NationStates Jolt Archive

Not nearly as much faith as is required to believe that you were actually visited by a supernatural entity


Do you accept others claims of revelation automatically?

I don't accept any claims of revelation automatically. I didn't even accept my experiences as divine without a lot of doubt and questioning. Though I use the word 'divine', I am not sure that that is the best word for what happened to me. It would be more correct to say that it had elements to it that can best be described by the word 'divine'.

To address your point, one could hold the position that it is currently impossible to know if someone else had a divine revelation. That is the position I would take. No asumptions need be made. No faith required.

That's only your end of the "connection". What about the other end? How did you make sure?

I have no idea what you're asking, and you have long ago used up any patience I have with you. if you want something explained to you, you can ask me clearly.

Of course. After all, it's people who attached those meanings to the Gospels, and humans can and do err. Obviously, without a historical Jesus there'd have to be a reinterpretation but the text of the stories are still there and lessons can still be learned from it. I can't say which ones will inspire you since I don't know you that well but I can say that I've found meaning in a lot of the Gospel stories myself, especially when I looked beyond what is written literally (the Prodigal Son story tells you not to place yourself on a pedestal, for example, even though it's really about the Pharisees).

As for the stories about God- well, let's not forget, we're just talking about how the ahistorical existence of Jesus would change things- the existence of God doesn't come into the equation, since God's existence doesn't hinge on Jesus' historical existence (I note "historical" because I want to differentiate from a physical person to simply a figure used in a story). Anyway, even if God were proven not to exist, the stories about God could still be reinterpreted in other ways- the story of the Mushroomseed was meant to be about the Kingdom of Heaven, but it can also be about how even the little of acts can be a huge difference (since the seed is the smallest in the plant family but grows into an immense bush, a concept that could be taken to "give $7 to an Indian family because that will allow them to buy a cow). We'd have to get creative in some areas but there's nothing that couldn't be ultimately rectified.

As an aside, it's possible Jesus could exist as a metaphor for how a writer felt God would act if He came down to Earth. The ancient Greek writers commonly had their gods come down to Earth and mingle among the locals, and the New Testament stories could be an extension of that literary device. In that angle, the readers just confused a device (maybe because they were not used to it- remember, this was an entirely different culture than the ones that would actively read Greek epics) for history.


sure the idea of god contained in the NT is interesting. its far more .... satisfying?...than the stories of the greek/roman gods who jerk people around for their own sleazy motives.

and much if it can indeed help you to reorient your relationship to other people and help you understand that cooperation and respect works far better than treating other people like inanimate objects to be dealt with in whatever way you choose at the time.

not that there is a lot of that in the NT but there is some. most of it is about our relationship with god.

and you have to tone down the suggestions to make them fit real life.

but if jesus didnt even exist and has been made up by person or persons unknown, why would one take the bible as the word of god that must be taken into consideration in its entirety and given complete priority over the other theologies of the world?

why would the revelation of an unknown person that has been made into the story of a messiah be more important to me than the revelation of buddha or the revelation of the Guru Nanak Dev, the teaching of the tao masters, or the theology of anyone else who decides to make one up?




I'm not sure what you mean by that, since I don't see you doing what Balderdash71964 did.

I'm happy we've passed into the Top 10, so if this is the last I broach the topic with you Ashmoria, I want to say it was nice discussion. :)

i was annoyed that i wasnt getting the kind of posts back that i needed to keep the idea going long enough to get to our goal. baldy was content to post the same ideas over and over again. i was pretty much done after the first 2 posts i made. im not the kind of person who desires to defend an idea that i was putting out there to keep the discussion going. (im not actually the kind of person who continues after i know that the other posters understand my point.)

this was a good discussion for the most part. your input was excellent. im going to miss this thread once its over.

sure the idea of god contained in the NT is interesting. its far more .... satisfying?...than the stories of the greek/roman gods who jerk people around for their own sleazy motives.

and much if it can indeed help you to reorient your relationship to other people and help you understand that cooperation and respect works far better than treating other people like inanimate objects to be dealt with in whatever way you choose at the time.

not that there is a lot of that in the NT but there is some. most of it is about our relationship with god.

and you have to tone down the suggestions to make them fit real life.

but if jesus didnt even exist and has been made up by person or persons unknown, why would one take the bible as the word of god that must be taken into consideration in its entirety and given complete priority over the other theologies of the world?

why would the revelation of an unknown person that has been made into the story of a messiah be more important to me than the revelation of buddha or the revelation of the Guru Nanak Dev, the teaching of the tao masters, or the theology of anyone else who decides to make one up?

My supposition about why Christianity worked is because the story is just more...positive than the other stories the locals were used to hearing. The Greek gods were elitist, frolicking at Olympus not caring about the travails of the humans below (often messing with them when they had the chance), we all know about Yahweh's fire-and-brimstone, "tough love" approach, some of the practices Phoenician gods (still probably known in Judea) including the burning of infants and the Assyrian gods (also still probably known in Judea) always seemed to need satisfaction. So when the story of Jesus came around saying "it's more important what you do than what you say", "do not judge others", "it's better to forgive than to hate", etc. it caught on like wildfire. I mean, here was a God who was nice. Not only that, but promises of a better life in the afterworld were certainly appealing for a people whose Earthly life was miserable and got worse in the 3rd century.

I don't know how it would work now, but I'm certain that if Jesus is ever proven to be non-existent historically, once the hoopla dies down people are going to realize that the New Testament still has some value, even if their original interpretations need changing.

i was annoyed that i wasnt getting the kind of posts back that i needed to keep the idea going long enough to get to our goal. baldy was content to post the same ideas over and over again. i was pretty much done after the first 2 posts i made. im not the kind of person who desires to defend an idea that i was putting out there to keep the discussion going. (im not actually the kind of person who continues after i know that the other posters understand my point.)

this was a good discussion for the most part. your input was excellent. im going to miss this thread once its over.

I see- I didn't see that at all, it was more "the bouncing off of ideas". I thought our discussion went pretty well since we explored several different angles. I was disappointed it didn't inspire others to join in, but I guess that just shows existence is more of an incendiary topic than religious meaning, since existence- so it is held- strikes at the very core of the "validity" of religion.

As for Baldy- I think he actually thought he was posting new arguments without actually realizing he was simply rewording what he had said before. I did admire his zeal even if his arguments weren't that good. He deserves some credit (at least) for giving this thread some life.

Finally, this thread isn't finished...in fact, I don't know if it ever can be (unless it gets actually locked). Still, this has been a great run, and I have to wonder once this thread does actually fall by the wayside how the next thread will fare, because I'm certain this upcoming Christmas, we're going to be at it again. I guarantee it.

:cool:

I have no idea what you're asking, and you have long ago used up any patience I have with you. if you want something explained to you, you can ask me clearly.Yeah, I figure that you don't understand simple things. After all, you claim to have had experiences of the supernatural kind. What I ask you for is verification. What's the source of your "revelation" ?

Yeah, I figure that you don't understand simple things.

It's when you make insulting and idiotic statements like this that you wear my patience thin.

After all, you claim to have had experiences of the supernatural kind. What I ask you for is verification. What's the source of your "revelation" ?

I claimed to have revelations. I made no claim as to their supernatural aspect. if you believe such things to be of a supernatural nature, be my guest. That's your belief, not mine.

Now, if you are asking for a method of independently verifying that I had a revelation of any sort, you are out of luck. If you believe that I had some sort of episode, are you asking for verification that it was spiritual in nature? Are you asking how I verified this to myself, or are you asking me if it possible to verify this to someone else?

Like I said, you are being unclear. And I do not have the patience to bother figuring out what you are asking.

Now, let's get to the point of your post.

There's two different questions I want to look at. One: Why would I think I had a divine revelation? and two: Why would you think I had a divine revelation.



And these paragraphs are a good summation as to why you would force yourself to choose Dyakovo's belief if you had to choose one.

Thank you (although I'm not keen on the word 'force').

This touches on why I think my revelation was not some mental aberration on my part. It starts with a question. How do you know you're awake right now? How do you know you're not still dreaming? There must be some way for you to tell the difference. It implies that there is some set of criteria that you can compare your sensory input to in order to determine if you are experiencing consensual reality. Rather than type for pages and pages, I will simply say that my experiences fit closer to the criteria of reality than they did to the criteria of hallucination, dreams, drug induced visions, etc.

Could you be a little more precise: what exactly did you experience? A voice? A feeling? A vision?

This is why Occam's razor works for you but not for me. You cannot compare the experience to the criteria, and therefore the three hypotheses you outlined are equal in your perspective. I can make that comparison, so I can judge that the three hypotheses do not explain the phenomena equally. After all, Occam's razor only works if the theories being compared all describe the phenomena equally well.

As I said, they're not equal from my perspective: I know for a fact that two of them are capable of explaining the evidence that I've seen, the third one is speculative. It's rather like seeing a floating balloon and thinking "That balloon could be flying because it's filled with a lighter-than-air gas, or it could be being carried by air currents, or it could be being held aloft by invisible fairies". I pride myself on being open-minded, so I won't rule our the possibility of fairies in principle, but I won't consider them to be a viable explanation until I've seen some evidence for them.

Finally, this thread isn't finished...in fact, I don't know if it ever can be (unless it gets actually locked). Still, this has been a great run, and I have to wonder once this thread does actually fall by the wayside how the next thread will fare, because I'm certain this upcoming Christmas, we're going to be at it again. I guarantee it.

:cool:

surely there was more than a year between the last "did jesus exist" thread and this one. the topic kinda needs to sink in for those who participated and to have a bunch of new people who will have never considered the idea before.

personally i am up for this discussion no matter when it comes back. the sheer uncertainty of it intrigues me.

Yeah, I figure that you don't understand simple things. After all, you claim to have had experiences of the supernatural kind. What I ask you for is verification. What's the source of your "revelation" ?

You're talking about something that happened internally. You might as well ask me to prove I believe shredded cheese is a better toping than shredded carrots on a salad.

He didn't asked you to accept his revelation as truth, only to accept that such things are possible, which is the only scientific position.

Thank you (although I'm not keen on the word 'force').

I just meant to imply that you didn't have to choose one. You could take a somewhat more agnostic position.

Could you be a little more precise: what exactly did you experience? A voice? A feeling? A vision?

The closest you could describe it would be an expanded awareness accompanied by a feeling of unity or selflessness. A sense of rapture and beauty. All things that are, are light.

As I said, they're not equal from my perspective: I know for a fact that two of them are capable of explaining the evidence that I've seen, the third one is speculative. It's rather like seeing a floating balloon and thinking "That balloon could be flying because it's filled with a lighter-than-air gas, or it could be being carried by air currents, or it could be being held aloft by invisible fairies". I pride myself on being open-minded, so I won't rule our the possibility of fairies in principle, but I won't consider them to be a viable explanation until I've seen some evidence for them.

Yes, exactly. But as I said, Occam's razor only works if that's the only difference between all the theories. From your perspective, that is the only difference. From my perspective, it is not.

I just meant to imply that you didn't have to choose one. You could take a somewhat more agnostic position.



The closest you could describe it would be an expanded awareness accompanied by a feeling of unity or selflessness. A sense of rapture and beauty. All things that are, are light.



Yes, exactly. But as I said, Occam's razor only works if that's the only difference between all the theories. From your perspective, that is the only difference. From my perspective, it is not.

