Jesus's Birth and Death [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

David Sklansky

08-04-2005, 07:38 AM

The following words are not something that anyone should disagree with.

Religious people have a tendency to be vague. They have a tendency to speak of love, faith, feelings, morals, God's will, sin, etc. etc. Perfectly fine. Furthermore many Christians take pains to assert that their religion doesn't contradict science anymore, even if misguided practioners in the past once did. Again OK. Well almost OK. Because they do in fact at the very least assert a couple of things that science considers close to impossible. Namely that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus truely died and was resurrected. (I think some Christian sects don't think that Mary was a virgin.)

Although there is much more to the Christian religion, it is important to realize that these two assertions BY THEMSELVES ARE EVERYTHING. If they were somehow proven to be untrue there is no Christianity. If either assertion is true there must at the very least be a God and unless you are a big bossjj supporter, it is the God that Christians believe in. ALMOST NO ATHEIST WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT LAST STATEMENT.

What I'm trying to say is that whether atheists are right or not pretty much hinges on the totally unvague questions of whether Mary was a virgin and whether Jesus was resurrected. (Jews would disagree but that's not relevant to most people. If the answer to those two questions turned out to be "no" I'm betting almost all Christians would become atheists rather than Jews.)

Of course there is no obvious way to answer those two questions. My only point here is to make clear that the atheist vesus religious debate (as opposed to debates between Christian denominations) is not vague, philosophical, psychological, emotional, left brain versus right brain, or any of the things that Pair the Board or others would like it to be. It is a clear cut, no nonsense, simply put question.

MaxPowerPoker

08-04-2005, 08:03 AM

Let me be the first Christian to agree with you on this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
1Co 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
1Co 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

[/ QUOTE ]

BZ_Zorro

08-04-2005, 08:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The following words are not something that anyone should disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has to be your best unintentionally arrogant sentence yet.

And I do disagree with most of it.

1. [ QUOTE ]
If either assertion is true there must at the very least be a God

[/ QUOTE ]
I can think of many other possible and reasonable explanations for these phenomena.

2. Muslims and Jews get along just fine without Jesus. These religions aren't that far removed from christianity in their core beliefs. Christianity would survive in an altered form - Jesus could still be a messenger of God without these miracles.

3. [ QUOTE ]
If the answer to those two questions turned out to be "no" I'm betting almost all Christians would become atheists rather than Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely. If you think this I doubt you understand the religious mind. No offence intended.

MaxPowerPoker

08-04-2005, 08:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity would survive in an altered form - Jesus could still be a messenger of God without these miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

This altered form exists now but is by definition not Christian. Unless by Christian you mean "having something even remotely to do with Jesus". I don't buy this definition by the way.

BZ_Zorro

08-04-2005, 08:29 AM

Think of Jesus as a Christian version of Muhammed. You can still be a follower of Jesus and believe he is THE messenger from god and the way to salvation without these two miracles. In fact, some of the more grounded and educated Christians probably do.

As a case in point, look at what happened with Darwin's theory. The idea of evolution and man descending from apes fundamentally goes against the idea of Jesus, who died to save us from original sin. At the time, it rocked the foundations of Christianity, but the intelligent found a way to incorporate this glaring contradiction into their belief system. They always do. Hell, some even deny evolution to this day.

In summary: Sklansky's proposed revelations wouldn't make much difference. Saying that they'd become atheists is missing the mark imo.

mackthefork

08-04-2005, 08:42 AM

I've openly stated before, I can accept that its possible for Christ to have risen from his tomb, and still logically be an atheist, this is due to the fact that its much more probably that he wasn't dead (but unconscious), than the existence of such a god the Christians choose to believe in.

Regards Mack

daryn

08-04-2005, 08:53 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
I can think of many other possible and reasonable explanations for these phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, you can't. don't confuse what sklansky was saying. he said that if jesus REALLY WAS RESURRECTED. that doesn't mean that he appeared to be dead and then came back to life. he's talking about a real deal resurrection.

mackthefork

08-04-2005, 08:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
no, you can't. don't confuse what sklansky was saying. he said that if jesus REALLY WAS RESURRECTED. that doesn't mean that he appeared to be dead and then came back to life. he's talking about a real deal resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that its a billion to one, and it can't be proved at this point, isn't it all a bit pointless.

Mack

BZ_Zorro

08-04-2005, 09:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can think of many other possible and reasonable explanations for these phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]
no, you can't. don't confuse what sklansky was saying. he said that if jesus REALLY WAS RESURRECTED. that doesn't mean that he appeared to be dead and then came back to life. he's talking about a real deal resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, so he's saying that if God really did resurrect Jesus, the God must exist? Well, yeah. Duh.

The question is one of whether a historical figure called Jesus came back to to life after being dead for a while, and then rose up into the sky or whatever. If that was true, are you telling me you can't come up with another explanation for it that doesn't involve a supernatural super being?

