Do u beleave in God

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Possibly. But to the surviving near contemporary authors Christ is a footnote at best. Even if we knew their bias its very difficult to use it to analyse what they don't say.

Which is not surprising. To a Roman historian what was the big deal about another Jewish Messiah? They knew they had the promise of another "King David". They knew each new messiah had died. So the rumor was this one came back to life. So what? I can't imagine the early Roman historians taking much notice until after the Dispora and this little sect of Judaism began to spread like wildfire into Rome itself. From that point on it was hard to ignore.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

WHAT PART OF "CHRISTIANITY IS THE MOST PERVERTED SYSTEM THAT EVER SHONE UPON MAN" don't you get?


it is a provable fact that EVERYTHING IN CHRISTIANITY IS OF PAGAN OR EGYPTIAN ORIGIN


What a believer does, is ignore the evidence provided and repeatedly and continually deny that everything but their bible is false

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[philh 0]

"You refute eye witnesses claims because we don't have their original documents, just copies of their testimony"

What eye witness claims? We have no eye witnesses. We need a lot and we dont have even one yet. What copies of their testimonies are you talking about? The gospels? They are written by unknown authors at an unkown date , so they are not even reliable as copies of testimonies. The bottom line is we have no wtinesses to the resurection of Christ at all.
What we do have is a religious belief that was fervently believed. But we also have a religious belief the was fervently believed with Islam. Muhamed claimed to have got gods last message to humanity. People at the time believed him, followed him and died for him. Does that make their belief true?

"I wonder how many original copies of any 1st century historian do we have."
To be honest I don't know. What I do as a critical thinker is examine the evidence of claims presented to me. If i see a claim the is prevalent in our culture but does not have sufficient evidence I will challenge them. Christianity is one of the biggest such claims, when other claims of the 1st century get as big as Christianity i'll examine them. For example, in the 1st century we dont just have Jesus considered to come back form the dead but also Apolnius of Tyana who Philostratus described as being reaised form the dead. When I get people knocking on my door or teaching Appolnius rised form the dead Ill investigate it more throughly, until then I dont see why I need to look.
I make no claims as to the holy nature of anything said in the 1st century so its not for me to provide any evidence. Chrsitians do make such claims and so the bruden of evidence is on them. So far we have seen none whatsoever.

[hairyjuan 0]

this seemlingly never ending debate about Xtianity that has developed from 'do you believe in god' is more than ample proof, that no one religion can lay any claim AT ALL to being the "one right way" to 'god'.


Faith - believeing in something even when you know its not true.


a better idea perhaps:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA1t-nyAOv4

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

So do you not believe anything the history books tell you about the 1st century as true? After all there are no original manuscripts of such work, and the copies are very few and quite old. Nothing like the thousands of copies within the first generation or two of the NT.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

So do you not believe anything the history books tell you about the 1st century as true?

What does it matter? It's not like you base your life on them.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

I'd make it bigger and blinking with buzzers and whistles so the reality challenged can't miss it but the forum wont let me.

Alternatively, look in a dictionary, it's what they are for.

I didn't bother looking at your link to a definition of "reality," because I wanted YOUR definition.

You pretend to venerate reason and rational thought, yet you make snap judgments in supposing that I don't know what the word "reality" means. Or did you pretend not to understand my motive for asking, just for effect-- you know, to make me look ignorant? If so, it only makes you look like you're at the end of your rope.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Alas no, post modern philosophy has well and truly climbed up its own arse, gotten lost and undermined the potential of millions through rampant deconstruction and post* bullshit. The direct impact you see in inane questions like "What is reality?", from people, truly out of their depth who think it's an intelligent contribution. Now in some sense this can be a profound and deep question, but in the post modern interpretation it is merely insipid relativism as a substitute for critical thinking. They should have stopped with Popper's falsifiability, instead they threw the tools of objectivity out the window. Like any metastasized cancer, it's a very sorry mess to witness.

My reply to Jack applies as well to you, dorbie. Your pretense of labeling me as "post-modern" is laughable and desperate.

