24. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    There's very little evidence of his existence. The earliest mention from a non-Christian source is in the writings of Josephus, IIRC. I find it annoying how most historians take the historical Jesus' existence completely for granted. However, I'd say that, given the way Christianity spread and was written about, it's plausible that Jesus or a single founder of Christianity whose name is lost existed and was crucified. But he could've been nothing like the guy written about in the gospels. A big reason Christianity spread while other messianic cults (and Judaism itself) did not was that early Christians were willing to tailor their messages for broad (non-Jewish/pagan) appeal. For example, they got rid of all those kosher laws that Romans and other pagans hated.
     
    Darth_Invidious and PRENNTACULAR like this.
  25. PRENNTACULAR

    PRENNTACULAR VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2005
    ya josephus is the earliest mention.

    and this is where i do buy into a part of movie fan's argument. given the spread of christianity and what the early christians were saying, it's unlikely that there wasn't some person who probably said or did some of the things attributed to Jesus to catalyze the whole deal. otherwise, you need to come up with an alternate explanation that's more plausible. given the long tradition of jewish messiahs and prophets, i think it's much more likely that one messiah claimant (maybe named jesus, maybe from nazareth) had a message that was mystical and political enough to both ignite a movement and be interpreted in many different ways to ignite what eventually turned into the christian religion than whatever alternative there is. a group of dudes got together and completely made something up so they could then get persecuted and....

    that just doesn't sound plausible to me. do you have another explanation for the spread / writings of the early church vlm? i haven't heard a good one, but maybe that's my ignorance and not the fact that there isn't one.