Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 09 May 2011, 10:52 pm

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007 ... ythical-11

Interesting article for a variety of reasons. I'll come back with my own in a bit.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 10 May 2011, 3:13 pm

I started to read that article but it's very long and boring and almost entirely devoid of any attempt to introduce non-Biblical evidence. This is remarkable when you consider that the subject matter is whether the stories in the Gospels are similar to other resurrection myths, but I guess it's par for the course.

Of course the Gospels are mythical. Or perhaps a better word would be fictional, but that may be a little unfair. I'm sure there's as much distillation of common myths as there is outright propaganda in the New Testament. Certainly there's very little, if any, objective truth though.
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 10 May 2011, 4:14 pm

A central example of that would be?
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 10 May 2011, 8:06 pm

I asked this some time in the past, but what's the motivation for making up Christianity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p9CY97 ... r_embedded
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 2552
Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 2:41 pm

Post 11 May 2011, 9:23 am

The more serious skeptics assert the idea of co-option. I happen to take that stance but I place the co-option much later. Whereas they label Paul as the culprit, I believe it was Constantine and Miltiades.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 May 2013, 10:11 am

neal
[quote][I asked this some time in the past, but what's the motivation for making up Christianity?/quote]

its the same motivation as "making up" Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion.

Its to provide a simple way for mankind to explain existence, and to provide a rationale for an expressed moral code.

Your little cartoon was cute. But there's a great deal of evidence about how Christianity and other religions have evolved over time. Particularly the early Christian Church changed over time. Involving many generations and both the church hierarchy and the roman emperors.
Its kind of funny that your cartoon picks Peter and Paul as "co-conspirators". They actually lead rival groups, Paul preaching to the non-Jewish and Peter and his group believing that Jesus was talking only to Jews about a new form of Judaism. That Peters group was probably wiped out in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD meant that only Paul's version survived. And its really thanks to his "marketing" that the religion prospered for awhile. And then down to the Roman emperors co-opting the religion for political reason that it became the dominant religion in the West.

Whether or not the Gospels are complete myth... I don't know. But, for example, if you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman he illustrates how how they changed from the earliest known versions to what is read today...

That Christianity has survived and prospered is probably that, it worked pretty well at delivering the original goals... That religion is losing its grip on modern man, is probably down to the failings that come with "simple ways to explain." The destruction of ancient Greece and the advent of the Dark Ages are as much a product of the success of Christianity through the Roman Empire as anything. And those Dark Ages, only began to fall away when men once again embraced reason after being once again exposed to Greek Philosophers through the recovery of the ancient books. Ironically preserved in Monastery's ...though never used till the Renaissance men from Italy began seeking them out and publishing them..
At least according to The Swerve, How the World Became Modern by Grenblatt"

Nothing as complex as the history of a major religion over the last 2000 years can ever be explained by a silly cartoon Neal. Or by a laboured recitation of biblical quotations... Without looking at evidence from as many sources as possible, and there are thousands ... a complete idea of how Christianty evolved can't be gained. Including in that, is the fact that the original gospels have changed enough to know that there was a lot of "shaping"... Hardly a conspiracy . Just what time does to imperfectly recorded and transmitted stories and ideas...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 May 2013, 1:17 am

Religions don't necessarily get 'made up', although in recent times we have seen pretty much that with Mormonism and Scientology.

But they can easily be constructed from stories that are not necessarily true, not as part of a conspiracy but as part of an attempt to explain events and ideas.

There were quite a few messianic sects around Judaism at the time, and the philosophy of the Greeks was seeping in. It is interesting that there are few (no) contemporary sources outside the Christian writings for the key events in Jesus' life. The turmoil of the Jewish Revolt would possibly have caused a lot to disappear, but to have nothing at all? It suggests that the events described were perhapa a lot smaller at least, if not imagined.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 Aug 2013, 6:48 pm

Curious.

Have any of you who have posted on this thread ever had what you would call a "spiritual experience?"

Whether yes or no, how would you define a "spiritual experience?"

Assuming you have had such an experience how would you explain its orginating source? A projection of your brain? An entity wholly other? Some kind of via media of the two such as Jungian consciousness?

I am of the opinion that the phenominon of religion begins with an experience of some kind that is then interpreted by the one or many who partook in the experience utilizing the culture and language of their time in order to interpret the experience.

Have any of you ever read Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions?
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 28 Aug 2013, 6:28 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Have any of you ever read Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions?

Highly recommended though I still cannot imagine living in a two-dimensional world.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 22 Dec 2013, 2:35 pm

I'd like to propose that Christianity was not "made up," that the tomb really was empty, that the evangelists did their best to capture the stories told from eyewitnesses, that there is a sacrificial nature to love, that this level of love is the highest form of love and that somehow the surrender of his life was salvific.

I will concede that Christianity has been used and abused by those claiming authority over the years but I personally belive that the tomb was empty, and not so due to thieves or well intentioned disciples.

Dag
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 23 Dec 2013, 6:39 pm

If I have not misunderstood you, this is only a useful question to those who do not specifically believe in the validity of the Bible or of some Supreme Being. The problem is that, since religion is largely a matter of faith, it boils down to whether you believe. If you do, then arguments based on historicity, science, logic, or intellectual analysis fall by the wayside. Or believed to be more signs of the anti-Christ.

I presume you would also intend this topic question to expand as an argument on the provability of any religion, regardless of whether there is a related physical gospel? The response is the same. Those who believe, believe. I doubt you'd convince a true believer that religion is just a kind of communal chaos controller or some inherent biological need to find a purpose for life. Even if The Ancients showed up and revealed that all the gods are really just Goa'uld invaders, it probably wouldn't be enough. Now, if Klingons landed, that would be another thing, altogether.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 28 Dec 2013, 4:44 pm

Geo,

Is your question directed at me or Rickyp?

