The merits of religion

thanks for the info filled post Ophelia

when your talking about authors your talking about the people who actually put pen to paper are you?

im referring to the poeple who first popularised the stories, which i thought would have been Jesus' disciples

i gotta admit that the info your provide about the NT's origins doesnt do much for my confidence in it however

the stories going around about Jesus at the time do not mean they're true and does not mean that they were going around as much as the accounts of their supporters might imply

Jospehus testimony offers evidence for Jesus' existance and strength of character but not for his divinity

in fact the extra text that is said to have been added by christian copyists is exactly what im talking about

an example of christians of old editing a piece of evidence in order to garner more support for their beliefs

the second version offers no evidence other then his existance and claims that his disciples had made regarding his ressurection

but we already know about those claims they're the very ones in the Bible

that Jesus existed and that there were claims made of his divinity by his disciples after his death isnt something im arguing against

Its true that many cultures have ttraditions that suggest supernatural phenomena all dating back to primitive times

i take this as a sign that religion and a belief in the supernatural is a common psychological phenomena of early peoples who were largely ignorant about the world around them

there is tradition in the Australian aborigines of the elders of the tribe becoming the stroytellers, this was becasue basically they couldnt do anything else of much use for the tribe

in order to justify ther existance, especially in times of hardship they had to appear to have wisdom and knowledge that the rest of the tribe didnt, this some people have theorised is how the mythology and stories of the aboriginal people came into being

take this situation forward after a few thousand years worth of social evolution and you have a situation where the "elders" who had access to these stories etc were the leaders of the tribe and used the respect granted to them by the "religion" of which they were representitives to solidify their authority and rule

-patch

 

That is why it is called faith.

Atheists have faith that nothing exists outside of physical reality in reference to God. You cannot prove your premise, just as those with faith in God cannot prove theirs.

All you have to do is look at nature. If you found a watch in a forest, you would know someone made that watch. It didn't just come from oblivion.

Nothing existed before the Big Bang. Not space, not time. This has been stated by scientists such as Stephen Hawking. So, did everything in existence come from nothing? Or was it intelligent design? All of the matter that exists in the universe existed at the moment of the Big Bang, nothing gained, nothing lost.

The original hydrogen from the original Big Bang has coalesced to form all of the elements in the periodic table through the action of stars.

Stars explode and form new solar systems, new planets, etc.

Earth came from the stuff of the stars which came from the Big Bang, which came from where? Life has evolved on Earth starting from miniscule single celled organisms to self-aware sentient beings. Where did all this matter come from?

The initial act of creation.


If you choose not to believe in God or in faith in anything but naturalism and humanism, then that is your choice. However, you cannot say based upon your limited human understanding of this vast universe that there is no God for certain. It is the faith (your belief) as to where your convictions are. People find faith in God to give purpose in life. Loving God and one another is what life is all about - and when practiced properly, religion gives people a guide to living morally and out of respect for self, others, and your Creator. Human beings, in all our limitations, have a tendency to screw things up because we are not perfect, even with good intentions. God has revealed Himself through time of His existence, but He's not going to force you to love Him. That wouldn't be real love, now would it?


All I have to say is show me how matter arose from nothingness, and I will show you the Nobel Prize in Physics.

 

your watch in a forest metaphor sounds similar to an intelligent design argument that some poeple level against evolution

but all the same its a good point you make DM about the alternatives to a belief in a God in order to explain the existance of the universe

of course some atheists take the attitude that not knowing the answer doesnt neccesitate jumping on the supernatural-religous bandwagon

there is also the idea that matter/energy is eternal which i give as much credence as the idea that God is eternal

then there is also the loop hole in quantum mechanics which leaves room for the spontaneous generation of matter, but i dont know enough about quantum physics to substantiate this

my belief though, is that i dont know, that way i have no chance of being wrong

i have met plenty of religous people that i would in no way define as moral or ethical and lots of atheists who i would

God hasnt revealed himself to me through time, though if he was ever to drop in i sure have some questions for him

if half of the stuff writen in the bible about him are true i don't know if i could love him, even if he was proven to exist...

