|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 05/06/2002 : 12:28:42 [Permalink]
|
I am truly skeptical that a world-wide religion could be founded on someone who didn't exist.
If I might be even more nit picky than usual I'll point out two things.
No one said the someone who founded the world-wide religion didn't exist. There certainly were and are Xians. We are just saying that the demi-god/god didn't exist.
Second point is I don't think you are truly skeptical about the concept. I doubt you have trouble with Jupiter, Ra, or Thor being founded on fictional entities.
It seems to me that even a Roman Emperor could only push a fiction so far--and, I can't imagine Constantine (or anyone) choosing as his newly concocted "god" someone from Judea, a place that--historically--was little more than a great, sharp thorn in the side of the Empire. In 325 CE Judea hadn't existed for close to two hundred and fifty years so they weren't a thorn in anyone's side.
If you'll thumb through the "gospels" you won't find stories of the evil invading Romans. All the Romans are stern but just. Every Jew that is in authority is as nasty as can be. All the male babies are slaughtered. John the Baptist has his head chopped off. The Romans are forced, while only trying to keep order, to crucify Jesus by the Jewish high priests. This is a strange plot line for a Jewish story about a Jewish Messiah getting rid of the Romans. In fact when it was over didn't it seem that god was using the Romans to show his wrath for killing his son by having them wipe out Israel. God had other foreign powers punish the Jews in the OT the same way, ya know.
So: I, for one, believe in Jesus.
Most folks in these parts do.
The person that the Jews saw crucified, I think, was some well-pulped look-alike stand-in.
Well, this is a novel idea. What do you base it on?
To put an end to speculation, Ms Olsson has suggested exhuming the remains at Rozabal for DNA testing and carbon dating. That's pretty funny. All we need is a sample of god's DNA and we can find out if this was his son.
Since I had concluded that Jesus' final destination was uphill Iran-eastward, Kashmir sounds to be just about right. Could it be?
Kashmir was the area where Apollonius of Tyana studied the teachings of the Christna
My speculations in this matter have almost-all been based on increasingly brutal levels of raw skepticism.
The trick with skepticism is not just to doubt things and imagine alternatives. The trick is to measure claims against evidence.
Finding a grave with the name Jesus on it that dates from that time is nothing. Jesus was a popular name, no unlike Bob is today. From the time of Alexander till the fall of Rome there was constant heavy commerce between Kashmir and the Mediterranean world. There would have been plenty of merchants named Jesus living and dying around there.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 17:02:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So: I, for one, believe in Jesus.
Just a quick question. Christians usually see a lot of meaning in the different parts of Jesus' life.
The dying and coming back episode is supposed to be the one where he "saves" you.
In your version that part doesn't happen. Some stooge gets strung up instead.
This would made him not Jesus THE SAVIOR, but Jesus THE GUY WHO HUNG OUT WITH HIS FRIENDS AND DRANK WINE AND WHEN THE GOING GOT ROUGH SKIPPED TOWN AND LEFT SOMEBODY ELSE HOLDING THE BAG.
Somehow that just doesn't have the same ring to it. Why "believe" in a bum like that?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 23:16:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Jesus THE GUY WHO HUNG OUT WITH HIS FRIENDS AND DRANK WINE AND WHEN THE GOING GOT ROUGH SKIPPED TOWN AND LEFT SOMEBODY ELSE HOLDING THE BAG.
Somehow that just doesn't have the same ring to it. Why "believe" in a bum like that?
I would actually prefer that guy to the standard one.
(The one torturing people for eternity.)
"God-as revealed in his book of edicts and narratives is practically an idiot. He has nothing to say that any sensible person should want to listen to."
-- Johann Most
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2002 : 04:32:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In your version that part doesn't happen. Some stooge gets strung up instead.
This would made him not Jesus THE SAVIOR, but Jesus THE GUY WHO HUNG OUT WITH HIS FRIENDS AND DRANK WINE AND WHEN THE GOING GOT ROUGH SKIPPED TOWN AND LEFT SOMEBODY ELSE HOLDING THE BAG.
Uh oh, if that really happened, then we're still stuck holding the bag for original sin, and we'd have to go out and do blood sacrifices and such. That'd be a real hassle, 'cause I can't remember which farm animal to kill for a sin sacrifice, and which one to kill for a peace offering. And then, there's all those messy rules, like which side of the altar to sprinkle the blood, and how well cooked the fat needs to get get before God really digs the smell. Oh, and is it okay to spray Lysol in the tabernacle, because that place must really get ripe after awhile?
Nah, I think I'll stick with the death and ressurection thing. That way I don't have to feel guilty about all my past transgressions, and could even commit a few more good sins before I really repent.....Again!
That was really cool of JC to wash all our sins away.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Blair Nekkid
New Member
Canada
20 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2002 : 07:30:17 [Permalink]
|
Lets hear what the good folks over at satire wire have to say about this topic.
http://www.satirewire.com/news/may02/jesus.shtml
Cheers,
Blair
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 09:50:02 [Permalink]
|
Odd, the poll on the locked "Did Jesus Really Exist? (Part 1) keeps getting lots of hits from Christians. I guess they don't leave comments because Part 2 isn't obvious. Is there any way to move the poll to the current thread?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 15:41:40 [Permalink]
|
Yikes, I will look into that but it won't be something I can do soon. It is, however, a really good idea and there should be something that can be done.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2002 : 07:19:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
C. Org originally wrote:
So: I, for one, believe in Jesus.