The problem is that, since religion is largely a matter of faith, it boils down to whether you believe. If you do, then arguments based on historicity, science, logic, or intellectual analysis fall by the wayside.


I don't agree with this conclusion at all. On the contrary, historicity, science, logic and intellectual analysis are paramount to grounding Christianity's truth claims and not necessarily at odds with belief. Belief for me must be reasonable.

The image of a spectrum may aid my point...

Faith and reason must be balanced for the believer, for me. When one is subjugated to the other you see undeniable patterns of belief that emerge that in my opinion fall short of the truest map of the human experience.

Back to the spectrum. Picture the "healthy" believer as someone who has found a relative balance between faith and reason. Granted one never fully arrives at such a place on their spiritual journey but you get the point, one is hopefully always moving closer toward the union of the two....Now imagine that spectrum with extremes on the far ends.

If I simply believe in a set of truth claims but throw reason out the window I'm left with a very black and white world view. This will dictate my understanding of soteriology and revelation for example. Think fundamentalism or at its extreme fanaticism. At the extreme end of the spectrum I find those whose world view demands that they kill abortion providers or bomb people who disagree with them or insult their set of truth claims.

If my approach to understanding a religion's truth claims comes solely from reason and faith is cast aside the pattern tends to move from deism to agnosticism to atheism at the far end of the spectrum.

So for me, a practicing Roman Catholic I must have a balance between faith and reason. My faith must be reasonable. Now I know I'm opening myself up to be machine gunned with questions regarding various truth claims held by Roman Catholicism but I'm prepared to give those my best shot when and if I can.

I also believe that somewhere in the relationship between faith and reason there exists a fair amount of mystery. Not that I utilize the concept of "mystery" as a convenient stopgap when applied to specific beliefs, I don't. I'm simply pointing out that the relationship between faith and reason is fascinating, always evolving, improving. Surely even the hardened atheist doing serious science can appreciate a little mystery now and then?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 29 Dec 2013, 12:13 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Geo,

Is your question directed at me or Rickyp?


I don't agree with this conclusion at all. On the contrary, historicity, science, logic and intellectual analysis are paramount to grounding Christianity's truth claims and not necessarily at odds with belief. Belief for me must be reasonable.

Faith and reason must be balanced for the believer, for me. When one is subjugated to the other you see undeniable patterns of belief that emerge that in my opinion fall short of the truest map of the human experience.

... So for me, a practicing Roman Catholic I must have a balance between faith and reason. My faith must be reasonable.


So does that mean you are prepared to give up being a Catholic or believer should the science and logic not work out to your satisfaction? Are you capable of chucking your long-held belief?

Well, I would not argue with your attitudes on belief and science. See it as you like. I can see that it is a long-held and strong position with you.

But that doesn't alter the premise of Religion, itself. If faith is not enough to support it, then what is its value? Did the Bible come with footnotes and a bibliography? Or the Koran? Or any other gospel? Did not Christ chide Thomas when he would not believe in Christ's resurrection without proof? He forgave him in the end, but he got his point across.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Dec 2013, 5:57 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I don't agree with this conclusion at all. On the contrary, historicity, science, logic and intellectual analysis are paramount to grounding Christianity's truth claims and not necessarily at odds with belief. Belief for me must be reasonable.
Really? What scientific basis is there for the Resurrection?

There is very little outside the Bible to give historical grounding for even the existence of Christ, let alone the miracles or the events surrounding the Passion. What there is, however, is a fair amount of evidence for the existence of the disciples and early Christians, which gives us a second-hand view that he probably did exist. The strongest physical evidence that he did exist is the 'James ossuary', which may be a fake (the box itself is clearly the right age, but the inscription suggesting it held the bones of 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus' could be much more recent). But it still doesn't say anything to the 'truth claims'.

Which leaves logic and intellectual analysis on your list (one may suggest these are the same thing as each other). Logically, if there's no real evidence for something having happened, apart from in the fairly partial documents of true believers, it's not likely to have happened - especially if it is extraordinary in nature.

I also believe that somewhere in the relationship between faith and reason there exists a fair amount of mystery. Not that I utilize the concept of "mystery" as a convenient stopgap when applied to specific beliefs, I don't. I'm simply pointing out that the relationship between faith and reason is fascinating, always evolving, improving. Surely even the hardened atheist doing serious science can appreciate a little mystery now and then?
I guess there's mystery and "mystery". Mystery is the raison d'etre of science - it is because we ask "why" about so many things that people use science to try and find out. Religion tends to give us some 'Just So...' stories to give a final answer, which like Aristotlean tales may provide an explanation, but they are not often testable.

Science is about probing the mysteries. While we may get the answer, we may not. We may find that solving one mystery gives rise to others. Alternatively, a mystery in one sphere may shed light on another in a different sphere. When a scientist encounters a mystery the honest approach to it is that "we do not know, but we can try to find out".

Not "well a book says it was like this, and that's pretty cool so let's not worry about whether it's true".
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Dec 2013, 2:55 pm

Danivon,

I intend to respond to your points and then some in the next week or so as time allows but before I dive in too deep, have you ever had what you would consider a "religious experience?" Or if that term is too loaded I understand, how about a "spiritual experience" defined as loosely as you like? Or even some kind of transcendental moment, again, loosely defined is fine by me.

Also, while I'm at it, have you ever prayed? And you can define prayer as you like but by prayer I mean an effort on your part to communicate with whatever it is that may be responsible for the universe?

How you answer will help me in responding to some of the points raised here. If these questions are too personal I understand and will do my best anyway.