-patch

 

Faith is all fine and good, but without some convincing reason for your faith, isn't it blind? Especally for an all powerful god, wouldn't you need some pretty strong reason (or all strong) to not, in part, have your faith be blind? Maybe there is some evidence or logic for a very powerful god, but if you have some question that is not answered, in part, isn't your faith blind, if even in a small way?

Also, quick question about the resurection. Jesus 'died,' he was in a tomb, it was guarded and sealed. Women went in and found the body missing after a few days, but the seal was still intact. How did the women get in if the tomb was sealed (and the seal unbroken). Why would the guards let them in, and wouldn't letting them in break the seal? Yes, this question probably really shows my ignorence of the bible, so I ask hoping in a small way cure my ignorence.

 

p_atch, it seems to me that this is what you're saying:

You don't think that Matthew 4:17 implies that Jesus preached only one sentence of repentence. You don't think that Matthew 5-7 contains a verbatim transcript of the Sermon on the Mount. You don't think that Luke 2:51-52 implies growth over a single day. You don't think the Gospels are exhaustive biographies.

And yet.

And yet when Mark mentions one angel at the empty tomb you assert that he must have meant "one and only one" angel. And yet when Luke talks about the Resurrection and Ascension you assume he's asserting it happened all in one day.

You have no problem with the report that Bush is planning a trip to Canada: you understand that his secret service agents will accompany him.

And yet.

And yet you assert that when Mark says that the two Mary's and Salome went to the tomb, he meant that only these three women went. And yet you assert that when Mark mentions an angel, he means "one and only one" angel.

It seems to me that, rather than giving any benefit of the doubt, you interpret Scripture with the purpose of discrediting it, to hell with what it actually says, to hell with its purpose and context, and to hell with the standards you apply to every other written work.


On the fact that no miracle (other than the Resurrection) was recorded by all four Gospels:

yes it does give me cause to disbelieve these miracles if they were only recorded by one person, the same way any supernatural even reported to have happened around a large group of people with many witnesses only being recorded by one person would give me cause to treat it suspicously

If Jesus really was God Incarnate and attracted crowds for performing miracle after miracle, there's no reason to assume that each of the biographies would be sure to cover the same ones. Rather, John, for example, could have tailored his Gospel to cover those miracles that the other three did not.

Further, Matthew was writing to his fellow Jews focusing on the parts of Jesus life that demonstrated His role as the prophesied Messiah. There are at least eleven instances where he writes, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken," where he asserts that Jesus fulfilled a specific Old Testament prophecy. He picked out the miracles that best proved his assertion; if the other Gospel writers had others assertions to prove (and I believe they did), they would have focused on other miracles.

And all four Gospel writers assert the Resurrection. Doesn't that lend creedence to the possibility that they're telling the truth on that matter?


On Hannibal:

no becasue there is recorded physical historical consequences of him crossing the alps, the proof that he crossed the alps is that once he did cross the alps he mounted military campaigns

there also the fact that hannibal crossing the alps wasnt recorded by a small group of hannibals own men who were with him that then contradicted each other and with no other historical events or records to imply that he may have crossed the alps

also crossing the alps isnt against the laws of the universe and adverse to human experience and therefore wouldnt need as much evidence to convince me of its possibility

I am unaware of the "recorded physical historical consequences," and I would love for you to enlighten me.

You want external writings? Tacitus and Josephus both assert that Jesus lived and was executed by Pilate.

Perhaps the accounts of Hannibal's crossing wasn't recorded by his own men, but they're contradictory, to the point that they cannot be reconciled.

And while you assert that Hannibal's crossing was a pretty mundane thing in human history, note this: he did so with elephants. African elephants.