Of course it's not from your perspective. You believe you have evidence. However, he's right. The first two possiblities are evidenced and the third isn't. It's like claiming that creation is an equal explanation to the Big Bang. It isn't. That's a fact. Your claim of a revelation, while possible, simply has less founding than the other two explanations. As such, it would be unscientific to accept your explanation.

surely there was more than a year between the last "did jesus exist" thread and this one. the topic kinda needs to sink in for those who participated and to have a bunch of new people who will have never considered the idea before.

personally i am up for this discussion no matter when it comes back. the sheer uncertainty of it intrigues me.

You're right...it's been over a year. My memory has been playing tricks with me...these were the last two times it's been discussed (that I participated in, anyway):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462290 (January '06)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454789 (November '05)

The first one was the result of a news story, so I don't "count it" as much I do with the other one since that also originated right from the poster. The second one on the list was in late November (Christmas season) and this thread appeared in Christmas season as well...so, keeping with the trends, maybe in Christmas of '09 we'll be back at it again. I still think, with the growing amount of users, Christmas of '08 will be the time this thread will re-surface; and chances are I'll be back at it too because religion has always intrigued me.

surely there was more than a year between the last "did jesus exist" thread and this one. the topic kinda needs to sink in for those who participated and to have a bunch of new people who will have never considered the idea before.

personally i am up for this discussion no matter when it comes back. the sheer uncertainty of it intrigues me.and isn't it funny how some folks build their lives upon one option of this uncertainty? aren't they complete fools?

Just for curiosity's sake, since you're going to be coming back to it again -- will those of you who've stuck to it right through be coming back to it from a different angle, as a result of this discussion? I mean, has this expanded, contracted or in other ways affected your outlook, knowledge, whatever?

I don't mean "brought on any burning revelations" difference, but just, say, opened up some new areas of speculation? Curiosity? Research?

I've been lurking throughout -- rather like those people who can't resist glancing at building sites every day or so -- and it's sent me haring off a fair bit to look stuff up, which is something I like doing.

It's cheered me up, too, to see how drive-by evangelists have come and gone, leaving no mark.

So that's what I've got from it. What about you?

and isn't it funny how some folks build their lives upon one option of this uncertainty? aren't they complete fools?

Once again, the irony abounds.

Did Enkidu?

He makes my heart sing.

Just for curiosity's sake, since you're going to be coming back to it again -- will those of you who've stuck to it right through be coming back to it from a different angle, as a result of this discussion? I mean, has this expanded, contracted or in other ways affected your outlook, knowledge, whatever?

I don't mean "brought on any burning revelations" difference, but just, say, opened up some new areas of speculation? Curiosity? Research?

I've been lurking throughout -- rather like those people who can't resist glancing at building sites every day or so -- and it's sent me haring off a fair bit to look stuff up, which is something I like doing.

It's cheered me up, too, to see how drive-by evangelists have come and gone, leaving no mark.

So that's what I've got from it. What about you?

I learned a lot from this discussion actually. At one point someone commented on what happened to Jocabia and Jocabia was doing much like what you were doing. I only spoke up when something really bothered me. Otherwise, I was content to watch what RomeW, Ash and a couple other had to say because their approach, and specifically their beliefs, are so different than my own.

I'd argue we haven't beaten this subject to death, however. Unfortunately, some of us have haranged people who have tried to join in for not catching up on the previous pages, but really it's gotten to large to do that. I think there is so much to discuss here and we've only barely tapped some of those subjects. I think it's still unclear what would be positive and negative proof, even though we have someone calling people "complete fools" for choosing a side. It's still unclear what the effect would be and why it would be as a result of clear-cut proof one way or the other. I think speculative origins is a really interesting thing to bring up as a way to explore the latter question. We cracked that subject open, looked at the gooey insides and then pretty much stalled on really exploring it.

I would love to see us keep going and just link back to source found earlier in the thread as necessary. On the two subjects I mentioned alone I think there is so much to explore, but we'd need someone to show up willing to take on the protaganist role.

and isn't it funny how some folks build their lives upon one option of this uncertainty? aren't they complete fools?

no i dont think they are. people have always been religious. its not foolish to do what people do which is to believe.

i find that most believers have a pretty straightforward and rational religious belief. they dont let it contradict the obvious truths of the world. they dont force it on others or look down on others for not believing the same way. they use it as a source of comfort, morality, and perspective.

there is nothing foolish in that.

and isn't it funny how some folks build their lives upon one option of this uncertainty? aren't they complete fools?

Well people are strange. In fact there are some people that tell me that they have no faith based beliefs at all!

Madness I tell's ya.

Just for curiosity's sake, since you're going to be coming back to it again -- will those of you who've stuck to it right through be coming back to it from a different angle, as a result of this discussion? I mean, has this expanded, contracted or in other ways affected your outlook, knowledge, whatever?

I don't mean "brought on any burning revelations" difference, but just, say, opened up some new areas of speculation? Curiosity? Research?

I've been lurking throughout -- rather like those people who can't resist glancing at building sites every day or so -- and it's sent me haring off a fair bit to look stuff up, which is something I like doing.

It's cheered me up, too, to see how drive-by evangelists have come and gone, leaving no mark.

So that's what I've got from it. What about you?

i kinda like the drive by evangelists coming in for a moment to defend their faith. i do wonder if they ever read the responses they get and if so why they didnt respond back. maybe they tried looking up the supposed hundreds of contemporary references to jesus and when they didnt find them decided to leave well enough alone.

the first "did jesus exist" thread completely changed my views on the origins of christianity. as i said somewhere in this thread the nutty jesus who thought he was god (or the non nutty jesus who got turned into god by his friends) disturbs me. i find it much more understandable that it all got made up somewhere along the line without the need for some guy to think that he was the messiah.

i find the whole ancient world and its religious evolution fascinating now. i wish we (and i) knew more about exactly what was believed and how that changed over time.

i have 2 areas that i want to look into more. the flood of eastern religions into the greek world as a result of alexanders conquest of the east and the impact of the eruption of vesuvius that destroyed pompeii in 79ad.

i kinda like the drive by evangelists coming in for a moment to defend their faith.

Why ? They cause an unfair prejudice against the people that are in fact willing to seriously debate in favour of their beliefs.
I wish we knew where they came from so we could spam their forums. But I assume the mods dislike divulging such information (assuming they can see the reference link).

Why ? They cause an unfair prejudice against the people that are in fact willing to seriously debate in favour of their beliefs.
I wish we knew where they came from so we could spam their forums. But I assume the mods dislike divulging such information (assuming they can see the reference link).

i suppose its because, like with everyone else, ive built up a mental image of what these posters are.

in my mind they are serious christians who want to defend their faith against such the obviously spurious attack contained in the title--how could anyone question the existence of jesus?--and then when they get in, they find themselves way over their heads and flee. or they are people wanting to get their feet wet in posting on this site and think that this is an easy place to start then, again, they find that they are in way over their heads.

i suppose its because, like with everyone else, ive built up a mental image of what these posters are.

in my mind they are serious christians who want to defend their faith against such the obviously spurious attack contained in the title--how could anyone question the existence of jesus?--and then when they get in, they find themselves way over their heads and flee. or they are people wanting to get their feet wet in posting on this site and think that this is an easy place to start then, again, they find that they are in way over their heads.

I think that's a pretty accurate assessment. That's why it's unfortunate that so many people find so much joy in attacking and destroying such easy targets. We don't need hecklers. We should give them honest and fair responses and hope they manage to figure out a way to convey and support their beliefs. The site overall will be much for fun as a result.

Of course it's not from your perspective.

But I hope you understand why Occam's razor works from his or her perspective and not mine.

You believe you have evidence.

That would depend on what you mean by 'evidence'. I have my memories of what I witnessed. I doubt very much that qualifies as evidence in any sense, except to me.

However, he's right. The first two possiblities are evidenced and the third isn't. It's like claiming that creation is an equal explanation to the Big Bang. It isn't. That's a fact. Your claim of a revelation, while possible, simply has less founding than the other two explanations. As such, it would be unscientific to accept your explanation.

Okay. I will explain it for the third and last time. Becuase I was witness to the experience, I can attest to myself different things. You, on the other hand, would simply have to take my word for it. So, for all of you, it would be more 'scientific' to believe that I am deluded or a liar, as these theories do not require any additional factors.

Because I am able to compare my revelations to normal reality and other states (i.e. dreams), I have access to more data. My theories have to be able to explain this data. The three theories presented do not equally explain the data that I have.

This is one of the reasons that science is not the best tool for understanding spiritual experiences. It is not data that can be shared, falsified or repeated.

But I hope you understand why Occam's razor works from his or her perspective and not mine.

Occam's Razor as he was applying it was giving him reason for regarding your claim in the way he said. As such his regard for your claim is not based on faith as you said it was. You're missing the point. You think this is about how you should regard it. You said his regard required more faith than yours. Regardless of whether you're the witness or not, witness accounts are notoriously unreliable even for things we know are possible.


That would depend on what you mean by 'evidence'. I have my memories of what I witnessed. I doubt very much that qualifies as evidence in any sense, except to me.

Yes, that's my point.

Okay. I will explain it for the third and last time. Becuase I was witness to the experience, I can attest to myself different things. You, on the other hand, would simply have to take my word for it. So, for all of you, it would be more 'scientific' to believe that I am deluded or a liar, as these theories do not require any additional factors.

Yet, you said it was a faithful act to draw such a conclusion earlier. Or was that someone else?

Because I am able to compare my revelations to normal reality and other states (i.e. dreams), I have access to more data. My theories have to be able to explain this data. The three theories presented do not equally explain the data that I have.

This is one of the reasons that science is not the best tool for understanding spiritual experiences. It is not data that can be shared, falsified or repeated.

I agree with that. It's also why it's not a leap of faith to look at your experiences as a mistake or delusion. It's a fine line, however, since we can dismiss them as unevidenced, but not as impossible.

I was alluding to Dyakovo's position that he dismisses all claims of revelation as mental illness without any evidence. To believe such a claim without proof requires a certain amount of faith. My position is based solely on my personal experiences, which are not faith based. Therefore, Dy's position requires more faith than mine.

Hmmm... I was right, you did say that.

Hmmm... I was right, you did say that.

Yes. I was talking about his assumption that all people who claim to have revelations were suffering from mental illness. That requires more faith than my position that these revelations may be mental illness or may be some other possibility, including divine revelation.

To assume a cause for revelations without any evidence speaks of faith.

Yes. I was talking about his assumption that all people who claim to have revelations were suffering from mental illness. That requires more faith than my position that these revelations may be mental illness or may be some other possibility, including divine revelation.

To assume a cause for revelations without any evidence speaks of faith.

We do have evidence and Occam's Razor properly applied, both of which you've admitted. If I look at an apple falling from a tree and I claim it's path is guided by gravity rather than fairies, it's not a leap of faith, no matter how badly you want it to be. Given that some explanations are evidence and yours isn't, yours will never have any credence until it has evidence. Why is it so important to you to accept this?

Yes. I was talking about his assumption that all people who claim to have revelations were suffering from mental illness. That requires more faith than my position that these revelations may be mental illness or may be some other possibility, including divine revelation.

To assume a cause for revelations without any evidence speaks of faith.

it is wrong to assume mental illness. sure some people who claim revelations are certifiably crazy but most have just had an inexplicable incident.

^ For the record, this isn't to say that such things are impossible, just ignored. When explaining something scientifically, unevidenced positions simply aren't going to be considered so any conclusion is going to skip over them. It does not speak to the Truth of your claims actually, only that your claims DO require faith since your only evidence would be equal to a person who saw Elvis murder Kennedy in a vision.