Can you see how if such an event did really happen, it would be written into a religious book and passed off as the work of gOd?

MaxPowerPoker

08-04-2005, 09:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Think of Jesus as a Christian version of Muhammed. You can still be a follower of Jesus and believe he is the way to salvation without these two miracles. In fact, some of the more grounded and educated Christians probably do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would someone want to follow a liar? And even if you decided to, what makes you thing that would in any way lead to salvation? Following a Jesus who was not raised from the dead has the exact same saving power as following...say...David Sklansky. It may make you feel good, but there is not hope of salvation. I mean if there is something to be saved from, what good is following someone who has no power to overcome it for you?

MaxPowerPoker

08-04-2005, 09:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I've openly stated before, I can accept that its possible for Christ to have risen from his tomb, and still logically be an atheist, this is due to the fact that its much more probably that he wasn't dead (but unconscious), than the existence of such a god the Christians choose to believe in.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this argument is that the Romans were professional executioners. They were experts. What is the probability that they failed at their primary task?

daryn

08-04-2005, 09:26 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
The question is one of whether a historical figure called Jesus came back to to life after being dead for a while, and then rose up into the sky or whatever. If that was true, are you telling me you can't come up with another explanation for it that doesn't involve a supernatural super being?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i can't come up with another explanation for that, assuming it is the real deal, which is what sklansky is talking about.

mackthefork

08-04-2005, 09:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this argument is that the Romans were professional executioners. They were experts. What is the probability that they failed at their primary task?

[/ QUOTE ]

Extremely low, 5,000 to 1 or so, but against the chances of the Christian god existing of say a billion to 1, based on those numbers I make it 99.9995% that my theory is correct. Given the number of exections the Romans carried out, it is reasonable given poor medical knowledge that some survived these processes.

Anyway we're going off topic here, lets not.

Thanks Mack

bobman0330

08-04-2005, 09:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
- Jesus could still be a messenger of God without these miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly.

As C.S. Lewis points out, Jesus was either the son of God, or a madman and heretic.

kleos

08-04-2005, 09:56 AM

MaxPowerPoker

08-04-2005, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this argument is that the Romans were professional executioners. They were experts. What is the probability that they failed at their primary task?

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be true, however the Romans left him for dead, he was not executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. They did not leave him for dead.
[ QUOTE ]
Joh 19:31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.
Joh 19:32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him.
Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

[/ QUOTE ]

BZ_Zorro

08-04-2005, 10:16 AM

I'm going to respond and then stop posting as I'm clogging this thread. I know what Sklansky was getting at with his post, but I disagreed with so many of his assertions that I had to say something.

OK, here's some other explanations of how a dead human body could come back to life (none of these involve God, especially the God as described in the Christian bible):

1. Jesus was an alien and/or was helped by aliens.
2. Jesus was from the spiritual realm (buddhist, non god), and had advanced powers over the physical realm. He talked to the people of the day in a manner they could understand.
3. Jesus was an advanced being as described in Dianetics.
4. Jesus was a member of the technologically advanced race of Atlantis, the angels described in the bible (as well as the two strange people in the tomb) were actually people of his race who brought him back to life.
5. Invent your own!

[ QUOTE ]
As C.S. Lewis points out, Jesus was either the son of God, or a madman and heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]
He can still be a son of God without these two miracles. Jesus died for original sin. Since we now know that man descended from an ape like ancestor, and that the Adam and Eve story is literally false, Jesus dying for our sins (i.e. original sin), isn't as important.

Regarding Sklansky's point about Christians becoming atheists, there are already many Christians who believe that Jesus was not actually resurrected. They are still Christians, but do not believe in the literal truth of the resurrection or virgin birth. So no, if these things were proven false you could still be a Christian. http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

And even if a literal resurrection was disproven, he could still have appeared in spiritual form (what importance is the physical body anyway?). Many parts of the bible appear to support this hypothesis, and many Christians believe it. So if a literal, actual physical body back to life resurrection is disproven, people will still be Christians.

The following might clarify my point (from the link above):

[ QUOTE ]

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ass, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events.

[/ QUOTE ]

daryn

08-04-2005, 10:20 AM

ok i see what you are saying, but then you could also say that the god that resurrected jesus wasn't the god he was preaching about, but actually a different god altogether.

maurile

08-04-2005, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Namely that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus truely died and was resurrected.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Jesus Seminar is an example of a bunch of Christians who don't accept either a virgin birth or a physical resurrection.

[ QUOTE ]
If either assertion is true there must at the very least be a God and unless you are a big bossjj supporter, it is the God that Christians believe in. ALMOST NO ATHEIST WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT LAST STATEMENT.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with it.

BluffTHIS!