On the comparison to MacBeth:

no but it does mean the play wasnt true

im not arguing that there is no bible just that it is a work of fiction, this equation with shakespeare is ridiculous

I'm saying this: the addition to MacBeth does no

 

i approach miracles with the attitude that they are the least likely events possible because they're has never been any reliable evidence that any have ever occured

i do assert that when Mark mentions the angels at the tomb he did mean one and only one, the ridiculousness of comparing this with a report on Bush's movements is thus;

Its common knowledge that Bush beingthe person he is would have aids etc accompanying him everywhere he goes, it is unnecesary to list them in a report

it is not common knowledge that angels travel around in groups and it would not be unneccesary to point out how many they are at an important event

if two angels came and visited you would you record it as "an angel came and visited me" or would you say "i was visited by angels" at least or more then likely "2 angels visited me"

the ascension as reported by Luke does imply when read that it all happened in one day, it list a series of events all happening directly after each other with no reason to believe that a period of time has passed

the other example u listed clearly indicates time passing as jesus grows

wheres the comparison?

i exhibit the same standards to the scripture as i do anything i read

if i read a different set of writings all written by a small cult claiming that their leader could turn into a duck billed platypus at will and if they were the only testimonials to this event and especially if they contradicted each other, i would treat them with suspicion

You didnt answer my question about the Hindu scriptures

do you believe these scriptures in regards to their claims that they had saints who could ressurect people?

do you believe the Hindu scriptures in regards to any of the spiritual or divine assertions they make?

that all four Gospels assert the ressurection was the most important part of my ideas on the reality of the Gospels that i have already posted

the basic idea is this;

Jesus' cult are faced with the dilemna of their leader having died and still needing to spread his teachings and wisdom

the best way to get people to listen to what you have to say at this time and in this region especially, is to claim some religous or divine connection with what your teaching or the person who's teachings your espousing

after Jesus has died his disciples in order to maintain the awe and respect the people were feeling towards such an obviously moral, charismatic and intelligent man, tell them that, "not to worry, he was the son of God after all and in fact rose again after his death and visited us, transferring all his divine autrhority onto us"

That Jesus probably lived and was executed is nto something im disputing, and is in fact key to my ideas on the reality of the Gospels

the recorded physical consequences of Hannibals crossing are the military campaigns he led once having crossed

he didnt cross but then disappeared with noone having witnessed it or him afterwards except for his own men who's testimonies contradicted each other, if this was the case i would doubt its authenticity

there is no reason to believe that the play would not have been performed, that is what it was written for

there is no basis to believe that the Gospels were not read by people and preached

that is what they were written for

there is no basis for comparison between the shakesperean forgery and the Gospels whatsoever

i bas the knowledge that miracles re unlikely on the fact that none have ever been relably documented or proven to be possible

if a person spots a light in the sky i take the argument that it is aliens as the least likely possible explanation because there has not been any reliable recorded situation in which they have been proven to exist

the probability of God interrupting the course of nature can be judged from the evidence that God actually exists and the frequency of past examples of him doing so, which even if you believe anything in the Bible relating to the supernatural or "magic" for want of a better word, is still very rare

-patch

 

Patch wrote:

the stories going around about Jesus at the time do not mean they're true

Quite so. However, they do show that a large number of people who didn't know each other had the "Jesus story" straight from the very beginning. We wouldn't expect such reliability from so many sources if the story had been "cooked up," especially if it were patched together later to retroactively fit the facts. "Not proving falsehood" isn't the same thing as "proving truth," but given the data we have and how old it is, "not proving falsehood" isn't bad.

As Bubba pointed out, if the Passion story had ended with Jesus' arrest and release instead of his crucifixion and resurrection, no one would question its truth. The story is certainly better corroborated than Tacitus' description of the great fire in Rome, which is generally regarded as fact. The real issue, as Bubba's helpful quote from C.S. Lewis illustrates, is simply whether a complicated, improbable natural explanation is always preferable to a simple, miraculous explanation.

Jospehus testimony offers evidence for Jesus' existance and strength of character but not for his divinity

True. I'm not actually trying to convert you. My goal is simply to show that the theist position is every bit as logically sound as the atheist position. And no, I'm not going to resort to the weak old Pascal's Wager or "toss a coin" technique at the end.

in fact the extra text that is said to have been added by christian copyists is exactly what im talking about

an example of christians of old editing a piece of evidence in order to garner more support for their beliefs

But given all the ancient support for the important events of the NT, how do the later interpolations affect the argument for Christianity's truth or falsehood?