We do have evidence and Occam's Razor properly applied, both of which you've admitted. If I look at an apple falling from a tree and I claim it's path is guided by gravity rather than fairies, it's not a leap of faith, no matter how badly you want it to be. Given that some explanations are evidence and yours isn't, yours will never have any credence until it has evidence. Why is it so important to you to accept this?

I think we are talking at cross purposes here.

You seem to believe that I want you to accept some sort of faith based position as equal to some sort of scientific truth. I do not.

I am simply trying to make it clear that I have no faith, no belief about the spiritual at all. I have my experiences and some tentative hypotheses. I make no assumptions, I question everything.

So, if someone who I believe to be an atheist makes a claim about spirituality without any evidence, I think I can safely find it amusing that they show more faith than I, a theist.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here.

You seem to believe that I want you to accept some sort of faith based position as equal to some sort of scientific truth. I do not.

I am simply trying to make it clear that I have no faith, no belief about the spiritual at all. I have my experiences and some tentative hypotheses. I make no assumptions, I question everything.

So, if someone who I believe to be an atheist makes a claim about spirituality without any evidence, I think I can safely find it amusing that they show more faith than I, a theist.

so you have had some kind of spiritual experience that defies rational explanation. you do not consider it to be "from god" so its not a divine revelation (or maybe you dont consider it to be ABOUT god?) but it is definitely spiritual in nature.

you do not make any claim about this experience except that you had it.

does this sum up what you are saying?

so you have had some kind of spiritual experience that defies rational explanation. you do not consider it to be "from god" so its not a divine revelation (or maybe you dont consider it to be ABOUT god?) but it is definitely spiritual in nature.

you do not make any claim about this experience except that you had it.

does this sum up what you are saying?

Almost. It may be "from god", but if it is, god is quite different from what the majority of people believe. The rest is pretty much correct.

Almost. It may be "from god", but if it is, god is quite different from what the majority of people believe. The rest is pretty much correct.

i am an atheist but as our agnostic brothers remind us, we cannot know the totality of god. so any impression that anyone has is to some extent incorrect. the "old man with a long white beard sitting on a throne in the clouds" god is particularly wrong.

or as our taoist brothers say "the tao that can be known is not the real tao".

I think we are talking at cross purposes here.

You seem to believe that I want you to accept some sort of faith based position as equal to some sort of scientific truth. I do not.

I am simply trying to make it clear that I have no faith, no belief about the spiritual at all. I have my experiences and some tentative hypotheses. I make no assumptions, I question everything.

So, if someone who I believe to be an atheist makes a claim about spirituality without any evidence, I think I can safely find it amusing that they show more faith than I, a theist.

And there is where your problem lies. He didn't make a claim about spirituality. You claimed to have had a revelation, an actual real-world event, not just a belief, and he said that if you believe that you had a revelation that was in any way supernatural that you are deluded. And according to all known evidence, he's correct, which makes it a completely faithless supposition.

By the way, you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. We're talking about spiritual revelations. You cannot claim you have no belief about the spiritual at all and claim you've had revelations in the way we're using the word. You're not talking about a revalation that chocolate is the best substance on the planet and if you are, you've completely lost the context of the discussion WE were having when you said you'd had revelations.

And there is where your problem lies. He didn't make a claim about spirituality. You claimed to have had a revelation, an actual real-world event, not just a belief, and he said that if you believe that you had a revelation that was in any way supernatural that you are deluded. And according to all known evidence, he's correct, which makes it a completely faithless supposition.

I see where the confusion lies.

You are conflating two different things.

My reply to Dyakovo's post is the same regardless of our spiritual beliefs. He makes a claim based on an assumption. I choose not to make a claim at all.

That is a completely separate tangent from my tangent about my own revelations. It is completely possible that you may have thought that these two were related.

One of these situations has me and Dy comparing claims about revelations in general. The other has me and several others discussing how Occam's razor relates to my revelations.

By the way, you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. We're talking about spiritual revelations. You cannot claim you have no belief about the spiritual at all and claim you've had revelations in the way we're using the word. You're not talking about a revalation that chocolate is the best substance on the planet and if you are, you've completely lost the context of the discussion WE were having when you said you'd had revelations.

You speak as if I am arguing something. I am not. I am attempting to explain my spiritual position and experiences. I am not arguing that you believe me. So why would I equivocate?

I see where the confusion lies.

You are conflating two different things.

Your inability to use context is not my issue. It's ridiculous to claim that a general statement about revelations doesn't apply to your claims about revelations and that Occam's Razor doesn't equally apply to both.

Does everyone have to post twice in order for you to recognize the relationship? How absurd.

My reply to Dyakovo's post is the same regardless of our spiritual beliefs. He makes a claim based on an assumption. I choose not to make a claim at all.

BS. You are making a claim. That you had a revelation. He assumes, and I'm sure you'd say rightfully, that you're telling the truth. In that case, the only two scientific, non-faithful, choices are that you're wrong or delusional.

That is a completely separate tangent from my tangent about my own revelations. It is completely possible that you may have thought that these two were related.

They are related. You specifically entered your revelations into evidence and when he reacted to them claimed his assumptions were faith-based. Seriously, do I have to go back and quote this whole thread of conversation, because I just reread it and you most certainly were arguing about both together and so was he.

How could anyone possibly claim that a description of your personal revelations is a "completely seperate tangent" from a statement made about ALL revelations. Is saying that ALL Republicans are fascists and also, by the same thinking, that Bush is a fascist completely seperate? Particularly when it's the same person saying both? Only if you slam your head into the desk enough. What kind of person WOULDN'T relate those two statements? It's perfectly rational to relate them.

One of these situations has me and Dy comparing claims about revelations in general. The other has me and several others discussing how Occam's razor relates to my revelations.

So? Occam's Razor applies to both your revelations and revelations in general. You can't act like his statements are faith-based when they aren't simply because you don't want to apply the arguments across the board. Occam's Razor shows that no faith is required for his particular conclusion.

You speak as if I am arguing something. I am not. I am attempting to explain my spiritual position and experiences. I am not arguing that you believe me. So why would I equivocate?

Again, that's a load. You are claiming you've had revelations. That's a claim. And you're claiming that saying that revelations are either misunderstandings or delusions requires a leap of faith. Both of these are positive claims and both of them have been addressed by the application of Occam's Razor.

You can't claim you had a revelation and then say you're not taking a spiritual position without either equivocating about the use of the word revelation or not understanding what it means to take a position.

Your inability to use context is not my issue. It's ridiculous to claim that a general statement about revelations doesn't apply to your claims about revelations and that Occam's Razor doesn't equally apply to both.

Good thing I didn't claim that. Let me make it clear, again. There is no reason why you should believe me. The proper scientific standpoint for all of you, when I say I had a revelation, is to assume that I am delusional or a liar. Are we all clear on that? Are you absolutely clear that I am not arguing otherwise, Jocabia?

Does everyone have to post twice in order for you to recognize the relationship? How absurd.

Yet I have to continue to point out that I am not debating with you, yet you continue to insist I am. That's fine.

BS. You are making a claim. That you had a revelation. He assumes, and I'm sure you'd say rightfully, that you're telling the truth. In that case, the only two scientific, non-faithful, choices are that you're wrong or delusional.

I am not trying to convince you that I had a revelation or that it was divine. I am explaining what happened and why I take the position I do concerning my revelations. You are free to believe me, or not. I don't care. if you decide to believe me, then you are correct: for him and you, yes. Those are the only two scientific, non-faithful, choices of the three we have discussed.

They are related. You specifically entered your revelations into evidence and when he reacted to them claimed his assumptions were faith-based. Seriously, do I have to go back and quote this whole thread of conversation, because I just reread it and you most certainly were arguing about both together and so was he.

They weren't related in my head. This is what caused the confusion in the first place. You thought they were related. I didn't. So we were discussing two different things.

How could anyone possibly claim that a description of your personal revelations is a "completely seperate tangent" from a statement made about ALL revelations. Is saying that ALL Republicans are fascists and also, by the same thinking, that Bush is a fascist completely seperate? Particularly when it's the same person saying both? Only if you slam your head into the desk enough. What kind of person WOULDN'T relate those two statements? It's perfectly rational to relate them.

See above.

So? Occam's Razor applies to both your revelations and revelations in general.

To you, yes. To me, no. Because I have data that you do not. Occam's razor only works when the theories all explain the data equally well. That is one of the limitations of using the scientific method for looking at these phenomena. I experienced data that can not be shared, reproduced or falsified.

You can't act like his statements are faith-based when they aren't simply because you don't want to apply the arguments across the board.

Good thing I'm not doing that.

Occam's Razor shows that no faith is required for his particular conclusion.

Which one? There several conclusions thrown into the conversation by now and it's obvious that one or both of us has got something confused somewhere.

Again, that's a load. You are claiming you've had revelations. That's a claim. And you're claiming that saying that revelations are either misunderstandings or delusions requires a leap of faith. Both of these are positive claims and both of them have been addressed by the application of Occam's Razor.

Tell you what, Jocabia, you win. Whatever it is we are supposedly arguing about, you have soundly defeated me in debate. Now, can we stop the thing where you tell me what I'm claiming?

You can't claim you had a revelation and then say you're not taking a spiritual position without either equivocating about the use of the word revelation or not understanding what it means to take a position.

I do have a position. I don't have beliefs. Different things. Agnosticism is an example of having a position without holding a belief.

Good thing I didn't claim that. Let me make it clear, again. There is no reason why you should believe me. The proper scientific standpoint for all of you, when I say I had a revelation, is to assume that I am delusional or a liar. Are we all clear on that? Are you absolutely clear that I am not arguing otherwise, Jocabia?

Let's just take this a step at a time, then. What were you claiming the leap of faith by Dya was?

By they by, there is a third option - that you're wrong. I would discount the liar part since I've seen you around enough to have evidence against that theory.

Let's just take this a step at a time, then. What were you claiming the leap of faith by Dya was?

By they by, there is a third option - that you're wrong. I would discount the liar part since I've seen you around enough to have evidence against that theory.

When he decided that all people who claimed to have had revelations were mentally unstable. This seems to assume something for which there is no evidence. To formulate a belief like that, with no evidence, can be seen as an example of faith.

I compared this to my agnostic position on revelations in general: that it is impossible to know, due to the limits of the scientific method.

So I made a joke about how he had more faith than me.

When he decided that all people who claimed to have had revelations were mentally unstable. This seems to assume something for which there is no evidence. To formulate a belief like that, with no evidence, can be seen as an example of faith.

I compared this to my agnostic position on revelations in general: that it is impossible to know, due to the limits of the scientific method.

So I made a joke about how he had more faith than me.

He does have evidence. That's the point. Why would he be able to make such a conclusion about individuals without any more specific information but not about the general population. I happen to agree with you in principle about revelations, however, it's a perfectly rational position to assume revelations are not what they claim to be until some supportive evidence appears. For example, many people would claim that the light at the end of the tunnel is something they personally experienced and, by fact, they did. And, by fact, it was a delusion with a scientific cause. That's not assuming something with no evidence. That's assuming the only thing that does have evidence. You see?

When he decided that all people who claimed to have had revelations were mentally unstable. This seems to assume something for which there is no evidence. To formulate a belief like that, with no evidence, can be seen as an example of faith.

I compared this to my agnostic position on revelations in general: that it is impossible to know, due to the limits of the scientific method.