08-04-2005, 12:03 PM

David,

You are of course correct. Absent those two miracles in the past being true, then the whole basis of Christianity is undermined. However, as a Catholic, I belong to a church that has existed since Jesus' death and has been the custodian of divine revelation and which has asserted in an unbroken line for 2000 years the truth of those 2 miracles based upon the testimony of Jesus himself and those involved. Note however, that the protestants, claiming that the catholic church has only existed since around 350 A.D. and that their own individual denominations reflect the true early church that existed before the institutional church, cannot claim such an unbroken line of revelation (plus wasn't it nice of all those catholic monks in early middle ages to continuously recopy scripture so that it would be available for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et. al. to reinterpret to start their own denominations?). As has been much discussed before, these 2 miracles cannot scientifically or historically (to non-believers) be conclusively proved or disproved.

FWIW, if I were not a Christian, I would probably be a Zen Buddhist or Taoist, although I am talking about philosophical Zen/Taoism and not "religious" Zen/Taosism (ok you buddhists/taosists don't start on me for differentiating same).

Jake (The Snake)

08-04-2005, 12:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
If the answer to those two questions turned out to be "no" I'm betting almost all Christians would become atheists rather than Jews.

I disagree completely. If you think this I doubt you understand the religious mind. No offence intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I agree with this 100%. Some might become atheists but religious people have a way of qualifying everything to fit their religion. My prayer wasn't answered? God works in mysterious ways. Jesus not resurrected? God tricked us to save us... or something silly like that.

Anyway, I would agree that David's two points hit to the heart of Christianity much more than prayer for example, but I truly do not believe there is anything at all that could happen (besides perhaps a God from a different religion appearing on Earth) that could not be qualified. ESPECIALLY when we consider events that happened in the past, since they are so easily qualified.

tripp0807

08-04-2005, 12:37 PM

All replies to David's post that attempt to undermine his primary point are nonsense. Christianity hinges on these two points, as was well demonstrated by the 1st Corinthians passage posted above.

-Tripp

David Sklansky

08-04-2005, 05:11 PM

Your points are technically correct and I thought of them when I was writing my post. But they miss the real point that I was trying to make. Namely that specific religions, most especially Christianity, require the belief in some very factual, no vagueness about it stuff. To say that they believe that Jesus is the son of God is not an example. But the two things I said are.

PairTheBoard

08-04-2005, 08:13 PM

DS --
"Of course there is no obvious way to answer those two questions. My only point here is to make clear that the atheist vesus religious debate (as opposed to debates between Christian denominations) is not vague, philosophical, psychological, emotional, left brain versus right brain, or any of the things that Pair the Board or others would like it to be. It is a clear cut, no nonsense, simply put question."

I didn't realize I was getting bottomline billing on this thread or I'd have looked at it sooner.

DS --
"What I'm trying to say is that whether atheists are right or not pretty much hinges on the totally unvague questions of whether Mary was a virgin and whether Jesus was resurrected."

In that case Atheism fails. The view of many modernist Christian Theologians, such as the "Jesus Seminar" that maurille mentioned, as well as many modernist thinking practicing Christians is that:

The Immaculate Conception and the Resurection are true even though there was no physical virgin birth or physical resurection.

The truth of these miracles does not lie in the breaking of the laws of physics - which did not happen - but in the change of heart for those touched by them. This is something that is evident in history and amounts to a singularity in the historical story of human kind's relation to the divine.

Just because you or other Christians claim this is not Christianity doesn't make it so. You certainly don't define Christianity. Christianity defines itself and it is still in the process of doing so.

PairTheBoard

08-04-2005, 09:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The truth of these miracles does not lie in the breaking of the laws of physics - which did not happen - but in the change of heart for those touched by them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is this kind of thinking that assures Christianity will continue to exist for a very long time. Christians obfuscate their beliefs as fast as science can refute them. It has gotten to the point that Christian beliefs cannot be proven false- because they don't assert anything. I can read the quoted statement 10 times but it doesn't mean anything to me. It's so vague that I doubt the poster could be persuaded to give up his beliefs, regardless of what science could prove.

PairTheBoard

08-04-2005, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth of these miracles does not lie in the breaking of the laws of physics - which did not happen - but in the change of heart for those touched by them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is this kind of thinking that assures Christianity will continue to exist for a very long time. Christians obfuscate their beliefs as fast as science can refute them. It has gotten to the point that Christian beliefs cannot be proven false- because they don't assert anything. I can read the quoted statement 10 times but it doesn't mean anything to me. It's so vague that I doubt the poster could be persuaded to give up his beliefs, regardless of what science could prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or.

Maybe there's something going on that you don't understand.

PairTheBoard

vulturesrow

08-04-2005, 10:47 PM

Im with BLUFFThis in that if it were proven and demonstrably false, Id be out. Although I wouldnt even turn to any other religion or philosophy. Although if I wasnt married Id see if I could find any hot Wiccan chicks and do sex magic with them.

David Sklansky

08-04-2005, 11:02 PM

"The truth of these miracles does not lie in the breaking of the laws of physics - which did not happen - but in the change of heart for those touched by them. This is something that is evident in history and amounts to a singularity in the historical story of human kind's relation to the divine.