Its true that many cultures have ttraditions that suggest supernatural phenomena all dating back to primitive times

i take this as a sign that religion and a belief in the supernatural is a common psychological phenomena of early peoples who were largely ignorant about the world around them

there is tradition in the Australian aborigines of the elders of the tribe becoming the stroytellers, this was becasue basically they couldnt do anything else of much use for the tribe

in order to justify ther existance, especially in times of hardship they had to appear to have wisdom and knowledge that the rest of the tribe didnt, this some people have theorised is how the mythology and stories of the aboriginal people came into being

Wow! Please don't tell me that someone on a Star Wars discussion board has so little regard for the importance of story and myth!

I don't know the Aboriginal story you mention, but it sounds a bit like a "Grandpa pokes fun at himself" kind of story. (BTW, using a story to discount the importance of stories is kind of ironic.) I know very little about the Aborigines, but Native American tribes whose culture is traditionally oral/aural put an enormous value on storytelling. Without a writing system, how else could their culture be transmitted?

As an example closer to home: imagine if all our books, articles, and recordings about World War II were to vanish. Suddenly, we would greatly value the words and memories of older people who lived through that time. Can you imagine how fast Dubya would scramble to find WWII vets who could describe the history of the U.S.'s relationship to the current NATO countries? I like my computer and CD's as much as the next geek, but it's a shame the "Information Age" has given us another reason to devalue our elders, and divorced us that much more from the human element of our culture.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that myth, story, culture, and religion--the things that give people a sense of identity and community--are far more valuable than the tangibles produced by modern knowledge and an "outcome oriented" species of logic.

For instance:

Logic went into the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
A s

 

Quite so. However, they do show that a large number of people who didn't know each other had the "Jesus story" straight from the very beginning. We wouldn't expect such reliability from so many sources if the story had been "cooked up," especially if it were patched together later to retroactively fit the facts. "Not proving falsehood" isn't the same thing as "proving truth," but given the data we have and how old it is, "not proving falsehood" isn't bad.


Actually there's no real proof that all of the stuff in the "Jesus story" was taken from other people. Am I wrong in assuming that various people wrote the bible but the accounts of the story were taken and written by the same person? If so that would leave some doubt as to the veracity of their claims as it puts a cloud of suspicion over everything. That is why some refuse to believe in religion because you cannot prove any of it. It's a matter of faith and I some people are just naturally suspicious of anything, especially if it was written 2000 years ago and unable to be proven by anything but a book.

 

i see the full importance and positivity that story telling and mythology has on a culture

but i dont think the stories are true, i dont think a giant rainbow snake made the world, i dont think that the native americans came up out of the earth, i dont think the saints of hinduism could ressurect the dead, i dont think there was a man born a few thousand years ago who was the son of a God and who rose from the dead, i dont think the fencepost in cougee that people are worshipping in Sydney is really a divinely sent image of the mother mary, i dont think there is a hell that is a place where only brave norse warrior dont have to go and is full of ice and snow. i dont think that the Greek Gods once roamed the earth and raped human females

i think theyre all common signs of a psychological phenomena the human species has for inventing tales of fiction and giving them religous and spiritual meanings in order to better define human kinds purpose, morality and who is in charge

i dont think the Bible is a dumb book, i think it contains interesting evidence as to the cultural and social evolution of a group of people and what ancient societies were like and believed

i also think it contains moral stories that have been important in the evolution of society as more civiised but also that it contains stories that are remnants from the past, have no moral bearing on modern times and in fact can be destructive

-patch

 

i approach miracles with the attitude that they are the least likely events possible because they're has never been any reliable evidence that any have ever occured

And you think the Bible is unreliable as evidence because you raised the burden of proof. And you raised the burden of proof because you believe that miracles are the least likely events possible.

That certainly strikes me as circular logic.


i do assert that when Mark mentions the angels at the tomb he did mean one and only one, the ridiculousness of comparing this with a report on Bush's movements is thus;

Its common knowledge that Bush beingthe person he is would have aids etc accompanying him everywhere he goes, it is unnecesary to list them in a report

it is not common knowledge that angels travel around in groups and it would not be unneccesary to point out how many they are at an important event

if two angels came and visited you would you record it as "an angel came and visited me" or would you say "i was visited by angels" at least or more then likely "2 angels visited me"

The question is this: in the other Gospel accounts, does the second angel do anything important? It doesn't seem like it to me.


the ascension as reported by Luke does imply when read that it all happened in one day, it list a series of events all happening directly after each other with no reason to believe that a period of time has passed

And Luke 3-19 covers three years, but there's little indication of such a long passage of time.