The focus of the conversation is becoming personal instead of staying on topic. If you can stay objective, I'll continue. If you can't, forget it. (I've switched the focus too on occasion and regret it. It doesn't help anything.)

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[bluesidedown 0]

Here's a bit to chew on:

http://www.velocitypress.com/Religion.shtml


...careful what you learn.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

So do you not believe anything the history books tell you about the 1st century as true? After all there are no original manuscripts of such work, and the copies are very few and quite old. Nothing like the thousands of copies within the first generation or two of the NT.

Original manuscripts or not, there is what we call archaeological evidence to support much of history. Shame the same cant be said about you little story..

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[JackC 0]

Quote

I didn't bother looking at your link to a definition of "reality," because I wanted YOUR definition.

The links I posted do contain the definition I would use, if you'd bothered to read them. But just to reiterate, my definition of of the word reality can be found here, here or in any good dictionary. I use the standard definition that should be used by all English speaking people who wish to communicate with each other. Why would I define the word any differently from the usual meaning?

This is about as clear as I can possibly make it.

Quote

You pretend to venerate reason and rational thought, yet you make snap judgments in supposing that I don't know what the word "reality" means. Or did you pretend not to understand my motive for asking, just for effect-- you know, to make me look ignorant? If so, it only makes you look like you're at the end of your rope.

I'm sorry you took this personally but what am I supposed to think?

The only reason I can think of that you asked "what is reality?" is either you really don't know or you want to send me off chasing my tail. If you meant something else, it's best if you just say it because I cannot read your mind.

[philh 0]

"So do you not believe anything the history books tell you about the 1st century as true?"

Unlike many religious people I dont have views of such events in such polarised true or false terms. What I have said many times is that we should have levels of confidence based upon levels of evidence. Where we have a lot of evidence we can be quite confident, where we have no evidence we should have no confidence. In the case of Jesus ressurection we have no evidence,Im still waiting for a list of witnesses to this event. So far we dont have a single one.

In contrats, if we look at ancient history (I see no reason to restrict things just to the 1st century) we can be very cofident that for example, Julius Cesar was Emperor Of Rome. We have his own writings, we have other Roman writers (particularly Cicero) who were contemporaries of Cesar describing him, we have his image on coins, we have busts, we have statues etc etc. However there are claims that Julius Cesar was a god (the statue in the temple Quirinus has such an inscription) do you believe them? I doubt you do , but never the less people fought and died for Caesar, and at least we have plenty of evidence of his life. Why dont you accept their claims?

The important point here is that whether or not this event happened in anceint history or that event, matters a lot less than whether the stories in the bible are accurate. People dont base their lives based upon the teahcings of Julius Caseser, Appolonius of Tyana, etc . They live their lives based upon the story of Jesus and so we should have better evidecen for Jesus ressurection than other historical events, due to 1) its importance and 2) the unusual nature of the claim (raised form the dead, son of god ) . In fact we have no good evidence for the NT stoory at all. All we have is evidence that at some point within a unknown number of decades after the event poeple beliebved the Nt story. Well so what? People believd Cesar was a god, doesnt make him one.

"Nothing like the thousands of copies within the first generation or two of the NT. "

Well thats a hard claim to verify since we dont know when the first Nt was written. I was interested to read this from the Catholic News Agency :
"Vatican City, Jan 24, 2007 / 05:21 pm (CNA).- Pope Benedict XVI expressed his gratitude and profound satisfaction upon receiving a papyrus containing one of the earliest known transcriptions of the New Testament. ...The famous papyrus contains one of the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, which dates back to the beginning of the 3rd century. It includes fragments from the Gospel of Luke (including chapter 11, where the Our Father is found) and the first fourteen chapters of John."


But no matter how many copies of the NT we have, since we dont know when it was written or by whom it cant even begin to be considered as any kind of historical document. Blief in the resurection of Jesus is based upon faith, not evidence.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So do you not believe anything the history books tell you about the 1st century as true? After all there are no original manuscripts of such work, and the copies are very few and quite old.

That's quite a good argument. However there is a big difference between history and any religion. The historians do not push their theories over everyone. They do not tell you how to live, or that you could change your life because some historic figure said so.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Here's a bit to chew on:

http://www.velocitypress.com/Religion.shtml


...careful what you learn.