Just because you or other Christians claim this is not Christianity doesn't make it so. You certainly don't define Christianity. Christianity defines itself and it is still in the process of doing so."

PairTheBoard

I was afraid that my original post might not have been accurate when it described your beliefs as vague. Fear gone. But I certainly did not presume to define Chistianity. That's for Christians to decide for themselves. Many Christians may very well believe what you wrote. Some may even UNDERSTAND what you wrote.

I am curious if you are a member of of a particular Christian sect. Something made me think you are Catholic. I don't anymore. Would you mind revealing what that sect is?

spaminator101

08-04-2005, 11:06 PM

i agree some one would have to be out of their mind to disagree with you on this point
if mary were not a virgin then the bible would be wrong this would make the bible contradictory and it would be stupid to beleive any of it
by the way i am a christian

spaminator101

08-04-2005, 11:10 PM

i would definately not become a jew if the bible were proved false which may i mention has never happened

David Sklansky

08-04-2005, 11:26 PM

"i would definately not become a jew if the bible were proved false which may i mention has never happened"

I assume you mean that if the gt was (ha ha just kidding, the New Testament) was proven false you wouldn't become a Jew. Otherwise your statement was a tautology. Am I correct?

PairTheBoard

08-04-2005, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"The truth of these miracles does not lie in the breaking of the laws of physics - which did not happen - but in the change of heart for those touched by them. This is something that is evident in history and amounts to a singularity in the historical story of human kind's relation to the divine.

Just because you or other Christians claim this is not Christianity doesn't make it so. You certainly don't define Christianity. Christianity defines itself and it is still in the process of doing so."

PairTheBoard

I was afraid that my original post might not have been accurate when it described your beliefs as vague. Fear gone. But I certainly did not presume to define Chistianity. That's for Christians to decide for themselves. Many Christians may very well believe what you wrote. Some may even UNDERSTAND what you wrote.

I am curious if you are a member of of a particular Christian sect. Something made me think you are Catholic. I don't anymore. Would you mind revealing what that sect is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Where in my post did I imply that these were MY beliefs? Why did you omit my preface to the comments you quoted:

PTB --
"The view of many modernist Christian Theologians, such as the "Jesus Seminar" that maurille mentioned, as well as many modernist thinking practicing Christians is that:"

Modernist Catholic theologians would not expect a scientific test to prove that wine changes to blood at the Eucharist. Yet they will still believe in the Truth of the Transmutation of wine to blood.

Does making this statement make me a Catholic?

I make these reports on the state of things to show there's more going on than a lot of people understand. I am in the weakest postion of all as I get ridiculed from both the religious and antireligious sides. I remain convinced that 1000 years from now the arguments being made here ON BOTH SIDES will be considered childishly naive. Much like you consider the once great Aristotle.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 12:09 AM

btw, I will say this about what I think. I think the concept of "miracle" that both sides insist on is right out of the dark ages.

PairTheBoard

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 12:16 AM

"Modernist Catholic theologians would not expect a scientific test to prove that wine changes to blood at the Eucharist. Yet they will still believe in the Truth of the Transmutation of wine to blood.

Does making this statement make me a Catholic? "

Nope. I think it would be more accurate to say that makes Modernist Catholic theologians Pair the Boardians.

RJT

08-05-2005, 12:27 AM

Pair,

I am very interested in where the heck you got the word "transmutation".

Also, would like to know, who the "many" modernist Christian theologians are that your referred to.

zipo

08-05-2005, 12:30 AM

>>Nope. I think it would be more accurate to say that makes Modernist Catholic theologians Pair the Boardians. <<

Well, some Catholic theologians that I know have a slightly more nuanced view of transsubstantiation. The 'truth' they would describe here celebrates the miracle of redemption through sacrifice, and that 'truth' is not necessarily dependent upon a concrete manifestation (or infantile belief) that bread and water literally is transformed into flesh and blood.

Of course if I had to make a prop bet between hitting a river gutshot and redemption in the 21st century with all of its temptations... well, that's another thread.

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Modernist Catholic theologians would not expect a scientific test to prove that wine changes to blood at the Eucharist. Yet they will still believe in the Truth of the Transmutation of wine to blood.

Does making this statement make me a Catholic? "

Nope. I think it would be more accurate to say that makes Modernist Catholic theologians Pair the Boardians.

[/ QUOTE ]

God forbid.

PairTheBoard

spaminator101

08-05-2005, 12:32 AM

true

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 12:48 AM

RJT --

"I am very interested in where the heck you got the word "transmutation".

From a tired old brain that can't remember the correct word. If you were interested in dialogue you would supply it yourself as you know perfectly well what it is. But why pass up a chance to take a shot heh?

RJT --
"Also, would like to know, who the "many" modernist Christian theologians are that your referred to."