The first two chapters of Luke cover 30 years. The next 16 chapters cover a mere three years. And the next five chapters cover the tiny span of a week. The book pulls into sharper and sharper focus on the cross, spending two full chapters on the final twenty-four hours leading up to it.

The last chapter of Luke either stays in such moment-by-moment focus, or it begins to pull back again and cover a span of 40 days. Is there any legitimate reason to choose the former? No; not given the context of the rest of the book and the fact that time can be covered very quickly. The only reason I see to choose it is that it would make the Gospels conveniently contradictory.


You didnt answer my question about the Hindu scriptures

do you believe these scriptures in regards to their claims that they had saints who could ressurect people?

do you believe the Hindu scriptures in regards to any of the spiritual or divine assertions they make?

I see no reason to disbelieve the miracles recorded by the Hindus: my God makes brings sunshine and rain to all people, and if He thinks it serves His glory to bring other people back to life, I'm not one to disagree.

That doesn't mean I naturally assume that a reported miracle is true. We should investigate the credibility of the documents and how the claims fit into the bigger picture. Ultimately, I believe God has a sense of -- for lack of a better word -- artistic vision in the way He interrupts the natural order of things. He is the virtuoso pianist who knows the rules of music so well that He also knows when best to break those rules.

As for Hindu teachings, I believe them to the degree that they harmonize with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus' commandments of love and deferrence weren't anything new in terms of religion or philosophy; His were the fullest expression of what God already partially revealed to Confucius and Socrates.

More specifically, what little I know about the Hindu faith does indicate that we uphold many of the same ideals: charity, honesty, mercy, and duty to one's parents and children. I believe -- as does the Bible, in Romans 1:20 -- that God has at least partially revealed His truth to us all.


Jesus' cult are faced with the dilemna of their leader having died and still needing to spread his teachings and wisdom

the best way to get people to listen to what you have to say at this time and in this region especially, is to claim some religous or divine connection with what your teachi

 

And you think the Bible is unreliable as evidence because you raised the burden of proof. And you raised the burden of proof because you believe that miracles are the least likely events possible.


well there is a way out of this cycle if there is any where an example of a miracle occuring that is completely reliable

but there isnt

if your previous example of Hannibals crossing, if it was reported by two of his friends that he crossed the alps but then disapeared to history with no other evidence to support their assertions and especially if their assertions conflicted i wouldnt accept it as true

is this becasue there is a miracle or divinity involved?

no its not, its becasue the testimonies would be unreliable and not backed up by any other historical accounts

im not raising the burden of proof in the bible higher then i would for a non-miraculous event, i just stated that in order for me to accept miracles as probable there would have to be some evidence that is reliable concerning them

but its not just miracles, if some testimonies were found that asserted that Julias ceaser was a women in drag i would treat them suspiciously and expose them to a hgher level of critical analysis then if they claimed he like grapes


The question is this: in the other Gospel accounts, does the second angel do anything important? It doesn't seem like it to me

the angels existance is important, it being there is important

its not a common thing to find a group of Angels sitting aorund the empty tomb of your ex-leader, its presence is enough to rate its mention


The last chapter of Luke either stays in such moment-by-moment focus, or it begins to pull back again and cover a span of 40 days. Is there any legitimate reason to choose the former? No; not given the context of the rest of the book and the fact that time can be covered very quickly. The only reason I see to choose it is that it would make the Gospels conveniently contradictory

the reason not to believe it is becasue it makes the bibles conveniently uncontradictory

Bubba it doesnt matter how much you try to stretch the interpretation of this section of the Gospel, to me it reads very obviously to imply a period of a day passing


More specifically, what little I know about the Hindu faith does indicate that we uphold many of the same ideals: charity, honesty, mercy, and duty to one's parents and children. I believe -- as does the Bible, in Romans 1:20 -- that God has at least partially revealed His truth to us all.

heh

how very opened minded of you


Either the Gospels accurately reflect Jesus' teachings or they don't.

- If they don't reflect His teachings, if they changed them they failed as a "cult" to "spread his teachings and wisdom."