Chew on??? Really?? (JC the grandson of Herod??) As my moma would say, "Pushaw!" Move over HairyJuan, you have competition for the most absurd links.

If you have the assumption JC is not divine then anything else makes sense but what is written in the NT. If you have faith that he is who he said he was, then the NT record of his life is easy to believe. It is a matter of faith in the deity of JC.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

So do you not believe anything the history books tell you about the 1st century as true? After all there are no original manuscripts of such work, and the copies are very few and quite old.

That's quite a good argument. However there is a big difference between history and any religion. The historians do not push their theories over everyone. They do not tell you how to live, or that you could change your life because some historic figure said so.

[emphasis mine] Actually they do. While you may be from Russia, your info says you live in TX now. I grew up there. I had TX history throughout my schooling in the 60s & 70s. What is taught now is different than then. Why would that be? Could it be the Texans had an agenda then as much as the Tex-Mexs that are gaining influence in the politics and education of Texas do now?

Most historians have an agenda, or at least their work fits in the agenda of those in power. Who was in power in the first & second cenetury of the common era? It sure wasn't Christians.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Blief in the resurection of Jesus is based upon faith, not evidence.

That is true. However, the disciple must have had some evidence that convinced them something happened. The Jesus Seminar people are not known to be conservative in their theology. In fact many including one of their past leaders and spokesman, John Domonique, believe JC was merely a man. But their intense study of scripture and historical record led them to believe "something" happened to change the disciples from scared men to men willing to die.

It is hard to attribute their willingness to a "belief" they made up. Most likely they were the eyewitnesses to something that changed their way of thinking. While Jesus Seminar people will not go so far as to say they saw the resurrected Christ, they know something extraordinary happened.

So while it takes faith for anyone outside the 500 who personally saw the resurrected Christ to believe in His resurrection, those eyewitnesses had more substantial evidence. Their testimony and lives are good affirmations for our own questions of faith.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Im glad we agree that belief in the ressurection is based upon faith and not evidence.

"However, the disciple must have had some evidence that convinced them something happened"
I think what we can agree on is that at some point there were Christians who belived in the resurection story and were willing to die for their belief. But we dont know when this happened and to whom. We dont know even if there were any contemporaies of Christ who actually died for their belief in the resurrectrion. All the martyrs may well have been people who didnt see what happened.


"It is hard to attribute their willingness to a "belief" they made up."
You assume they consicously made up the lie. But it might not have been like that, perhaps people simply believed their own fantasies, this happenes all the time. Alien abductees are very sincere people and they genuinely believe they were abducted. That doesnt mean they were abducted. Similarly just becuase early Christians believed in the resurection ( and we dont know that any of them were actually there) doesnt mean their belief was correct.

Ill ask you again, what is the difference between Christians willing to die for their belief and the followers of Muhammed who were willing to die for him? There is much mroe agreement amongst historians of the accounts of Muhammed and his followers than there is of Christ. alternativley why not believe that Julius Cesar was a god? We know that some people di believe this, yet again just becuase someone belived something does not make it true.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Ill ask you again, what is the difference between Christians willing to die for their belief and the followers of Muhammed who were willing to die for him? .

As far as followers today, nothing. Both would be dying for a belief.

The "first" disciples of JC were willing to experience martydom because they saw a risen JC. The first disciples of Mohummed were willing to die because they believed in his teachings of monotheism which was contrary to the polytheism of the day. They in essence were dying for a belief in a teaching not anything supernatural. The mainstream Islamic belief is that Mohammed is buried in The Mosque of the Prophet in Medina.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Alien abductees are very sincere people and they genuinely believe they were abducted. That doesnt mean they were abducted. Similarly just becuase early Christians believed in the resurection ( and we dont know that any of them were actually there) doesnt mean their belief was correct

If 500 of them including people of the ruling councils all had basically the same abduction story, we would listen.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

the most absurd story on this planet is the one told 17 times throughout history, god-man born of a virgin, gets crucified and resurREcted 3 days later, and he coming back and gonna 'rapture beliEvers out of here and send all unbeliEvers to hell forever THAT IS ABSURD



www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_0U8UgANE
www.godisimaginary.com
www.thegodmovie.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[philh 0]

"The "first" disciples of JC were willing to experience martydom because they saw a risen JC."