Well, you can start with the 74 or so that are still on the Jesus Seminary. I think they are considered more the radical fringe though, so if you branch out from them to more mainstream I imagine you can pick up a few more. Try google. It's usually pretty good at that kind of thing.

If you're really interested in the truth you should investigate this yourself. What does it matter what I believe or what you think of me?

PairTheBoard

spaminator101

08-05-2005, 12:48 AM

i respect you very much you were an icon for me for quite a while before i knew 2+2 existed
i just cant see how a man so smart can deny God
also for an atheist you know an awful lot about religion why do you care so much if you dont beleive it your self

Prevaricator

08-05-2005, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i just cant see how a man so smart can deny God

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont see how seemingly smart people can believe so deeply in god.

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 12:55 AM

"i respect you very much you were an icon for me for quite a while before i knew 2+2 existed
i just cant see how a man so smart can deny God
also for an atheist you know an awful lot about religion why do you care so much if you dont beleive it your self"

I'm not an atheist. I'm a non practicing Pair the Boardian.

zipo

08-05-2005, 12:55 AM

Spam -

There are certain people - intelligent athiests - who get kicks out of mocking people of faith, because their intellect tells them that people of faith are stupid and/or deluded.

Some people would be content to let this lie, but if you mix atheism and intelligence and an inflated ego based upon ones feeling of intellectual superiority, compensating for a deep sense of inferiority, then you have a personality type that derives sadistic pleasure from demonstrating how 'stupid' certain other people are.

George Carlin comes to mind as an exemplar of this type.

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
>>Nope. I think it would be more accurate to say that makes Modernist Catholic theologians Pair the Boardians. <<

Well, some Catholic theologians that I know have a slightly more nuanced view of transsubstantiation. The 'truth' they would describe here celebrates the miracle of redemption through sacrifice, and that 'truth' is not necessarily dependent upon a concrete manifestation (or infantile belief) that bread and water literally is transformed into flesh and blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right. What zipo said. Now extend that kind of thinking about transsubstantiation, to other "concrete manifestations" like the Immaculate Conception and the Resurrection and you've got my original point. It was not that long ago that Catholics almost considered it a Requirement to hold the "infantile belief" that bread and water literally is transformed into flesh and blood. Now a more "nuanced" view is allowed. Has this Modern development destroyed the Faith? Far from it. It has in fact strengthened it in the long run.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 01:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"i respect you very much you were an icon for me for quite a while before i knew 2+2 existed
i just cant see how a man so smart can deny God
also for an atheist you know an awful lot about religion why do you care so much if you dont beleive it your self"

I'm not an atheist. I'm a non practicing Pair the Boardian.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we still have that date in hell?

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 01:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Spam -

There are certain people - intelligent athiests - who get kicks out of mocking people of faith, because their intellect tells them that people of faith are stupid and/or deluded.

Some people would be content to let this lie, but if you mix atheism and intelligence and an inflated ego based upon ones feeling of intellectual superiority, compensating for a deep sense of inferiority, then you have a personality type that derives sadistic pleasure from demonstrating how 'stupid' certain other people are.

George Carlin comes to mind as an exemplar of this type.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Carlin. Right. That's just who I was thinking of as well.

LOL

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth of these miracles does not lie in the breaking of the laws of physics - which did not happen - but in the change of heart for those touched by them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is this kind of thinking that assures Christianity will continue to exist for a very long time. Christians obfuscate their beliefs as fast as science can refute them. It has gotten to the point that Christian beliefs cannot be proven false- because they don't assert anything. I can read the quoted statement 10 times but it doesn't mean anything to me. It's so vague that I doubt the poster could be persuaded to give up his beliefs, regardless of what science could prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or.

Maybe there's something going on that you don't understand.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly possible, but it wouldn't make a difference or change my argument. In my experience most Christians are unfamiliar with their specific beliefs and if pressed will only offer vague abstractions, and even those are subject to change. Definitive proof that Jesus never rose from the dead wouldn't create hoards of new atheists; Christians would either ignore the evidence or adopt it into their belief system.

edit: Just noting that the religious discussions on 2+2 are far better than other forums that I've posted on.

NotReady

08-05-2005, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Definitive proof that Jesus never rose from the dead wouldn't create hoards of new atheists; Christians would either ignore the evidence or adopt it into their belief system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vice versa for atheists.

BZ_Zorro

08-05-2005, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Has this Modern development destroyed the Faith? Far from it. It has in fact strengthened it in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add to that adam and eve, the flood, original sin, and all the other literal nonsense in the OT. Not that long ago you'd be burnt at the stake for saying it wasn't true. These were the bread and butter, core beliefs of the church, absolutely essential to christianity (think of the stink Darwin caused), and now they're (mostly) no longer believed.

Christians today don't seem to realise how much the church and its dogma has changed in 200 years, and just how vitally important these beliefs once were. In fact, they still are if you want to credit Jesus with any credible power of salvation. But that's another topic that people with blinders on will never understand.