So I made a joke about how he had more faith than me.

i wouldnt consider that faith. i would consider it prejudice.

i wouldnt consider that faith. i would consider it prejudice.

exactly

He does have evidence. <SNIP>What evidence is this?

Umm, yeah, what evidence do I have? In my statement I was making an assumption based upon G-o-G's (to use you as an example) lack of presentable evidence.

He does have evidence. That's the point. Why would he be able to make such a conclusion about individuals without any more specific information but not about the general population. I happen to agree with you in principle about revelations, however, it's a perfectly rational position to assume revelations are not what they claim to be until some supportive evidence appears. For example, many people would claim that the light at the end of the tunnel is something they personally experienced and, by fact, they did. And, by fact, it was a delusion with a scientific cause. That's not assuming something with no evidence. That's assuming the only thing that does have evidence. You see?

What evidence is this?

exactly

thats why i like you. a "lesser" person might have dismissed that post as a personal attack.

thats why i like you. a "lesser" person might have dismissed that post as a personal attack.

bah, even if it was, it's accurate :D

bah, even if it was, it's accurate :D

it wasnt an insult because i dont really remember your post. i was just going by what the other 2 guys were saying.

it wasnt an insult because i dont really remember your post. i was just going by what the other 2 guys were saying.

Didn't think it was, simply stating my attitude about it

Also, here it is in context

It doesn't take any trust to listen to someone blather on about some schizoid episode ;)Nonono.. that's not the point... you wouldn't assume they were LYING about their revelation... you'd assume they were giving you a fairly faithful rendition of their episode, even if you suspected it was a psychological episode, rather than a miraculous one... no?Yes and no

My thought would be that they were making it up, the reasons for which would be mental illness

Didn't think it was, simply stating my attitude about it

Also, here it is in context

thanks.

you were incomplete in your analysis eh? there are people who have these experiences and are not insane, its just an episode that doesnt require any illness.

and then there are the psycho liars who are not mentally ill but annoying enough that they should be.

We do have evidence and Occam's Razor properly applied, both of which you've admitted. If I look at an apple falling from a tree and I claim it's path is guided by gravity rather than fairies, it's not a leap of faith, no matter how badly you want it to be. Given that some explanations are evidence and yours isn't, yours will never have any credence until it has evidence. Why is it so important to you to accept this?

Evidence never proved anything. One can just as easily say that the physical world doesn't exist. In terms of clear evidence, I've never heard a really convincing argument that Jesus didn't exist. Really, we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus in terms of sheer textual and historical proof than we have for the existence of Socrates (24,000 manuscripts in basic agreement and that's just the New Testament).

If Jesus didn't exist, then why didn't the enemies of the Christians (the Pharisees, the Romans, etc) make the information known? Where's the documentation. In fact, all the evidence that we have points to the existence of Jesus. Can you prove that he didn't exist.

Why all the controversy over Jesus? There's plenty of evidence that Shakespeare didn't exist and yet apart from a few geeks, no one debates his existence much.

Forgive what seems like "drive-by evangelism" but I've been watching this thread for a few weeks. The G. K. Chesterton in me is starting to act up.

Evidence never proved anything. One can just as easily say that the physical world doesn't exist. In terms of clear evidence, I've never heard a really convincing argument that Jesus didn't exist. Really, we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus in terms of sheer textual and historical proof than we have for the existence of Socrates (24,000 manuscripts in basic agreement and that's just the New Testament).

If Jesus didn't exist, then why didn't the enemies of the Christians (the Pharisees, the Romans, etc) make the information known? Where's the documentation. In fact, all the evidence that we have points to the existence of Jesus. Can you prove that he didn't exist.

Why all the controversy over Jesus? There's plenty of evidence that Shakespeare didn't exist and yet apart from a few geeks, no one debates his existence much.

Forgive what seems like "drive-by evangelism" but I've been watching this thread for a few weeks. The G. K. Chesterton in me is starting to act up.

there are 24,000 manuscripts in the new testament?

does that mean that if i wrote "jesus does not exist" 25,000 times it would outweigh the bible? (if you see what i mean...copying an existing text doesnt make new testimony).

not so many people are invested in the existence of shakespeare. lots of people are very invested in the idea that jesus was exactly as put forth in the new testament.

and there IS no clear evidence that jesus didnt exist. neither is there clear evidence that he DID exist. therein lies the debate eh?

Thanks.

You were incomplete in your analysis eh? there are people who have these experiences and are not insane, its just an episode that doesn't require any illness.

And then there are the psycho liars who are not mentally ill but annoying enough that they should be.

LOL










fixed capitalization and punctuation errors

Evidence never proved anything. One can just as easily say that the physical world doesn't exist. In terms of clear evidence, I've never heard a really convincing argument that Jesus didn't exist. Really, we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus in terms of sheer textual and historical proof than we have for the existence of Socrates (24,000 manuscripts in basic agreement and that's just the New Testament).
You have to admit that the NT is a tad biased, though. And thusly not terribly reliable.
If Jesus didn't exist, then why didn't the enemies of the Christians (the Pharisees, the Romans, etc) make the information known? Where's the documentation. In fact, all the evidence that we have points to the existence of Jesus. Can you prove that he didn't exist.
It's impossible to prove a negative, that does not however then become proof of the 'positive'.
Why all the controversy over Jesus? There's plenty of evidence that Shakespeare didn't exist and yet apart from a few geeks, no one debates his existence much.
Shakespeare is not the central figure of a doctrinally pushy religion, Jesus is.
[/QUOTE]Forgive what seems like "drive-by evangelism" but I've been watching this thread for a few weeks. The G. K. Chesterton in me is starting to act up.[/QUOTE]
As long as you respond its not 'drive-by-evangelism' ;)

The alternate explanations are known to exist and are a reasonable explanation. You have as much evidence for coming to decision he's wrong or lying as you have for the conclusion that gravity makes apples fall rather than fairies. If defaulting to natural explanations is an act of faith, then what isn't?

OK, I'll buy that for a dollar ;)

Umm, yeah, what evidence do I have? In my statement I was making an assumption based upon G-o-G's (to use you as an example) lack of presentable evidence.

The alternate explanations are known to exist and are a reasonable explanation. You have as much evidence for coming to decision he's wrong or lying as you have for the conclusion that gravity makes apples fall rather than fairies. If defaulting to natural explanations is an act of faith, then what isn't?

Evidence never proved anything. One can just as easily say that the physical world doesn't exist.

It doesn't prove, it demonstrates. What value does your claim have? None. And you follow the evidence as well, which is why you're not gonna go step out in front of a car after you read this post. Pseudo-intellectual nonsense is not an argument.

Meanwhile, you've got your rules of evidence wrong. You have to demonstrate he did, rather than us showing there should be doubt. All of your evidence isn't contemporary and there are huge gaps in it. Something that's been robustly demonstrated in this thread. Wanna get started again? No problem. Present your evidence.

Just because you're bad at recognizing the evidence doesn't make it cease to exist, which is why argument from ignorance doesn't work. Thanks for demonstrating that point for me (a throwback to about 100 pages ago).

Hey give me a break here, I'm tired :( ;)


Two timewarps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA) in a row!!

OK, I'll buy that for a dollar ;)

Just because you're bad at recognizing the evidence doesn't make it cease to exist, which is why argument from ignorance doesn't work. Thanks for demonstrating that point for me (a throwback to about 100 pages ago).

And yet you manage to reply to my posts before I make them. Let's get the kid to present his evidence. We could make number 9.

I think that's why I'm responding before :D

And a third timewarp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA) :D

And yet you manage to reply to my posts before I make them. Let's get the kid to present his evidence. We could make number 9.

The Warp is strong with that one.

Edit: *chuckle* and me, apparently.

Hey give me a break here, I'm tired :( ;)

And yet you manage to reply to my posts before I make them. Let's get the kid to present his evidence. We could make number 9.

The Warp is strong with that one.

Edit: *chuckle* and me, apparently.

It's OK, its just because I'm tired (and apparently feeling rather LGish)

You know, there are evidents of that Jesus did exist...

Butt anyways, please don´t talk down to other peoples religions, & expecially don´t try to proof any god to be "rong".

You know, there are evidents of that Jesus did exist...

Butt anyways, please don´t talk down to other peoples religions, & expecially don´t try to proof any god to be "rong".

Lrn2English, n00b.

It's OK, its just because I'm tired (and apparently feeling rather LGish

We only need like 50 to the next position. Then it's like a 2000 post gap.

I belive that jesus didn't exist entirely, cuz there is evidence that he did and didn't. So isn't it possible that he exsisted, just not the way we are told, he was probably a good person helping out the poor, helpless, etc. stuck in the middle of a barbaric world, so hope came to people far away that a "Savior" is on the way

You know, there are evidents of that Jesus did exist...
1. the word you're looking for is evidence
2. provide it

Butt anyways, please don´t talk down to other peoples religions, & expecially don´t try to proof any god to be "rong".

1. it's but
2. the word is especially
3. the proper spelling of the word in this usage is prove
4. the correct spelling is 'wrong'

5. who's 'talking down' to other people's religion
6. who's trying to prove any god wrong?

Where's the evidence that he did exsist, not counting religion and the bible

I belive that jesus didn't exist entirely, cuz there is evidence that he did and didn't. So isn't it possible that he exsisted, just not the way we are told, he was probably a good person helping out the poor, helpless, etc. stuck in the middle of a barbaric world, so hope came to people far away that a "Savior" is on the way

Where is the evidence that he did not exist?

I belive that jesus didn't exist entirely, cuz there is evidence that he did and didn't. So isn't it possible that he exsisted, just not the way we are told, he was probably a good person helping out the poor, helpless, etc. stuck in the middle of a barbaric world, so hope came to people far away that a "Savior" is on the way

yes but how do you get from "nice guy" to "son of god messiah with his own world wide religion"?

All right, think about it for a second, what would you do in a barbaric, chaotic, violent world if you saw a man refusing to fight back? Now if you were a good person, you would think he's some kind of saint, right, now were is the proof that Jesus actually let a blind man see, we can't do that almost 2000 years later, and it says in the bible that God says that with time man will equal then surpass his own powers. So can anyone of you literally make a blind man see, and answer honestly

yes but how do you get from "nice guy" to "son of god messiah with his own world wide religion"?

Yeah, I'd definitely like to hear the answer to that...

Then all I'd have to do is become a nice guy, then follow said steps
:p

There is absolutely no proof outside religion that Jesus existed. How do you prove that Jesus existed without religion, if you have an answer i would love to hear it.

All right, think about it for a second, what would you do in a barbaric, chaotic, violent world if you saw a man refusing to fight back? Now if you were a good person, you would think he's some kind of saint, right, now were is the proof that Jesus actually let a blind man see, we can't do that almost 2000 years later, and it says in the bible that God says that with time man will equal then surpass his own powers. So can anyone of you literally make a blind man see, and answer honestly

Heh. So when did we wait long enough exactly? Was it at 500 years we were supposed to surpass God and when we didn't it proved your claim? Or 1000? Seriously, tell me you have an argument that's not just rhetoric.

LIAR! People that wear glasses aren't not blind they just have bad vision. I know because i wear glasses, plus back when Jesus "was alive" they didn't have glasses. A true blind can't see anything. Can you make a truly blind person see by waving you hand over their face without you holding anything?

