Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

While I think it's a bit silly to assert Jesus did not exist, if you look at those sources with a wether eye, they overlap and talk more about early church practices and beliefs rather than corroborate the works of Jesus as such. Josephus's account is about the closest as it comes -- and even on the second weblink you're providing, is said to have been overwritten, or added to, by a later Christian scholar since Josephus was himself not a Christian but Jewish. I think it's particularly odd that Josephus should call Jesus "the Christ" since that title was most commonly the equivalent of the moshiach in Hebrew, the deliverer of the Jews, and Josephus lived right through and gave an account of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. The status of the Messiah as the secular deliverer of the Jews was still very much in place in that period - only Christian thinking was evolving the title of the Christ to mean something other than a secular conqueror.

The Talmud references are also vague and questionable, although its concession that Yeshua was connected with royalty tallies with the general Christian genealogy that Jesus was descended from David.

 

yeah its pretty silly to suggest jesus, as a historical person, didnt exist UNLESS you're using it as a rhetorical tool to comment on people willfully ignoring good physical evidence, which will, of course, always be more reliable than eyewitness accounts, as any crimescene investigator can tell you

 

Huh? Eyewitness accounts are pretty much the backbone of history. Direct physical evidence usually disappears pretty quickly and often can't tell us a lot about a particular event or person; books, letters, drawings, maps, etc. can be copied and that's how historians like Josephus have survived. Thing is, there are no (surviving, if they ever existed) eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

 

(EDIT: In response to Darth Guy)

We're talking at cross-purposes. Eyewitness accounts are usually all we've got for large-scale historical questions, certainly, but pretty well any lawyer or judge will tell you -- in fact judges are required at law to warn juries exhaustively -- that eyewitness accounts of an event can be and often are dreadfully misleading as to what actually happened or who actually carried out a crime, at least for fine detail or indeed for identification purposes at all. Maybe the fallibility is most glaringly illustrated in the Zapruder footage of the JFK assassination: compare that with the testimony of the cameraman, Abraham Zapruder, at the Warren Commission about what he saw on the day. Zapruder's oral testimony, as opposed to the video testimony of his little camera, was practically incoherent, so much so that the Commission had to dispense with his evidence as supporting any particular theory about where the shots came from. In Zapruder's defence, of course, he was dreadfully shaken up by what he'd seen -- an open-air shooting event usually restricted to combat zones and thus the experiences of military or police officers.

 

Uh, yeah, that's why people should think critically about history. Anyone who knows what they're doing doesn't assume a historical account is the "truth" just because it was told by an eyewitness; it's just taken more seriously than a secondary source.

 

NIAWYC

 

I don't know. I mean I've done things people say are immoral and I don't feel any guilt ad would probably do them again. If what I did was immoral I certainly haven't suffered or learned from it by any means.

As to Hell. God cannot suffer evil or imperfection in his presence. Sin is direct rebellion against him and refusing forgiveness through Jesus Christ is essentially spitting in his face and demanding Hell. At that point God is powerless to do anything other than send them to Hell. It's not a choice for him, there is no other alternative or way out. Doing sin has the consequence of death and hell, God offered us a way out through Jesus, if we refuse that offer he can't stop us from reaching the natural consequence of our actions.

It's like trying someone setting their house on fire, you can try and help them but if they refuse and won't let you help they are going to face the natural consequence of their choice.

 

yah i think we're all agreed here, maybe i could have phrased my initial post differently

 

This argument strikes me as a kissing cousin to the old saying that "Hell is where people go when they can't forgive themselves." And it has some echoes in the more crappy elements of gnostic theology dredged up by George RR Martin that "There is only one hell, the world that we are living in." Having said that, there is something to say in its favour. It sounds a bit similar to my working view that a more positive way to view the Ten Commandments is as statements of condition rather than imperatives to a Christian. The central tenet of Christianity is to love one another, which Christ implies is the commandment that subsumes all others, perhaps including (and perhaps not) the commandment to love God with all your heart. What I think is that the principles of behaviour in the commandments flow from that central commandment as consequences: "If -- or more specifically, because -- you love one another, you won't steal, kill, commit adultery, bear false witness, covet each others' goods or partners, or forget your father and mother." Consider the aphorism: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." They are statements of what comes of attunement to agape and the divine, rather than imperatives of behaviour as such. Concordantly, behaviour contrary to those principles cuts one off "from God" (for want of a longer explanation) and is, as the article suggests, its own punishment for what it does to the person inside.

EDIT: The other phrase that keeps pinging through my mind on this one is, oddly, one from The Matrix: "Choice. The problem is choice." As in, morality itself implies a choice of behaviour to be had. But that's a bigger question than we necessarily need to go into now.

 

And that's how you get apology likes

 

I find the idea that human beings have any understanding of the afterlife or anything beyond their own existence pretty laughable. Creationists rely too much on the human need of companionship and fear of death, while evolutionists think they know more about they universe than they really do. I think the real metaphysical nature of the universe is probably something we can't even fathom.