08-05-2005, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Definitive proof that Jesus never rose from the dead wouldn't create hoards of new atheists; Christians would either ignore the evidence or adopt it into their belief system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vice versa for atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about this before posting. I think that if Jesus were to fly down to earth on a choir of angels and perform miracles (water into wine, fish & loaves, etc.) I would probably convert. Not immediately, but I could be convinced.

That, though, reminds me of a verse from the bible:

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I guess I'm out of luck.

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 01:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth of these miracles does not lie in the breaking of the laws of physics - which did not happen - but in the change of heart for those touched by them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is this kind of thinking that assures Christianity will continue to exist for a very long time. Christians obfuscate their beliefs as fast as science can refute them. It has gotten to the point that Christian beliefs cannot be proven false- because they don't assert anything. I can read the quoted statement 10 times but it doesn't mean anything to me. It's so vague that I doubt the poster could be persuaded to give up his beliefs, regardless of what science could prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or.

Maybe there's something going on that you don't understand.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly possible, but it wouldn't make a difference or change my argument. In my experience most Christians are unfamiliar with their specific beliefs and if pressed will only offer vague abstractions, and even those are subject to change. Definitive proof that Jesus never rose from the dead wouldn't create hoards of new atheists; Christians would either ignore the evidence or adopt it into their belief system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I detect in the tone of your opinion a kind of personal disgust with the Christian Religion and maybe religion in general. The thrust seems to be that Christians will find a way to delude themselves regardless of the evidence.

My contention in saying that there may be something going on which you don't understand is this: It may be that what really matters in the Christian Faith goes far beyond the premodern magical concepts of the Immaculate Conception and Resurection. It does not require the "Definitive proof that Jesus never rose from the dead " for people to simply give up their premodern magical concept of what that has to mean. Just as zippo explained in his post about the transubstantiation of wine to water, a more modern nuanced view can be just as supportive of the faith. People can very well give up the infantile magical part of the religion while holding on to what really matters. In fact they may be freed to discover a deeper devotion to what really matters in their Faith.

Do not expect to open closed minds with these ideas. On the other hand, do not let the closed minds that surround you force your's into a box, one way or the other. .

PairTheBoard

zipo

08-05-2005, 01:46 AM

>>That, though, reminds me of a verse from the bible:

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.<<

I am reminded of another verse - Matthew 7:6- "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

08-05-2005, 02:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I detect in the tone of your opinion a kind of personal disgust with the Christian Religion and maybe religion in general. The thrust seems to be that Christians will find a way to delude themselves regardless of the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've hit the nail on the head (regarding Christianity that is- I have little experience with other religions).

[ QUOTE ]
People can very well give up the infantile magical part of the religion while holding on to what really matters. In fact they may be freed to discover a deeper devotion to what really matters in their Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

People can very well do this and if it works for them, fine. Note that I don't have a problem with Christians. I've was baptised and confirmed as a Catholic and went to a Catholic school the first 14 years of my life.

Personally, however, when I see core tenets of a religion tossed aside I have to question whether or not people have any idea what they really believe. You can say that Christianity isn't really about the resurrection or the performance of miracles, but I would flatly disagree. That's what Christianity has always been about. It's not called loveandkindessianity or goldenruleiantiy, its called Christianty. Christ being the man that rose from the dead, cured the sick, and gave sight to the blind. I mean no offense, but if you don't believe those things happened, I would contend that you're just making it up as you go along.

[ QUOTE ]
I am reminded of another verse - Matthew 7:6- "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent comeback. But if we're going to talk Matthew 7, I prefer 7:1:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Zeno

08-05-2005, 02:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My contention in saying that there may be something going on which you don't understand is this: It may be that what really matters in the Christian Faith goes far beyond the premodern magical concepts of the Immaculate Conception and Resurection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the OP was about the Virgin Birth of Jesus and The Resurection of Jesus. The Immaculate Conception is something different (that the Virgin Mary was without original sin).

Immaculate Conception (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

Virgin Birth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm)

Resurection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
The thrust seems to be that Christians will find a way to delude themselves regardless of the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People can very well give up the infantile magical part of the religion while holding on to what really matters. In fact they may be freed to discover a deeper devotion to what really matters in their Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two very interesting statements. Could you elaborate on both statements and also how they relate to each other? Perhaps this would be better done in a separate thread.

Thanks.

-Zeno

zipo

08-05-2005, 02:49 AM

>>I've was baptised and confirmed as a Catholic and went to a Catholic school the first 14 years of my life. <<

Me too. But when I turned 18 (a couple decades ago) I got hold of Dostoyevsky and that pretty much did in my indoctrination/beliefs in Catholicism/Christianity.