All right, think about it for a second, what would you do in a barbaric, chaotic, violent world if you saw a man refusing to fight back? Now if you were a good person, you would think he's some kind of saint, right, now were is the proof that Jesus actually let a blind man see, we can't do that almost 2000 years later, and it says in the bible that God says that with time man will equal then surpass his own powers. So can anyone of you literally make a blind man see, and answer honestly

Yes
ok, no I can't but there is actually technology out (not perfected yet) that can do just that (or its supposed to, I don't remember the details that well right now)

Actually, yes there is... It's just that the evidence is questionable at best, we've gone over a bunch of it already in this thread. I'm not about to wade back through the thread to find it for you though.

Exactly, questionable

Yes
ok, no I can't but there is actually technology out (not perfected yet) that can do just that (or its supposed to, I don't remember the details that well right now)

Well, the whole argument is a bit silly. You could just as easily claim it's proof that he was God.

There is absolutely no proof outside religion that Jesus existed. How do you prove that Jesus existed without religion, if you have an answer i would love to hear it.

Actually, yes there is... It's just that the evidence is questionable at best, we've gone over a bunch of it already in this thread. I'm not about to wade back through the thread to find it for you though.

All right, think about it for a second, what would you do in a barbaric, chaotic, violent world if you saw a man refusing to fight back? Now if you were a good person, you would think he's some kind of saint, right, now were is the proof that Jesus actually let a blind man see, we can't do that almost 2000 years later, and it says in the bible that God says that with time man will equal then surpass his own powers. So can anyone of you literally make a blind man see, and answer honestly

im having trouble sorting out what your point is.

no i dont think that a man not fighting back would be enough to start a major religion around.

what verse are you thinking of that says "and it says in the bible that God says that with time man will equal then surpass his own powers"?

There is absolutely no proof outside religion that Jesus existed. How do you prove that Jesus existed without religion, if you have an answer i would love to hear it.

Did Confucius exist?

Did Socrates exist?

Did Buddha exist?

Did Mohammed exist?

All we know is what their followers told us. If we discount biased sources then we discount history. All history is biased. All that we know about Socrates is what we get from Plato. All that we know about Buddha is what the Bhuddists say. But do we doubt their existence?

As for outside sources, Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, and even the Jewish Talmud, none of whom had any love for Jesus, acknowledged his existence and influence. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Jesus' existence is a "historical fact."

To deny Jesus' existence is to deny the reams of evidence that exist outside the 24,000 manuscript copies that we have of the New Testament (proving that it not only could have been, but probably was written by eyewitnesses: if these were forgeries, then they were the darndest best ones in history).

Due to a debate tournament, I will be away for several days.

Did Confucius exist?

Did Socrates exist?

Did Buddha exist?

Did Mohammed exist?

All we know is what their followers told us. If we discount biased sources then we discount history. All history is biased. All that we know about Socrates is what we get from Plato. All that we know about Buddha is what the Bhuddists say. But do we doubt their existence?

As for outside sources, Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, and even the Jewish Talmud, none of whom had any love for Jesus, acknowledged his existence and influence. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Jesus' existence is a "historical fact."

To deny Jesus' existence is to deny the reams of evidence that exist outside the 24,000 manuscript copies that we have of the New Testament (proving that it not only could have been, but probably was written by eyewitnesses: if these were forgeries, then they were the darndest best ones in history).

Due to a debate tournament, I will be away for several days.

You're joking right? If they were forgeries? You mentioned evidence we KNOW isn't accurate. Evidence discussed at length in this very thread. Do some research on Josephus, for starters.

Did Confucius exist?

Did Socrates exist?

Did Buddha exist?

Did Mohammed exist?

All we know is what their followers told us. If we discount biased sources then we discount history. All history is biased. All that we know about Socrates is what we get from Plato. All that we know about Buddha is what the Bhuddists say. But do we doubt their existence?

yes we do. at least we doubt that they existed exactly as we are told by their followers.



As for outside sources, Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, and even the Jewish Talmud, none of whom had any love for Jesus, acknowledged his existence and influence. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Jesus' existence is a "historical fact."

To deny Jesus' existence is to deny the reams of evidence that exist outside the 24,000 manuscript copies that we have of the New Testament (proving that it not only could have been, but probably was written by eyewitnesses: if these were forgeries, then they were the darndest best ones in history).

Due to a debate tournament, I will be away for several days.

you seem to be very impressed by the number of handwritten copies of the NT. those are all made hundreds of years after the death of jesus. what does the number of them prove except that after a while they got pretty good at making copies?

the bigger question is WHY does the encyclopedia britannica say that jesus' existence is an historical fact? without that, its just an appeal to authority, eh?

when you look at what was actually written by the authors you mentioned, it doesnt add up to the existence of jesus. they are all after-the-fact hearsay evidence that came from unknown sources.

just what "reams of evidence" are you otherwise referring to

Two things:
1) You cannot prove the null hypothesis. It can never be proven that Jesus "did not" exist.

2) There is no such thing as infallible evidence. There is a human element of interpretation in everything- right up to and including DNA analysis- so we will never be able to "prove beyond any doubt" that Jesus existed. That being said, we're a great deal away from the accuracy of DNA evidence when it comes to biblical archeology.

But common sense tells us where there's so much smoke, most likely, there's fire. Enkidu, Agamemnon, Gilgamesh were all written about hundreds of years after their supposed passing. Jesus, on the other hand, was written about by sources that had no contact with one another, and were often his contemporaries. While Josephus certainly exaggerated numbers and recounted dubious events, the major historical figures he wrote about- Marc Antony and Pontius Pilate and the like- certainly existed. And common things happen commonly. People, commonly, are born. Religious figures commonly sprung up and developed followings in this particular region and era. People walking on water is considerably less common than that... but I can never prove the null hypothesis and will leave probability alone, for the sake of this argument.

Um, first of all, you can prove a null hypothesis. Tom Sawyer did not exist. Wanna see me prove it?

Second, puppets? Really? Were we not supposed to realize you're the same poster?

Josephus was reliable. The passage about Jesus is believe to be partially or wholly ignored. It appears more likely that he was simply documenting the beliefs of Christians.

We don't know who wrote the the gospels and they appear to be based on one another. To claim they had not contact or influence is either wrong or outright fraudulant. I'm going to assume you're just wrong.

Two things:
1) You cannot prove the null hypothesis. It can never be proven that Jesus "did not" exist.

2) There is no such thing as infallible evidence. There is a human element of interpretation in everything- right up to and including DNA analysis- so we will never be able to "prove beyond any doubt" that Jesus existed. That being said, we're a great deal away from the accuracy of DNA evidence when it comes to biblical archeology.

But common sense tells us where there's so much smoke, most likely, there's fire. Enkidu, Agamemnon, Gilgamesh were all written about hundreds of years after their supposed passing. Jesus, on the other hand, was written about by sources that had no contact with one another, and were often his contemporaries. While Josephus certainly exaggerated numbers and recounted dubious events, the major historical figures he wrote about- Marc Antony and Pontius Pilate and the like- certainly existed. And common things happen commonly. People, commonly, are born. Religious figures commonly sprung up and developed followings in this particular region and era. People walking on water is considerably less common than that... but I can never prove the null hypothesis and will leave probability alone, for the sake of this argument.

Just for curiosity's sake, since you're going to be coming back to it again -- will those of you who've stuck to it right through be coming back to it from a different angle, as a result of this discussion? I mean, has this expanded, contracted or in other ways affected your outlook, knowledge, whatever?

I don't mean "brought on any burning revelations" difference, but just, say, opened up some new areas of speculation? Curiosity? Research?

I've been lurking throughout -- rather like those people who can't resist glancing at building sites every day or so -- and it's sent me haring off a fair bit to look stuff up, which is something I like doing.

It's cheered me up, too, to see how drive-by evangelists have come and gone, leaving no mark.

So that's what I've got from it. What about you?

I learned the various different angles upon which the Jesus story could be viewed (including how it could be the Christians' "Epic" like Virgil's "Aeneid") and that a historical figure need not to exist for Christianity to have any validity, because a legendary figure can still be inspirational. Those were things I never really thought of before this thread.

Two things:
1) You cannot prove the null hypothesis. It can never be proven that Jesus "did not" exist.
And your point would be?
2) There is no such thing as infallible evidence. There is a human element of interpretation in everything- right up to and including DNA analysis- so we will never be able to "prove beyond any doubt" that Jesus existed. That being said, we're a great deal away from the accuracy of DNA evidence when it comes to biblical archeology.
Again, what exactly is your point?
But common sense tells us where there's so much smoke, most likely, there's fire. Enkidu, Agamemnon, Gilgamesh were all written about hundreds of years after their supposed passing. Jesus, on the other hand, was written about by sources that had no contact with one another, and were often his contemporaries. While Josephus certainly exaggerated numbers and recounted dubious events, the major historical figures he wrote about- Marc Antony and Pontius Pilate and the like- certainly existed. And common things happen commonly. People, commonly, are born. Religious figures commonly sprung up and developed followings in this particular region and era. People walking on water is considerably less common than that... but I can never prove the null hypothesis and will leave probability alone, for the sake of this argument.
So, because of people writing about him possibly hundreds of years after the time of his supposed death we should assume that he was indeed real?

Josephus was reliable. The passage about Jesus is believe to be partially or wholly ignored. It appears more likely that he was simply documenting the beliefs of Christians.

His histories, yes. His passages about Jesus, no. They contain obvious signs of later interpolation and thus Josephus may not have written about Jesus at all. You may have Josephus confused with Tacitus, whose account about Jesus (a single line explaining who "Chrestus", the leader of the Christians, was) at least doesn't ostensibly bear the mark of a forgery, but I don't really buy it. Tacitus writes that Chrestus died at the hands of the procruator Pontius Pilate, which has been argued that he was just recounting what he heard from Christian sources but since Tacitus was meticulous in his research, he was a Senator and his father was a prefect (which would have been Pilate's correct title), I have reason to doubt much of the line about "Chrestus"- not to mention the fact "Chrestus" was a common name (for slaves, I believe) at the time as well.

His histories, yes.You shouldn't go that far.

Did Confucius exist?

Did Socrates exist?

Did Buddha exist?

Did Mohammed exist?

You (and many others who have used this argument) seem to be fixated on the idea that Jesus is the only figure whose historical existence is questioned. He's not- He's merely the most contentious (well, in the Western World, anyway). Off the top of my head, the figures of the Homeric Epics are also questioned, and there are many theories that posit Jack the Ripper wasn't a single man.

Besides, even if Jesus *was* the only person in history to be questioned, it's still a poor argument to say "other characters aren't questioned, so why question Jesus' existence?" Those other characters have no bearing on Jesus' existence since they add no evidence to the case- only evidence relating to Jesus can be used in arguing His historical existence.

you seem to be very impressed by the number of handwritten copies of the NT. those are all made hundreds of years after the death of jesus. what does the number of them prove except that after a while they got pretty good at making copies?

I'm tempted to go the Spam forum and write in big black letters, "Nepal is the capital of Cuba" and post it 25,000 times. Maybe that'll make that statement true. :rolleyes:

You shouldn't go that far.

Care to elaborate? That's the first I've ever heard that the entire Histories of Josephus is unreliable.

I'm tempted to go the Spam forum and write in big black letters, "Nepal is the capital of Cuba" and post it 25,000 times. Maybe that'll make that statement true. :rolleyes:

Of course, and if you do it more times it will be even more true ;)

Of course, and if you do it more times it will be even more true ;)

Really? Scratch the Nepal thing...I want to be a millionaire. I'm going to make that true instead. :p

Care to elaborate? That's the first I've ever heard that the entire Histories of Josephus is unreliable.
I rather meant, it's not all reliable. Josephus sometimes gets carried away putting his own opinion into what he describes. Sometimes he's just like Herodotus.