- And if they did accurately reflect His teachings?


the best way for them to reflect his teachings and guarantee people would listen was for them to claim a divine connection between him and God, more specifically he was His son

His teachings as taught by his disciples would reflect this

they probably believed him to be the son of God and and fabricated or enchanced certain events in order to encourage other to also

or maybe they didnt believe him to be the son of God but saw such worth in his teachings and wisdom that they claimed that he was in order to impress the locals and make them more likely to accept them


-patch

 

So they cared so much about Jesus' teachings that they would corrupt them utterly? To the point that they made up His assertion of divine authority?

That makes no sense.

If Jesus was a simple philosopher like Socrates, there would have been no need to make up the claims to divinity: the Apostles would have done just as well proclaiming Him as another martyred teacher.

If Jesus wasn't a simple philosopher, if He did claim equality with God, His death without resurrection would have made His claims void.

 

How does it not make sense?

does it make sense that the Gospels were corrupted to the point where Mary was claimed to be a virgin to fullfill a OT prophecy that had been mistranslated and actually just meant young maid?

there were alot of false messiahs and pseudo-prophets etc going around in those days it wouldnt have been that big a leap for them to claim divinity for their particular one to compete with the rest

claiming Jesus divinity does not neccesarily utterly corrupt his teachings either, and if it was the choice of claiming his divinity and lying to testify about it or having this guys teachings to which they had dedicated their lives slip into obscurity, they may have chosen the later

in the society that Jesus was born into the only way to have idea listened to was to claim religous relevence

The socrates example doesnt stand up, this wasnt intellectualist Greece this was the intensely religous middle east (which still is inrensively religous in case you hadnt noticed)

why would his death without ressurection have made his claims void?

The jews dont believe that the Messiah that will come is going to die and then come back to life

-patch

 

The New Testament claims that Jesus' message was, basically, Himself: Follow Me, because I am the way and no one comes to the Father but through Me.

This is what I'm asking: was that message part of what Jesus taught before the early church corrupted it?

If it was, and they just added the miracles, it begs the question: why did the Apostles originally believe His message? By the time they decided to fabricate the "proof" behind His claims to divinity, He had been brutally, humiliatingly executed and was rotting away in a tomb outside Jerusalem. Christianity would have been a deeply rooted fraud, and there's no motivation for them to throw their weight behind something they couldn't bring themselves to believe -- and they certainly wouldn't have been willing to die for those fraudulant beliefs.

If it wasn't, and their mission was -- as you put it -- to "spread his teachings and wisdom," then they failed miserably because they altered the message so much that it became unrecognizable.


You enjoy comparing the early Christians to false messiahs and pseudo-prophets, but you ignore five key differences.

First, the Apostles were in a unique position to know whether they were preaching a lie and they were still willing to face the very difficult hardships of the early church: poverty, ostracism, jail, and torturous death.

Second, we have the conversion of very skeptical people -- including James the brother of Jesus and Saul of Tarsus (who became Paul). The Gospels report that Jesus' own family didn't believe Him, which was quite embarassing for a Jewish teacher (thus, there was no reason to fabricate the claim); the historian Josephus reports that James was later stoned to death for his belief in Jesus. What happened that changed his mind? Saul/Paul went from stoning Christians to actively, publically leading the early church: what changed his mind?

Third, we have over ten thousand Jews willing to alter their sacred and otherwise unchanging social structures because of a middle-class carpenter's son who was publically, brutally, and humiliatingly executed. They were willing to change all five of the major social structures:

- from animal sacrifices to no sacrifices
- from justification through obedience to faith
- from worshipping on Saturday to Sunday
- from unitarianism to the idea of the Trinity
- from belief in a political Messiah to belief in a sacrificing Savior

Fourth, the early church's sacraments of baptism and communion celebrate Jesus' death.

Finally, with everything stacked against it, Christianity has lasted for two thousand years, far longer than the Roman Empire that tried to snuff it out.


Are you asserting that all this happened because the Apostles were so very pursuasive?

The same Apostles who the Gospels portray as being ignorant, hard-headed cowards? Unassuming fishermen and hated tax collectors?