>>You can say that Christianity isn't really about the resurrection or the performance of miracles, but I would flatly disagree. That's what Christianity has always been about.<>I mean no offense, but if you don't believe those things happened, I would contend that you're just making it up as you go along.<<

No offense, but not at all.

zipo

08-05-2005, 02:50 AM

>>Excellent comeback. But if we're going to talk Matthew 7, I prefer 7:1:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. <<

Touche. My bad there, but I couldn't help it - I've always loved that verse lol

08-05-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. At it's best, Christianity has been about "Love thy neighbor" and "Do unto others...". In essence then - in this particular sense - one need not believe in Christ to be a Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

This takes it too far for my tastes. I don't see somebody as a Christian just because he's a nice guy. They might be acting in a Christian-like manner (debatable), but that's about it. And if I remember correctly, Dante didn't put the otherwise pure non-believers in Paradise, he put them in hell.

RJT

08-05-2005, 03:03 AM

Transubstantiation is the word you were looking for. I really wasn’t positive you meant to use that word. I seriously thought it might have come from the Jesus Seminar. I had never heard of the Jesus Seminar (maybe I did and forgot about it). But, from your reference to the Seminar and your casual use of the word theologians, it seems possible that they came up with a new word.

You (rhetorically) ask me, “What does it matter what I believe or what you think of me?

It doesn’t matter to me what you believe, nor would I expect you to care what I believe. The problem I have is when you (and really, more so, too often others) make statements like the following on this forum:

"The view of many modernist Christian Theologians, such as the "Jesus Seminar" that maurille mentioned, as well as many modernist thinking practicing Christians is that…"

My issue is the use of subjective words like “many” and connecting it to the word “theologians”. Perhaps I am wrong, but it just struck me as too cavalier a statement.

Readers who know little about Christianity have no way of knowing in what context such statements should be put (sure there is Google). Now, David S.(is a good example of one, who obviously, and admittedly, knows little about Christianity. - Albeit, in my opinion, his point of this particular post is right-on. Sure, there are tenets other than these two that can’t be left out of Christianity; but, for the sake of his point, not necessary.) is smart enough to have figured out its proper context. Other readers unfamiliar with Christianity might not.

I apologize for my terseness. I really think I am more frustrated with some of the other posts made at various time regarding Christianity that really are misguided.

Btw, I agree with you 100% when you said that Christianity is still defining itself. I prefer to say it is a Living Church, but the point is the same.

To go with a grain of salt, I think the Jesus Seminar nonsense. I appreciate your point about touching the heart, though.

zipo

08-05-2005, 03:12 AM

>>I don't see somebody as a Christian just because he's a nice guy. <<

This unfairly trivializes my point, I think. Perhaps it would help to think of Christ as a myth or an archetype, capable of being potentiated by anyone as a constellated aspect of the human soul/psyche.

Sorry if that sounded too 'new age', but we're talking about things that don't readily lend themselves to logical analysis.

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 03:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My contention in saying that there may be something going on which you don't understand is this: It may be that what really matters in the Christian Faith goes far beyond the premodern magical concepts of the Immaculate Conception and Resurection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the OP was about the Virgin Birth of Jesus and The Resurection of Jesus. The Immaculate Conception is something different (that the Virgin Mary was without original sin).

Immaculate Conception (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

Virgin Birth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm)

Resurection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
The thrust seems to be that Christians will find a way to delude themselves regardless of the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People can very well give up the infantile magical part of the religion while holding on to what really matters. In fact they may be freed to discover a deeper devotion to what really matters in their Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two very interesting statements. Could you elaborate on both statements and also how they relate to each other? Perhaps this would be better done in a separate thread.

Thanks.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the "Immaculate Conception" of Jesus was the same as the Virgin Birth. I was not aware the term only applied to Mary's immaculate conception.

In this quote I was refering to the thrust of CubicZirconian's attitude:
PTB --
"The thrust seems to be that Christians will find a way to delude themselves regardless of the evidence. "

My thought was, on the contrary, they might give up the ideas CubicZ objects to without even needing evidence, just on the basis of modern thinking which generally rejects Magical Explanations for things.

As far as what "really matters" in the Faith, I leave that to those better qualified to go into. imo, if there is something in the Faith that Really Matters, it is not Magic and it should not require Magic to stand on its own.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard

08-05-2005, 03:37 AM

zipo

08-05-2005, 03:40 AM

>>Are you the son of god?
"We Are"<<

nh

zipo

08-05-2005, 03:50 AM

>>Are you the son of god?
"We Are" <<

Or better yet... "My name is Legion, for we are many".

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 05:46 AM

"Definitive proof that Jesus never rose from the dead wouldn't create hoards of new atheists; Christians would either ignore the evidence or adopt it into their belief system."

"Vice versa for atheists."

I'm almost positive you are wrong. And I wonder what affect it would have on some of your opinions if you were shown you were wrong. Because it is a lot easier to dismiss atheist's arguments if you think that they are so closeminded as to still disbelieve in the face of almost irrefutable evidence.