I rather meant, it's not all reliable. Josephus sometimes gets carried away putting his own opinion into what he describes. Sometimes he's just like Herodotus.

Care to elaborate UB?

Not right now. I am at work, but I have the Histories (actually the complete works) on my desk at home where I have marked passages that I doubt.

OK, If you could when you get the chance, it would be appreciated.

Care to elaborate UB?Not right now. I am at work, but I have the Histories (actually the complete works) on my desk at home where I have marked passages that I doubt.

I rather meant, it's not all reliable. Josephus sometimes gets carried away putting his own opinion into what he describes. Sometimes he's just like Herodotus.

That's different- you're talking about simple exaggeration, which can be picked apart to reveal the hidden truth. What I was referring to is that the passages about Jesus are more than just "exaggerated"- they look so out of place and the writing so uncharacteristic of Josephus that it's very feasible that Josephus never wrote those passages at all.

That's different- you're talking about simple exaggeration, which can be picked apart to reveal the hidden truth. What I was referring to is that the passages about Jesus are more than just "exaggerated"- they look so out of place and the writing so uncharacteristic of Josephus that it's very feasible that Josephus never wrote those passages at all.The "passage" about Jesus consists of 3 sentences that do not really hold any valuable information and certainly no hint to any research that Josephus might have performed. It is obviously just a recount of what he has heard about Jesus.

i would like to meet a guy like jesus who has natural powers. That would be fun, killing your friend and watching him come ressuract
:)

:confused:

i would like to meet a guy like jesus who has natural powers. That would be fun, killing your friend and watching him come ressuract
:)

jesus is real, and the bible IS true, he's not a myth, or even a legend.
He's God's son, brought down here on earth to save us from hell.
and yes, hell is a real place, so is heaven, where jesus wants us to go.

jesus is real, and the bible IS true, he's not a myth, or even a legend.
He's God's son, brought down here on earth to save us from hell.
and yes, hell is a real place, so is heaven, where jesus wants us to go.

As UB said, do you have any proof?

jesus is real, and the bible IS true, he's not a myth, or even a legend.
He's God's son, brought down here on earth to save us from hell.
and yes, hell is a real place, so is heaven, where jesus wants us to go.Go fuck yourself :rolleyes:

... or: prove it.

As UB said, do you have any proof?stop stealing my posts!!! ;)

stop stealing my posts!!! ;)

*steals post #3606 and runs away*

Josephus was unreliable. The passage about Jesus is believed to be partially or wholly forged. It appears more likely that he was simply documenting the beliefs of Christians and it got accidentally or purposefully changed later.

Wow, I really wasn't paying attention when I wrote this. Here are the corrections.

Go fuck yourself :rolleyes:

... or: prove it.

False dilemma, you're saying he should either fuck himself or prove it, when he could fuck himself and prove it so therefore you committed a fallacy.

False dilemma, you're saying he should either fuck himself or prove it, when he could fuck himself and prove it so therefore you committed a fallacy.?? i didn't say xor.

I'm tempted to go the Spam forum and write in big black letters, "Nepal is the capital of Cuba" and post it 25,000 times. Maybe that'll make that statement true. :rolleyes:

interesting tidbit that i learned from "misquoting jesus" by bart ehrman that i have been wanting to find a way to put into a response to the platonists:

a scholar (whose name i didnt jot down) collected up a bunch of ancient manuscripts of the NT so that he could make a definitive translation. he used as many different manuscripts as he could find. when he was done, he found that there were more differences in the NT amongst all those copies than there were words in the NT. most were obvious errors of copying but some make a difference in theological interpretation of certain passages.

The "passage" about Jesus consists of 3 sentences that do not really hold any valuable information and certainly no hint to any research that Josephus might have performed. It is obviously just a recount of what he has heard about Jesus.

thats the impression i had when reading the relevant passages of every author sited in this thread. they are just repeating something that they heard that wasnt important enough to them to check the veracity of.

thats the impression i had when reading the relevant passages of every author sited in this thread. they are just repeating something that they heard that wasnt important enough to them to check the veracity of.

Well, in the case of Josephus, it doesn't appear he was attempting to attest to veracity or lack thereof, only to record belief. It wasn't lazy, it just wasn't his goal.

Well, in the case of Josephus, it doesn't appear he was attempting to attest to veracity or lack thereof, only to record belief. It wasn't lazy, it just wasn't his goal.

yes. i think thats true for all of them. they are comments in passing about a figure they know of but dont consider terribly important.

yes. i think thats true for all of them. they are comments in passing about a figure they know of but dont consider terribly important.

I think it indicates that Christians were noteworthy at that time. Obviously, Christ, whether he existed or not, wouldn't really be that important after he died to anyone that didn't follow him. Unless you were explicitly exploring economic and political principles, it's not that likely that as a person responsible for recording history at a time after his death, you'd have anything to say about Marx, the person. However, it's quite likely you'd mention Marxists. That doesn't speak either way to the existence or importance of Marx.

I think it indicates that Christians were noteworthy at that time. Obviously, Christ, whether he existed or not, wouldn't really be that important after he died to anyone that didn't follow him. Unless you were explicitly exploring economic and political principles, it's not that likely that as a person responsible for recording history at a time after his death, you'd have anything to say about Marx, the person. However, it's quite likely you'd mention Marxists. That doesn't speak either way to the existence or importance of Marx.

there didnt seem to be tons of christians until a later time but they certainly must have made some kind of splash to get any notice at all. unless "christian" really meant any mystic religion with a spiritual messiah figure (as opposed to a greek or roman god at the center) (so that the gnostics that didnt have a belief in jesus would be included), the jesus followers must have made a lot of noise.

until they DID come to the notice of a guy interested in jotting down such things, their beliefs would have grown on their own, "in private", all AFTER the death of their founder--no matter who that founder really was. so....50 or 100 years after "the death of jesus" the details of jesus wouldnt be as important as the details of what christians were up to at the time of the writing. indeed the codification of the details of jesus' life doesnt seem to have been cemented until at least a century after his "death"--arguably not until the council of nicaea.

The "passage" about Jesus consists of 3 sentences that do not really hold any valuable information and certainly no hint to any research that Josephus might have performed. It is obviously just a recount of what he has heard about Jesus.

The passage is, at the very least, in the right place historically, so if Josephus had written it he did at least bother to research when the events happened. Plus, there's no glaring errors to the Jesus story like in Tacitus. That said, the fact that it mainly rehashes Christian ideas should reinforce the idea that the passage is *not* an authentic Josephus passage and was written by someone else (maybe Eusebius) and "inserted" much later.

interesting tidbit that i learned from "misquoting jesus" by bart ehrman that i have been wanting to find a way to put into a response to the platonists:

a scholar (whose name i didnt jot down) collected up a bunch of ancient manuscripts of the NT so that he could make a definitive translation. he used as many different manuscripts as he could find. when he was done, he found that there were more differences in the NT amongst all those copies than there were words in the NT. most were obvious errors of copying but some make a difference in theological interpretation of certain passages.

That should figure. Ever try retyping or rewriting something word-for-word? I have, and there are times when my eyes wander and I skip a line or a word or two and I'm left with a copy that's 99% of the original (at best), not 100%. I don't doubt that there were Christian scribes committed to honest rewrites, but you can't tell me that *all* of them were accurate.

That should figure. Ever try retyping or rewriting something word-for-word? I have, and there are times when my eyes wander and I skip a line or a word or two and I'm left with a copy that's 99% of the original (at best), not 100%. I don't doubt that there were Christian scribes committed to honest rewrites, but you can't tell me that *all* of them were accurate.

it was far more of a problem in the first centuries of christianity than in later times like the middle ages.

in ancient times true literacy was so rare that, as my son says, it was like having a secret code. people who could sign their name were considered literate.

the first christians were not from the rich educated class for the most part. the copyists they used were not the educated monks of the middle ages but more like "guys who know how to make letters and can copy something that they cant really read". all sorts of "newbie" mistakes were made like skipping whole lines or repeating lines over again. then there were the subtle changes that reflected the more educated theologians desire to tilt the story in favor of the version of jesus that he favored. and later "whole cloth" additions like the story of the woman caught in adultery and the ending of mark.

by the time christianity became the relgion of the empire there were enough literate believers to slow the errors way down. although there plenty of errors in the king james version and other translations with famously humorous errors that i cant be bothered to look up now.

As UB said, do you have any proof?

Their proof is in their posting-pudding. All .... one post of it.
.... oh. :(

it was far more of a problem in the first centuries of christianity than in later times like the middle ages.

in ancient times true literacy was so rare that, as my son says, it was like having a secret code. people who could sign their name were considered literate.

the first christians were not from the rich educated class for the most part. the copyists they used were not the educated monks of the middle ages but more like "guys who know how to make letters and can copy something that they cant really read". all sorts of "newbie" mistakes were made like skipping whole lines or repeating lines over again. then there were the subtle changes that reflected the more educated theologians desire to tilt the story in favor of the version of jesus that he favored. and later "whole cloth" additions like the story of the woman caught in adultery and the ending of mark.

by the time christianity became the relgion of the empire there were enough literate believers to slow the errors way down. although there plenty of errors in the king james version and other translations with famously humorous errors that i cant be bothered to look up now.

Seems to make sense...it wasn't until the Council of Nicaea that we even had somewhat of "united" Christian religion, so I suspected the New Testament went through a variety of changes until then. I still think it could have used more, since the text does have a few head-scratching passages- those edits probably didn't get done because Constantine and the later Church leaders were so bent on "controlling heresies" that they stubbornly pushed their own version of the New Testament, brushing away all objectors (even the reasonable ones) in the name of "control".

I am curious about the humorous errors...when you're able to dig them up pass them on to me, I'm curious.

Off the top of my head, there's the Thieves' Bible -- a misprint in the Ten Commandments reads, "Thou shalt steal" -- and the Adulterers' Bible ("Thou shalt commit adultery"), also known as the Wicked Bible..

Brethren, Let Us Google.

Aha: "The Bug Bible" (more respectfully known as Coverdale's Bible, 1535) encouraged its readers not to be afraid of "bugs by night." The King James Version later replaced "bugs" with "terror."

http://www.focusedandfree.com/how_we_got_the_bible_5.html

Off the top of my head, there's the Thieves' Bible -- a misprint in the Ten Commandments reads, "Thou shalt steal" -- and the Adulterers' Bible ("Thou shalt commit adultery"), also known as the Wicked Bible..

Brethren, Let Us Google.

Aha:

http://www.focusedandfree.com/how_we_got_the_bible_5.html


And the X rated Bible, with all the sex!

Off the top of my head, there's the Thieves' Bible -- a misprint in the Ten Commandments reads, "Thou shalt steal" -- and the Adulterers' Bible ("Thou shalt commit adultery"), also known as the Wicked Bible..

Brethren, Let Us Google.

Aha:

http://www.focusedandfree.com/how_we_got_the_bible_5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata

^ There...that has a pretty sizeable list. My favourite is The Blasphemous Comma:

Several editions: Part of Luke 23 reads "And there were also two other malefactors. [crucified with Jesus]" It should have read "And there were also two other, malefactors." (so, Jesus was a troublemaker?)

Then there's also The Printer's Bible, which reads:

bef. 1702: Psalm 119:161 reads "Printers have persecuted me without cause." The first word was changed, possibly by a typesetter with a grudge, from "Princes".