Then it still seems to me that you still believe that divine intervention is so improbable that any other explanation, regardless of how ridiculous it is, is preferable to it.

That still begs the question: how do you know divine intervention is that improbable?

 

how did they alter the message so much that it became unrecognizable?

all they did was imply divinity to the messanger in order to make it more acceptable to the people of the time

i think your being too hard on them Bubba

you've already brought up the idea that the early christians suffered for their beliefs so it must have been true and ive alrady answered it

people suffer and martyr themselves for beliefs and ideals that arent always religous

the changes you list all happened over hundreds of years, the idea of the trinity was placed into the Bible by the early church in order to avoid the argument;
"there is only one God so who was Jesus to claim divinity"

the changes all are example of beliefs changing in order to better allow Jesus to be seen as the messiah

they couldn't still preach a political messiah if the one they were saying was him didnt do anything political and didnt bring about the political changes that were prophesised

the beliefs were altered to allow the square block to fit the round hole

what is the possible reason for the flourishment of the Christian church besides an early church that was persuasive?

God came and told all the people who converted that they had to individually?

i dont see the other alternative as being ridiculous and havnt seen an argument to suggest it is yet

i believe divine intervention or magic or psychic abilities or spirit chanelling or any of that stuff to be improbable because there is no reliable account of it happening ever.

the bible might say it happens but until i see another supporting piece of evidence that is more trustworthy i will believe it to be improbable

-patch

 

You are free to demand greater evidence, but I do wonder if there could ever be enough evidence to satisfy some people.

 

So many things to reply to here . . .

Fire_Ice_Death wrote:

Am I wrong in assuming that various people wrote the bible but the accounts of the story were taken and written by the same person?

Yes. Here are two pages from The Straight Dope's informational series, "Who Wrote the Bible?" The site has a non-theist orientation.

Who Wrote the Bible -- part 4
Who Wrote the Bible -- part 5

In brief, the answer to "Who wrote the Bible" is we don't know, but there were definitely several someones involved.

Patch wrote:

well there is a way out of this cycle if there is any where an example of a miracle occuring that is completely reliable

Define "miracle" and "completely reliable." If "miracle" means "an apparently impossible event that can't be reproduced in a lab," and "completely reliable" means "can be reproduced in a lab," that's not very fair, is it?

the changes all are example of beliefs changing in order to better allow Jesus to be seen as the messiah

they couldn't still preach a political messiah if the one they were saying was him didnt do anything political and didnt bring about the political changes that were prophesised

It's true that the Jewish tradition anticipated a political messiah, but Jesus made it clear pretty early on that he was apolitical. ("Render unto Ceasar" and all that.) Actually, his lack of a political agenda is one problem other Jews had with him.

In fact, the only "political" prediction he made was that the Temple would fall and life as the Jewish people had known it would be over. These things occurred just about when he said they would.

As for his disciples, they were waiting for the end of the world. They saw no point in politicizing anything.

the beliefs were altered to allow the square block to fit the round hole

Let's say I won't argue with you that some Biblical passages are the ancient equivalent of "special editions," with added special effects. (See the two versions of the victory at the Red Sea in Exodus for an example.) You are probably right that these "improved" passages exist for the same reasons special effects exist, to make something more exciting, more stirring, and more believable.

However, it doesn't follow that there were no historical events behind these stories. After all, Jesus drew crowds so large and enthusastic that the Temple elders viewed him as a threat. All those people came for something--and I'll bet it was the healing and the free bread and fish instead of what was viewed as an eccentric brand of Phariseeism. (Jesus said as much in moments of annoyance.)

Why change a story if it was so pursuasive to begin with? Probably to appeal to different audiences. All the "Son of Man" and "Paschal lamb" stuff would have gone right over the heads of people in Rome and Corinth and Ephesus, so traveling apostles would have had to find other ways to get the basic ideas across to the people they were preaching to. They would also have found themselves in the position of having to "outdo" the reputations of local gods. ("Well, our god hatched out of a rock and wrestled an immortal bull. What did *your* God do?")

what is the possible reason for the flourishment of the Christian church besides an early church that was persuasive?

Excepting divine favor? None that I can think of. Often, people who are especially pursuasive are also right.