This is complete specualtion, you have no evidence that anyone died becuase they believed they had seen a risen Christ.

"The first disciples of Mohummed were willing to die because they believed in his teachings of monotheism which was contrary to the polytheism of the day. "
Again more conjecture and speculation as to their motives, all we know is that Muhamed made certain claims and people believed him, exactly the same as Chrsitianity. You could just as easily say that early Chrsitians followed Jesus because of the golden rule , not because of a belief in the resurection. This would be just more specualtion though.

"If 500 of them(alien abductees) including people of the ruling councils all had basically the same abduction story, we would listen. "

According to an alien abductee web site:
http://www.ufoabduction.com/faq1.htm#q3
"Abduction researchers have been personally contacted by thousands of people who have had experiences that abductees have had before they knew they were involved with the phenomenon. Polls have indicated that there may be hundreds of thousands more. By all measures, the phenomenon seems to be widespread throughout the society. Only a small number of these people have been investigated by researchers. "

According to the Roper poll conducted by sociologists in 1991, 4 million Americans claim to have been abudcted by aliens.

So beliefs can even be widespread without being correct. Unless you accept these people have been abudcted by aliens? As to the 500 who suposedly saw Christ rise, who are they? How do you know there were 500? This is just more hearsay evdience that really doesnt stand up. You dont have any good evidence there were 500. it may say so in the gospels, but since we dont know who wrote thhe gospels or when they were written that does not count as evidence.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"If 500 of them(alien abductees) including people of the ruling councils all had basically the same abduction story, we would listen. "

According to an alien abductee web site:
http://www.ufoabduction.com/faq1.htm#q3
"Abduction researchers have been personally contacted by thousands of people who have had experiences that abductees have had before they knew they were involved with the phenomenon. Polls have indicated that there may be hundreds of thousands more. By all measures, the phenomenon seems to be widespread throughout the society. Only a small number of these people have been investigated by researchers. "

I meant 500 of any one group. Say half of a small town, which included medical doctors, teachers, mayors along with the farmer and the guy living in the double wide.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

www.theyfly.com






when you get there checkout lookout for that tree

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[philh 0]

"I meant 500 of any one group. Say half of a small town, which included medical doctors, teachers, mayors along with the farmer and the guy living in the double wide. "

Well thats a big assumption, who are these 500 witnesses, where is their testimony? Why accept 500 peoples testiomny when you'll deny millions?(or do you accept alien abductions)Is is really dependant on the geographicla distribution of the witnesses?

[steveorino 7]

It is hard to say with 100% accuracy anything happened in the first century. Our records are simply incomplete. We must depend on circumstantial evidence for the most part. Such as while there are no original copies of anything written by Ceaser or his historians available today, we can say with some certainty he existed. This is partially based on "circumstantial" evidence such as coins with his likeness do exist, just as writings on the catacombs of 1st century Christians do exist. First century historians whom you accept as true, but have no written record available, record brief acts of the followers of Jesus Christ, whom they deemed an insignificant blip in history.

This all boils down to trying to define God/Christianity by the same guidelines that we use to define science. As I said before I think that it is an impossibility to define one who is outside of creation and scientific laws with natural and scientific laws.

The author I appreciate so much is the Hasidic Jew, Martin Buber. In his book, Ich-Du (I and Thou) he states the critics of religion have shown correctly that God (the ultimate Thou) cannot be defined by being an object of study. That is, he recognizes that science and reason alone can never get us to God, because "it is not as if God could be inferred from anything."

Now I realize his writings are no more verifiably true than any other philosophical writer, but truth is truth no matter who wrote it. It is the job of each of us to find that truth. I have found what believe to be true. I do not take it as my sole responsibility to to make you see it as I see it. In fact, based on what I believe that the "I-Thou" relationship is an encounter not an experience I would only impede your "encountering" Him if helped you treat Him merely like an experience.

steveOrino