Last, but not least is "The Large Family Bible" from 1820:

Isaiah 66:9 reads: "Shall I bring to birth and not cease to bring forth?" rather than "Shall I bring to birth and not cause to bring forth?". Seems to be a prelude to the X-Rated Bible.

k

i have several possibilties i think could be true
jesus never existed and because some fool tought he was powerfull and wanted more power he create a belief with some very importand event that happend in a forgotten age (meaning he created it in medieval times and the rest is just fake)

jesus did exist and his walking on water was merely walking on ice because you are not ever going to convince me that gods hand really made it possible for him to walk on water thats just bullshit it can be true that he walked on water but like i said ice is also water

star gate is more true then we think and gods are aliens (i can't say it can't be true its unlikely because there is no prove but we will see one day i hope)
this could explain many unexplained this like people walking on water or opening a walkway trough a sea i know its sounds crazy but i like to keep an open mind.

Well we have the yes people
and the no people

but what sort of existance is there with no direction and no higher plane?

Preconception - Conception - birth - childhood - adolescence - adulthood - death - ?

if your born, and then you die, if there is no afterlife, what is the point?

Well we have the yes people
and the no people

but what sort of existance is there with no direction and no higher plane?

Preconception - Conception - birth - childhood - adolescence - adulthood - death - ?

if your born, and then you die, if there is no afterlife, what is the point?

Here's as obvious as it ever gets:
The point of life is to live it.
I'll posit that people's preoccupation with "what if" is a direct result of genetic adaptations in the brain that allow us to consider alternatives and scenarios in our heads. This lead, inexorably, to both innovation and lies.
Consider which is more useful and under what circumstances.

Lead a good life. It's its own reward.

Well we have the yes people
and the no people

but what sort of existance is there with no direction and no higher plane?

Preconception - Conception - birth - childhood - adolescence - adulthood - death - ?

if your born, and then you die, if there is no afterlife, what is the point?

I fail to see how Jesus' historical existence would have anything to do with that. It's not like the Bible's Words are somehow different if the extent of Jesus' existence was only spiritual.

Here's as obvious as it ever gets:
The point of life is to live it.
I'll posit that people's preoccupation with "what if" is a direct result of genetic adaptations in the brain that allow us to consider alternatives and scenarios in our heads. This lead, inexorably, to both innovation and lies.
Consider which is more useful and under what circumstances.

Lead a good life. It's its own reward.

I agree, but it's not to say that Heaven isn't itself a bad message- what's wrong with having a reward for leading a good life? There's something valuable there.

That should figure. Ever try retyping or rewriting something word-for-word? I have, and there are times when my eyes wander and I skip a line or a word or two and I'm left with a copy that's 99% of the original (at best), not 100%. I don't doubt that there were Christian scribes committed to honest rewrites, but you can't tell me that *all* of them were accurate.

IIRC Bart Ehrman has suggested that many of the early scribes were illiterate and just copied the letters without understanding them. Anyone who's ever learnt a bit of Greek will know how easy it can be to mix up zeta and xi.

Well we have the yes people
and the no people

but what sort of existance is there with no direction and no higher plane?

Preconception - Conception - birth - childhood - adolescence - adulthood - death - ?

if your born, and then you die, if there is no afterlife, what is the point?
why is there a point needed?

Well we have the yes people
and the no people

but what sort of existance is there with no direction and no higher plane?

Preconception - Conception - birth - childhood - adolescence - adulthood - death - ?

if your born, and then you die, if there is no afterlife, what is the point?

what if we do have some kind of afterlife but it has nothing to do with jesus?

what if we do have some kind of afterlife but it has nothing to do with jesus?

:eek: That... that... that's not possible!!! :rolleyes:

:eek: That... that... that's not possible!!! :rolleyes:

*smacks self in forehead* what was i thinking?

quite often in these kinds of threads a poster will make the point that the universe had to come from somewhere. when i ask how he gets from THAT to "accepting jesus christ as his personal lord and savior" i dont get a reply.

:eek: That... that... that's not possible!!! :rolleyes:I suppose if you die high on drugs you could still see Jesus ;)

IIRC Bart Ehrman has suggested that many of the early scribes were illiterate and just copied the letters without understanding them. Anyone who's ever learnt a bit of Greek will know how easy it can be to mix up zeta and xi.

I'm curious what they might be...I can't really find them online. Is that how he explains things like how in one Gospel (I believe it's Mark) where Jesus commands His Disciples they can have a staff but in another (Matthew?) they can't?

Doesn't surprise me- scribal errors are frequent in the ancient world and one shouldn't expect the Bible to be any different.

why is there a point needed?

Some people just need a crutch, that's all.

I agree, but it's not to say that Heaven isn't itself a bad message- what's wrong with having a reward for leading a good life? There's something valuable there.
I don't feel there's anything wrong, persay, in thinking there may be more of a reward in justice and appreciation of your soul and suffering after you've shuffled the mortal coil.
The problem i have is with people coming to conclusions that if there is no heaven then there must be no point at all to being alive ... as in, you deserve some kind of reward for dealing with what everyone else has to deal with (in whatever form of cognizance they happen to employ in life).
There are cases where the mentality has led to the "glory" concept and how disposable and excusable everyone else's plight is so long as you match your imagination with your philosophy of a god waiting on the other side, obviously in many, many different religions and derivations.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

I think there's a chance that Jesus was a real person, a prophet of some description.

I think there's a chance that Jesus was a real person, a prophet of some description.
whose prophet?

whose prophet?

From the sound of things... himself?

I don't know.

I think there's a chance that Jesus was a real person, a prophet of some description.

i agree, the very impact that jesus had, must have meant that he had great influence at the time of his life, and that he had good amount of followers.

he was the biggest prophet around at that time, he also made the jewish resistance more open than before.


also i would like to add that the sandal wearing hippie image that many have of jesus is false, well according to the bible, well atleast to me he comes of as a rather arrogant prick.

so yes i do think he was a prophet, a successful one, however i am positive that all the magic around him was/is rubbish, as well as the planning of his execution, how would any jesus groupies be able to get into the Pharisees and know what they were talking about.

i know that most of you would like evidence but i really can only refer to my teacher, and several articles, but the best source is to compare the figure with john the babtist, after all why was it written that the great JESUS.. was baptized by the madman john. after all would it not be more convenient if the famous john was taken in under jesus, whom was not a peaceful sandal hashish smoking hippie! my answer is that this was a fact they(his ghost writers) could not hide, simple as that. now john was a(n) (in)famous man in the region claiming that the apocalypse was gonna come soon, and everybody came to him, even jesus whom later became a prophet after his execution. btw this typical of cults and religions, making up a problem that only they have a solution for. my conclusion is that looking at how great prophets in the book(including the quran), never are inferior to any contemporary prophets it seems to suggest that the historical jesus indeed existed.

From the sound of things... himself?

I don't know.Then what's the prophecy?

I think there's a chance that Jesus was a real person...

That's pretty much the conclusion that we've come to...

From the sound of things... himself?

Nice :D

Then what's the prophecy?

That's not the question that was asked.

I think there's a chance that Jesus existed. Whether he was the "son of God" or "the son of man" (as he supposedly called himself) or a nutjob doesn't really matter to me.

I don't feel there's anything wrong, persay, in thinking there may be more of a reward in justice and appreciation of your soul and suffering after you've shuffled the mortal coil.
The problem i have is with people coming to conclusions that if there is no heaven then there must be no point at all to being alive ... as in, you deserve some kind of reward for dealing with what everyone else has to deal with (in whatever form of cognizance they happen to employ in life).
There are cases where the mentality has led to the "glory" concept and how disposable and excusable everyone else's plight is so long as you match your imagination with your philosophy of a god waiting on the other side, obviously in many, many different religions and derivations.

I see. Yeah, I'd have to agree- I mean, I think it's completely understandable to "have something to live for", but it does get overblown. I find obsessing yourself to fit a "principle" unnecessarily consumes you and actually gets in the way of "leading a good life"- which, I think, always pays for itself out in the end.

I see. Yeah, I'd have to agree- I mean, I think it's completely understandable to "have something to live for", but it does get overblown. I find obsessing yourself to fit a "principle" unnecessarily consumes you and actually gets in the way of "leading a good life"- which, I think, always pays for itself out in the end.

Verbatim. *bows*

My dad thinks he just a story invented to get more people to believe in God, I don't really have a religion.......

My dad thinks he just a story invented to get more people to believe in God, I don't really have a religion.......

Ah, but which God? From the point of view of Judaism (which would be the root of the Christian story/myth) Christianity is heresy, and 'Jesus' (at best) a false prophet.

Ah, but which God? From the point of view of Judaism (which would be the root of the Christian story/myth) Christianity is heresy, and 'Jesus' (at best) a false prophet.
That is kinda what it's all about, huh?

BTW - what, no pix for "Sexiest" this year? :(

That is kinda what it's all about, huh?

BTW - what, no pix for "Sexiest" this year? :(

Not been around often enough to know which threads are even running... and I tend not to put myself forwards for those kinds of competitions anyway, it's just not fair on the commonalty. Men want me, women want to be me... err... or something.

But, yeah - it comes down to 'which god is Jesus supposed to be endorsing'?

It's actually one of the big reason I really suspect Jesus of being an amalgamation of characters/events/philosophies, rather than a real literal character - it strikes me that a real Jewish boy growing up to walk the walk of 'Messiah' would try to avoid things that are blatant contraventions of Messiah-ship... like accumulating philosophies from diverse sources and preaching a different 'law', which a real Jew would have KNOWN (you'd think) would be fulfilling the requirements of 'false prophet', not 'messiah'.

Not been around often enough to know which threads are even running... and I tend not to put myself forwards for those kinds of competitions anyway, it's just not fair on the commonalty. Men want me, women want to be me... err... or something. Might as well. No one should really take those threads too seriously. :p

But, yeah - it comes down to 'which god is Jesus supposed to be endorsing'?

It's actually one of the big reason I really suspect Jesus of being an amalgamation of characters/events/philosophies, rather than a real literal character - it strikes me that a real Jewish boy growing up to walk the walk of 'Messiah' would try to avoid things that are blatant contraventions of Messiah-ship... like accumulating philosophies from diverse sources and preaching a different 'law', which a real Jew would have KNOWN (you'd think) would be fulfilling the requirements of 'false prophet', not 'messiah'.
This reminds me of the "mental illness" approach considered when reviewing the muttering-in-the-garden parts, as well as a few others.

It comes down to 'which god is Jesus supposed to be endorsing'?

It's actually one of the big reason I really suspect Jesus of being an amalgamation of characters/events/philosophies, rather than a real literal character - it strikes me that a real Jewish boy growing up to walk the walk of 'Messiah' would try to avoid things that are blatant contraventions of Messiah-ship... like accumulating philosophies from diverse sources and preaching a different 'law', which a real Jew would have KNOWN (you'd think) would be fulfilling the requirements of 'false prophet', not 'messiah'.

The counter to that would be- considering how sparse the Gospels are about information on Jesus' early life- "what if Jesus learned about both the Jewish practices and other philosophical ideals and decided the other ideals suited Him better than Judaism?" Jesus was clearly meant to be a "rebel" type so a rejection of sorts of Judaism wouldn't be so out of character.

I see. Yeah, I'd have to agree- I mean, I think it's completely understandable to "have something to live for", but it does get overblown. I find obsessing yourself to fit a "principle" unnecessarily consumes you and actually gets in the way of "leading a good life"- which, I think, always pays for itself out in the end.