I put together a big rant about miracles, but it's too late to work with it anymore. Maybe tomorrow.

 

I have a thesis that Christianity has put mankind's evolution back 2000 years. That's pretty much all it's really done for the human race. It stifled scientific thinking and philosophy because of the strictness of its belief system (and because they burned you if you didn't conform).

Mind you, it was the greatest con of all time. Had people controlled for all that time, which isn't far-fetched considering that most people in say, the middle ages, were hopelessly ignorant and covered in excretion. It also made the Church very rich, because for some reason, God wants your money...

 

I consider it a political system that refuses to die.

 

"I have a thesis that Christianity has put mankind's evolution back 2000 years. That's pretty much all it's really done for the human race. It stifled scientific thinking and philosophy because of the strictness of its belief system (and because they burned you if you didn't conform).

Mind you, it was the greatest con of all time. Had people controlled for all that time, which isn't far-fetched considering that most people in say, the middle ages, were hopelessly ignorant and covered in excretion. It also made the Church very rich, because for some reason, God wants your money..."


Don't confuse true Christianity with Dark Age-Catholocism.


"I consider it a political system that refuses to die."

Perhaps Christianity is what it claims to be -- the one true religion.

 

redxavier, I must disagree with your conclusions about history. The Middle Ages had more to do with the fall of Rome than the rise of Christianity; in fact, the Roman Catholic Church helped preserve Western civilization at that time.

Beyond that, you ignore the fact that the scientific revolution sprung from religious men seeking to understand the orderly universe God created -- the idea that the universe was ordered was based in no small part on the belief that its existence was due to a rational Creator.

More than that, Christianity (the Reformation in particular) helped reignite the idea that the individual was important, which led to huge political and economic reforms, the greatest of which we still feel today: representative government.


And one must ask, if Christianity was so terribly damaging to Europe's culture, why did Europe and European thought come to dominate the planet?

Chinese dynasties and the Arab world were likewise stuck in cultural ruts and it was Europe that was the first to escape them and usher in the Industrial Revolution and every other revolution since the Renaissance. (One could legitimately ask whether the Mideast and East Asia have yet done much more than follow Europe's lead.)

And the first great leaps (the first political and scientific revolutions) preceded the rejection of Christianity by Freud and Neitsche by well over a century. It seems to me that Christianity was far less damaging than, say, Islam.

(No offense to Muslims: just looking at cultural cause-and-effect.)

In fact, in looking at the Christian support behind political freedoms -- including an end to slavery -- I'd say that Christianity has had quite the positive influence.

But if you want to assert that Christianity crippled Europe as a culture, be my guest; I simply see very little evidence to support that position.

 

"Don't confuse true Christianity with Dark Age-Catholocism."

There's no difference.

"Perhaps Christianity is what it claims to be -- the one true religion."

Hah!


"why did Europe and European thought come to dominate the planet?"

Because they went around and raped, killed and pillaged, whilst simultaneously nicking people's countries. And the Church said 'sure! go ahead, here's your blessing, but don't forget to bring back money for us'

Seriously though, be under no illusions about Christianity has done. The rise of thought and science is directly relative to the expansion of education and the decline of the church.

"But if you want to assert that Christianity crippled Europe as a culture, be my guest; I simply see very little evidence to support that position."

That's amusing as you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence. Besides, I'm talking about science and thought, not culture.

Morality came into Western civilisation through law and various people who had a profound sense of right and wrong, not religion: because Christianity didn't give it to them.

 

"Don't confuse true Christianity with Dark Age-Catholocism."

There's no difference.

Tell me, do most Christians today pay a tenth of their money or crops to their church?

Do most Christians today saddle up in search of plunder and conquest?

Do most Christians today go to services entirely in latin where they can't even have their own bible?

Nope. There is a BIG difference between Dark Age/Medeival Christianity/Catholicism.

 

Perhaps Christianity is what it claims to be -- the one true religion.


Well there's Christianity's view for you. Whether I should laugh or feel pity at the arrogance within that I don't know.

 

Perhaps Christianity is what it claims to be -- the one true religion.


Well there's Christianity's view for you. Whether I should laugh or feel pity at the arrogance within that I don't know.

Isn't that every religions view?