NotReady

08-05-2005, 08:54 AM

We've been through this cycle before. You've stated that if you were shown a miracle it would just be a matter of time until science proved how it happened.

08-05-2005, 10:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
>>I don't see somebody as a Christian just because he's a nice guy. <<

This unfairly trivializes my point, I think. Perhaps it would help to think of Christ as a myth or an archetype, capable of being potentiated by anyone as a constellated aspect of the human soul/psyche.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to trivialize your point. And it could be that I actually agree with you. I can see Jesus as a myth/archtype in a historic sense. Maybe Greek Gods-->Roman Gods-->Christian God, a timeline that turns over at irregular intervals. But if a person is going to accept this, they would also have to accept the validity of all other belief systems, and this is something I don't see Christians doing.

I'm fine with thinking of religion as a collective human belief system, but Christianity isn't. When Christ becomes only a myth or symbol, you've ceased talking about Christianity (in my opinion). To me it is illogical that a person who does not believe in the specifics of Christianity would continue to maintain "Christian status." And that's exactly what I see happening all the time. To summarize, the bible:

"And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."
-1 Corinthians 15:14-19

Shandrax

08-05-2005, 10:48 AM

Let me put it this way: Even if Maria wasn't a virgin and Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, Christianity would not lose much, because it doesn't matter these days.

The story about Maria as a pregnant virgin was probably made up to protect her from punishment for cheating on her husband - this is a recurring theme, because Jesus saves a woman from getting killed because of it later.

The myth about Jesus' resurrection is different. Human beings live in fear of death, but back then they were so naive and illiterate that they would fall for fake stories about someone returning from death. Nowadays people usually know it better, so the life after death myth is no longer the main point of this religion. People who believe in life after death these days pay to have their bodies cryo-frozen or something which is of course ridiculous also.

The main point about Christianity is how to live together in a peaceful community and to help those who are in need. Unfortunately that's the area where they are still failing for the most part, but that makes it even more important.

So in a nutshell, if Christianity was based on an idea backed up by a few myths, the basic idea should still prevail, because it is essentially a good idea, even if the myths can be proven false.

08-05-2005, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nowadays people usually know it better, so the life after death myth is no longer the main point of this religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you're getting this from, but I completely disagree. Do you think people go to church on Sunday because they like getting up early? Life after death is the main component of Christianity, at least it is to every priest and religious person I've ever talked to.

[ QUOTE ]
So in a nutshell, if Christianity was based on an idea backed up by a few myths, the basic idea should still prevail, because it is essentially a good idea, even if the myths can be proven false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this. But I don't need Christianity to be a good person. I still contend that if you're not going to believe in the myths you're wasting your time. The myths are what got it started, and the myths are what it's all about.

David Sklansky

08-05-2005, 06:21 PM

First of all I did not state that. Secondly I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about the typical atheist. And to repeat my question, "how would you change your opinion if you came to realize that most atheists would quickly accept obvious miracles (similar to the miracles of the bible)as strong evidence of God?."

This is an important question because it seems to me that in order for you to believe what you do religion wise, it is necessary for you to believe that athiests are completely unreasonable. A position not held Bluff This, boss jj, or Peter666.

NotReady

08-05-2005, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]

First of all I did not state that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You did state that in another post.

[ QUOTE ]

"how would you change your opinion if you came to realize that most atheists would quickly accept obvious miracles (similar to the miracles of the bible)as strong evidence of God?."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they would believe there might be some kind of god but that doesn't save.
[ QUOTE ]

it is necessary for you to believe that athiests are completely unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you come up with this stuff? I've never said atheists are "completely" unreasonable.

Timer

08-05-2005, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Life after death is the main component of Christianity

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be part of it, but in my opinion love is the main component. [A word that you will not find one time in the so-called Holy Koran, by the way.]

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

"Love your enemies."

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

"Judge not, lest ye be not judged."

spaminator101

08-05-2005, 09:00 PM

yall are all wrong the main component of christianity is GOD

Shandrax

08-06-2005, 06:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this. But I don't need Christianity to be a good person. I still contend that if you're not going to believe in the myths you're wasting your time. The myths are what got it started, and the myths are what it's all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where I disagree. In my opinion they used these myths and cheap "magic" to turn barbarians into good people.

Christianity would work just as well if it was nothing but a philosophical concept. You don't need ghosts and miracles at all. Just common sense alone wasn't enough to convince people who used to believe in such super-natural stuff. That's why they made up their own stories to compete with the average religion of the time.

Shandrax

08-06-2005, 06:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
yall are all wrong the main component of christianity is GOD

[/ QUOTE ]

God is used as some sort of judge. You have to please him with your actions and then he will reward you or punish you. Just another concept to make people behave in a certain way.

As I said above, this "certain way" was designed to live together in peace and harmony. In a deeper sense Christianity is all about equal rights and respect for each other. Of course all of these ideals have been horribly abused by kings, governments and even the church itsself.