Can I just ask something..and not have it seen as aggression, but I'm just curious..
In order to "lead a good" life...you do need to fit a certain set of principles..
And whats the point in leading a good life...if afterwards, there is nothing. If none of this is going anywhere. You live, die and then don't exist. So why does living a good life mean anything? Why not just live a self indulgent life and enjoy yourself?
And this isn't just aimed at you. But anyone who feels there is no afterlife...

Can I just ask something..and not have it seen as aggression, but I'm just curious..
In order to "lead a good" life...you do need to fit a certain set of principles..
And whats the point in leading a good life...if afterwards, there is nothing. If none of this is going anywhere. You live, die and then don't exist. So why does living a good life mean anything? Why not just live a self indulgent life and enjoy yourself?

Because if everyone did that we would have a very miserable existence.
It is our society that allows us to be self indulgent from time to time - without the backing of society life would be far less pleasant for the overwhelming majority of people.

So "leading a good life" benefits you.

Because if everyone did that we would have a very miserable existence.
It is our society that allows us to be self indulgent from time to time - without the backing of society life would be far less pleasant for the overwhelming majority of people.

So "leading a good life" benefits you.

Yeah, it would be pretty miserable. And I get that leading a good life benefits you. E.g. I would not want to spend 40 years of my life locked up in prison for breaking some major law.
But, why care about things like global warming and religion etc etc. When as far as your concerned, you've got 80 years and the poof. Gone. Why worry about humanity after your death....if there is no purpose to life...sorry, I guess I just don't get it.

But, why care about things like global warming and religion etc etc. When as far as your concerned, you've got 80 years and the poof. Gone. Why worry about humanity after your death....if there is no purpose to life...sorry, I guess I just don't get it.

Beacuse we do worry about our children and our friends etc......

Do you get empathy for your fellow man, independant of religous thought?

Beacuse we do worry about our children and our friends etc......

Do you get empathy for your fellow man, independant of religous thought?What does empathy have to do with religion??

What does empathy have to do with religion??

What? Why are you asking me this? Did you misunderstand my words somehow?

What? Why are you asking me this? Did you misunderstand my words somehow?

Most likely.

Can I just ask something..and not have it seen as aggression, but I'm just curious..
In order to "lead a good" life...you do need to fit a certain set of principles..
And whats the point in leading a good life...if afterwards, there is nothing. If none of this is going anywhere. You live, die and then don't exist. So why does living a good life mean anything? Why not just live a self indulgent life and enjoy yourself?
And this isn't just aimed at you. But anyone who feels there is no afterlife...

a selfish, self indulgent life tends to lead to being miserable. if i only get one shot, id like to enjoy it.

Can I just ask something..and not have it seen as aggression, but I'm just curious..
In order to "lead a good" life...you do need to fit a certain set of principles..
And whats the point in leading a good life...if afterwards, there is nothing. If none of this is going anywhere. You live, die and then don't exist. So why does living a good life mean anything? Why not just live a self indulgent life and enjoy yourself?
And this isn't just aimed at you. But anyone who feels there is no afterlife...
Your individual ego is a transient thing: the notion that somehow you are continue to be your "self" forever and ever has always struck as very strange. But afterwards, "you" continue to be the effects that you have had on others, and that they have on others in turn, forever and ever. If you are nothing but pain in others' lives, then that is what you are, forever, like a lingering bad smell (or potent stench, in the case of a Hitler, say). What you do, HERE and NOW, is what you ARE, forever.

Can I just ask something..and not have it seen as aggression, but I'm just curious..
In order to "lead a good" life...you do need to fit a certain set of principles..
And whats the point in leading a good life...if afterwards, there is nothing. If none of this is going anywhere. You live, die and then don't exist. So why does living a good life mean anything? Why not just live a self indulgent life and enjoy yourself?
And this isn't just aimed at you. But anyone who feels there is no afterlife...

Actually, I believe in the afterlife and God and I'm very much Christian...a lot of my arguments do tend to follow atheistic/agnostic lines only because I've personally rejected much of the Church's doctrine, believing it has strayed- in both its actions and sayings- from the teaching of Jesus Christ. The religion itself isn't faulty- the people who "run" it are.

Case in point is precisely the idea of the afterlife: the Church would like everyone to believe that they've got to adhere to a strict set of standards before they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Essentially, these standards can be grouped in such a way that they simply tell us to treat ourselves and others well and never do anything in excess, but over the years the various Christian Churches have added so many superfluous addenda to that simple concept that it forces a militaristic obsession to "the rules" on its adherents. In doing so, the adherents place an undue amount of pressure on themselves to lead a "good life" that they forget the key to that goal is to focus on the whole instead of the particulars. God doesn't care if you've never had a drink in your life or cheated on your spouse- if you haven't been a kind, forgiving, respectful, welcoming and understanding soul, no amount of "virtue" will look good in God's Eyes.

Plus, even if there isn't an afterlife, life itself is never pointless. The satisfaction you feel when you help someone else out should be incentive enough to continue to do such things, don't you think?

Actually, I believe in the afterlife and God and I'm very much Christian...a lot of my arguments do tend to follow atheistic/agnostic lines only because I've personally rejected much of the Church's doctrine, believing it has strayed- in both its actions and sayings- from the teaching of Jesus Christ. The religion itself isn't faulty- the people who "run" it are.

Case in point is precisely the idea of the afterlife: the Church would like everyone to believe that they've got to adhere to a strict set of standards before they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Essentially, these standards can be grouped in such a way that they simply tell us to treat ourselves and others well and never do anything in excess, but over the years the various Christian Churches have added so many superfluous addenda to that simple concept that it forces a militaristic obsession to "the rules" on its adherents. In doing so, the adherents place an undue amount of pressure on themselves to lead a "good life" that they forget the key to that goal is to focus on the whole instead of the particulars. God doesn't care if you've never had a drink in your life or cheated on your spouse- if you haven't been a kind, forgiving, respectful, welcoming and understanding soul, no amount of "virtue" will look good in God's Eyes.

Plus, even if there isn't an afterlife, life itself is never pointless. The satisfaction you feel when you help someone else out should be incentive enough to continue to do such things, don't you think?

Okay, I get what you're saying. Its well put.
And I completely agree with you in what you're saying about different churches. But, there are some which are beautiful communities. But the majority of them are dry, lifeless and obsessed with following 'rules' and being extremely judgemental of those who don't.
My personal conviction is that Christianity isn't about rules, but about Grace. Heaven isn't dependant on whether you're perfect, or the place would be empty. Its dependant on your faith in Jesus. And that Jesus, hung out with people with terminal diseases, hookers and other 'sinners'. And I think the church forgets who it is they actually worship.
I think helping someone is always valued. But I'm not entirely convinced that we live on through our actions, that our actions become us. Because, many of my ancestors were convicts. I don't know their names, anything about their lives, their values....and this is only a few generations back. The only way we could live on through actions is if they're remembered I guess...
I'm really not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand things from they way you guys see it.

Okay, I get what you're saying. Its well put.
And I completely agree with you in what you're saying about different churches. But, there are some which are beautiful communities. But the majority of them are dry, lifeless and obsessed with following 'rules' and being extremely judgemental of those who don't.
My personal conviction is that Christianity isn't about rules, but about Grace. Heaven isn't dependant on whether you're perfect, or the place would be empty. Its dependant on your faith in Jesus. And that Jesus, hung out with people with terminal diseases, hookers and other 'sinners'. And I think the church forgets who it is they actually worship.
I think helping someone is always valued. But I'm not entirely convinced that we live on through our actions, that our actions become us. Because, many of my ancestors were convicts. I don't know their names, anything about their lives, their values....and this is only a few generations back. The only way we could live on through actions is if they're remembered I guess...
I'm really not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand things from they way you guys see it.

You're not being difficult...you're not overly aggressive or flaming, so I encourage your further discussion. :)

To answer the question, from the agnostic point of view I think it boils down to the fact that we've got no scientific proof of "an afterlife", meaning there's no justification concerning ourselves with something that we don't know if it actually exists.

From my own point of view (that of a believer), the best I can say is that "validation" need not be a worry at all- those who have the strongest of beliefs will believe no matter what anyone tells them to. It shouldn't bother you at all if someone says they don't think the afterlife exists, since they're not you. Ideally, religion is best suited for you personally to find inner peace, so your own beliefs and convictions should only go so far as to keep you going and motivated. Religion was never meant to be thrust onto anyone else, so what someone else believes really isn't your concern. Seriously, if your Faith is so fragile that only if someone else "validates it" you can continue to believe it then maybe you have some issues to work out, because maybe you're not as "happy" as you think.

I am surprised at this point in the thread there is any discussion at all.

Why not just live a self indulgent life and enjoy yourself?

One answer would be the paradox of hedonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_hedonism). You can't become happy by pursuing happiness, you become happy because of other things. If you live a self indulgent life an just try to enjoy yourself yourself you will probably become very unsatisfied. (think of rich people continuously trying to get meaningless kicks but still being depressed)
Things which are often considered 'good' often make you more happy than pure hedonism. Of course a little bit hedonism might be enjoyable but I wouldn't necessarily consider that bad. But mostly the things that make you really happy are stuff like having good relationships, being appreciated, helping others and knowing that others will help you if you'd need it etc.
Of course one might reject this and say that hedonism makes you happier, but then again, believing in an afterlife doesn't automatically make you a good person either.
There's also a 'goodness' instinct I think, of course there are some notorious examples but most of the time people will do what is good or at least won't do anything bad.
Then of course there is also empathy which is an almost universal human trait.

I have to agree that living a good life doesn't have any intrinsic value (I believe there is no afterlife if you hadn't already thought that one out) and I'm currently doubting if there is anything that has an intrinsic value when we try to look further than our own pov. But I do know that being happy is preferable above being sad.

I am surprised of how many people here know God personally. You are SO lucky.

I am surprised of how many people here know God personally. You are SO lucky.

hmmmmm

having a personal relationship with god is one of the central aspects of christianity.

I am surprised of how many people here know God personally. You are SO lucky.

Well, God's fridge is always fully stocked. How can you not like that?

It looks like this thread has done a Lazarus. :D

It looks like this thread has done a Lazarus. :D

Without needing the mods to revive it...

Without needing the mods to revive it...

With Mod anything is possible.

I am surprised of how many people here know God personally. You are SO lucky.
Let's just say God's nothing like what the dodgy journalism would have you believe. ;)

With Mod anything is possible.

All hail Mod?

hmmmmm

having a personal relationship with god is one of the central aspects of christianity.and it's like having a personal relationship with a piece of toilet paper.
insubstantial.

and it's like having a personal relationship with a piece of toilet paper.
insubstantial.

when this happens it is a relationship that repeats itself over and over again, everyday, sometimes with different outcomes, some with the same. yet they are all short relationships. whether it be physical, sexual, or otherwise. The piece of toilet paper ends up feeling used.

Who cares did that asshole exist?

Just as Christ rose from the dead, so has this thread risen. Hallelujah!

Just as Christ rose from the dead, so has this thread risen. Hallelujah!

And funnily enough, more than one threads have risen it would seem.
So which one is the only true one? Which one do we follow and praise?

And funnily enough, more than one threads have risen it would seem.
So which one is the only true one? Which one do we follow and praise?

Follow the gourd!:D

If you believe in the Devil then you must be believe in Jesus. I believe in him and all his glory, and if I am wrong, which I am not, no harm to me. But if your wrong for not believing you will spend eternity in hell.

Now we lay it down to sleep
We pray for Jolt its soul to keep.