 

well, leaving aside the obvious "if he's god then nothing is impossible for him", no its not like "spitting in his face" because in order to spit in someone's face they'd have to be standing directly in front of me

 

"evolutionists", as a group, do not make any claims about the metaphysical nature of the universe. evolution is a claim about the physical nature of the universe, and is supported by physical evidence

 

Perhaps not, but they do use scientific theory to try and discredit creationists. Also, the two sides of the creationism/evolutionism coin are much more in conflict than harmonious.

 

i suppose that's a matter of perspective, but no they are not necessarily. a large number, possibly a majority, of christians have no problem believing the physical claims of evolution and the metaphysical claims of their religion. this includes the current head of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, an evangelical christian and well-respected geneticist

on the other side of the coin, ive never seen an "evolutionist", even one who happens to be an atheist, (which, due to the sheer numbers of christians in this country, must be a minority of "evolutionists"), claim that the theory of evolution in some way disproves the existence of god. the theory of evolution makes no claims about god whatsoever

 

I'm sorry, you've utterly lost me, and I believe it's because you're (Unintentionally?) conflating the debate over evolution with the broader debate over theism.

You can and should use scientific theories in the former, it's a discussion primarily rooted in empiricism and the interpretation of the world as it appears to us - indeed, it's generally epistemologically and metaphysically something of an abstention, because everyone on any side usually just accepts on some level that science and empirical observation can get you to the relevant knowledge needed insofar as the debate itself is concerned (E.g. the creationist/ID/ancient aliens camp will usually present X as a counterexample, rather than arguing that things in themselves are unknowable or [Insert Feyerabend argument here]).

The latter's a lot trickier and may or may not fall outside of the purview of science depending on who you ask and what you're asking about. It's in this latter debate that questions about the ultimate metaphysical reality of our universe become relevant, hence why I think you're mixing terms - specifically, what you're calling an "evolutionist" appears to be an adherent of some sort of neo-positivism and what you're calling a "creationist" seems to just be... some kind of theist making an appeal to emotion? Like I said, I'm kind of lost at what your point here is supposed to be, although I think you're trying to advocate for a very traditional sort of agnosticism, in which case I'm pretty uncomfortable with the necessary assumptions about truth you have to make for it to work.

 

The ole 'nothing is impossible for god' thing isn't true. God can't not be God, he can't allow sin or in his presence, there are lots of things he can't do by his very nature and existence.

As to the second point, if you refuse his forgiveness after he offers you it after your rebellion against him there's nothing left he can do. He can't forgive you if you don't accept it so Hell is left as your only option.

 

okay but im just saying the "spitting in his face" metaphor doesnt really work since i cant spit in the face of someone without having pretty solid evidence that they exist (their actual presence)

 

I don't know, from the perspective of someone on earth maybe, but to those in the heavenly realms it would likely seem so as not believing God exists and what not would likely be unfathomable to even understand.

 

What Ramza said. If by "creationism" you are referring to the specific proposition that the Bible's book of Genesis contains an accurate and literal description of how the physical universe came to be created, and how life on Earth specifically came to first exist in that physical universe, then various fields of scientific theory conflict heavily with that literal account, from Lemaitre's Big Bang theory through to the paleontological and geological record and many other subjects in between. Or should I say scientific theory tends rather more to conflict with the implications arising from the Book of Genesis, since (for example) the figure of the Earth being six thousand years old (and created on the 23rd of October, thank you so much Archbishop Ussher) is never given once in the Bible but involves estimating it out by Genesis's genealogies for the most part.

Although evolution, strictly speaking, makes no large claims about the physical nature of the universe (unless it be inherent and implicit, which is a much wider philosophical question). Evolution solely relates to a theory proposed to explain, from empirical evidence, the data that scientists have gathered relating to how life develops across subsequent generations. That is all that evolution does. It's generally religion that thinks a positive absolute truth is being advanced in evolution because religion tends to deal in those things (badly), when really all that is being advanced is a theory to explain data, the implications of which contradict literalist readings of Genesis. Even the Catholic Church doesn't take that line. It has held as recently as a Pope or so ago that there is no contradiction between evolution and the Bible, because Catholicism has generally been a lot better at the idea of metaphorical interpretations of Bible passages than Protestants are. (Which is not to give Catholicism a lot of points as a religion generally, but I digress).

 

Evidence would need to be provided in order for me to accept it. I can't accept that which is not real.

 

you would think god would be able to comprehend the idea that he hasnt provided any substantial evidence of his existence. i mean, he created us, he should be able to understand us pretty well right?

 

This latter line is a really tough metaphysical issue to resolve, it seems to me. It really is a restatement of Epicurus's famous formulation, i.e. if God is willing and of sufficient means, then whence cometh evil? If God is omniscient, omnipotent, why are there things he cannot (i.e. is not capable of in the sense it's impossible) do by his very nature and existence? Are we to argue a sort of deus ex machina here, that God is somehow proscribed from acting directly in the physical universe to uphold the just, punish the unjust for fear of ... something? If God can't allow sin in his presence, why should he, why does he, allow it in the physical universe? Or is the very concept of God simply a completely transcendent question?

Ramza, come down here and sort all this out, would you?

 

God can't stop a rapist from raping, because that would interfere with the rapist's free will. Sucks for the rape victim, but that's why God is an evil bastard and not worthy of respect or worship. The bolt thing that's good about the Christian god is that he doesn't exist.