To which Slater responded:
Just a quick question. Christians usually see a lot of meaning in the different parts of Jesus' life.
The dying and coming back episode is supposed to be the one where he "saves" you.
In your version that part doesn't happen. Some stooge gets strung up instead.
This would made him not Jesus THE SAVIOR, but Jesus THE GUY WHO HUNG OUT WITH HIS FRIENDS AND DRANK WINE AND WHEN THE GOING GOT ROUGH SKIPPED TOWN AND LEFT SOMEBODY ELSE HOLDING THE BAG.
Somehow that just doesn't have the same ring to it. Why "believe" in a bum like that?
You completely misunderstand me, Slater.
My conclusion was, as I said, based on a deep skepticism that the Romans could have executed someone who had been identified (--or so write the authors of the four Gospels--) as a likely god;--perhaps one from the Roman pantheon.
I think of someone such as that as a "super Inspector General" who must be handled with the greatest of care. (Until very recently, Inspectors General usually operated icognito--so as to better inspect, sans the usual 'snow job' that inspectors typically must endure.)
Under such conditions, I see Jesus being "wined and dined" by the Roman military [occupation] government; then being (literally) shipped out to a destination of Jesus' choice. Yet the political situation with the locals (--again, as writen in the New Testament--) required that Jesus be executed--or, at least, required a perception that Jesus had been executed.
Where did the Romans take Jesus? Perhaps, assuming that Jesus, the suspected god-inspector, had no opinions, they took him to the far Eastern ends of the Empire. Kashmir, for example, sounds just about right to me. 
Now: On to your less bombastic post. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2002 : 07:38:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My conclusion was, as I said, based on a deep skepticism that the Romans could have executed someone who had been identified (--or so write the authors of the four Gospels--) as a likely god;--perhaps one from the Roman pantheon.
I kind of doubt, that the Romans at that time would have expected to find a real god walking among them anymore then we would today.
Even among religious people gods walking the earth is mostly something, that happened in the past leaving all kinds of teachings and justification for their authority. Gods walking the earth at present only ever happens to small sects.
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2002 : 07:55:17 [Permalink]
|
C. Org originally wrote:
I am truly skeptical that a world-wide religion could be founded on someone who didn't exist.
To which Slater responded:
If I might be even more nit picky than usual I'll point out two things.
No one said the someone who founded the world-wide religion didn't exist. There certainly were and are Xians. We are just saying that the demi-god/god didn't exist.
Second point is I don't think you are truly skeptical about the concept. I doubt you have trouble with Jupiter, Ra, or Thor being founded on fictional entities.
Org: Your analogy is good except that there are no WorldWide religions founded on Jupiter, Ra, or Thor which still exist. Nor did any of those religions last for anything like 2,000 years. Your analogy fails. A similar attempt based on Hindu gods would also fail, albeit for different reasons.
C. Org continued:
It seems to me that even a Roman Emperor could only push a fiction so far--and, I can't imagine Constantine (or anyone) choosing as his newly concocted "god" someone from Judea, a place that--historically--was little more than a great, sharp thorn in the side of the Empire.
To which Slater responded:
In 325 CE Judea hadn't existed for close to two hundred and fifty years so they weren't a thorn in anyone's side.
If you'll thumb through the "gospels" you won't find stories of the evil invading Romans. All the Romans are stern but just. Every Jew that is in authority is as nasty as can be. All the male babies are slaughtered. John the Baptist has his head chopped off. The Romans are forced, while only trying to keep order, to crucify Jesus by the Jewish high priests. This is a strange plot line for a Jewish story about a Jewish Messiah getting rid of the Romans. In fact when it was over didn't it seem that god was using the Romans to show his wrath for killing his son by having them wipe out Israel. God had other foreign powers punish the Jews in the OT the same way, ya know.
Org: You've lost me, Slater. I was only critisizing your proposed story-line that the Romans founded a religion on a persona which never exixted--except as a fiction. I merely stated that if the Romans (i.e., Constantine) had attempted such a concoction, that they could pick a much better UniGod's prophet example than someone from Palestine; the Persian Zoroaster, for example.
. . .
C. Org continued with:
To put an end to speculation, Ms Olsson has suggested exhuming the remains at Rozabal for DNA testing and carbon dating.
Slater responded with:
That's pretty funny. All we need is a sample of god's DNA and we can find out if this was his son.
Org: On what do you base your claim that Jesus was a "god" or a "god's son" (--and, for that matter, why do you assume a masculine pronoun for that god, when Jesus, himself, bluntly said otherwise)? (C. Org intends no disrespect whatsoever to The Lord by his use of such terms as "Jesus' god" etc.)
C. Org continued:
Since I had concluded that Jesus' final destination was uphill Iran-eastward, Kashmir sounds to be just about right. Could it be?
To which Slater replied:
Kashmir was the area where Apollonius of Tyana studied the teachings of the Christna
Computer Org can think of nothing to say.
Some more by Computer Org:
My speculations in this matter have almost-all been based on increasingly brutal levels of raw skepticism.
To which Slater helpfully instructed:
The trick with skepticism is not just to doubt things and imagine alternatives. The trick is to measure claims against evidence.
Finding a grave with the name Jesus on it that dates from that time is nothing. Jesus was a popular name, no unlike Bob is today. From the time of Alexander till the fall of Rome there was constant heavy commerce between Kashmir and the Mediterranean world. There would have been plenty of merchants named Jesus living and dying around there.
Org: Again, my primary evidence that Jesus existed and taught [roughly] as described in the four Gospels is both indirect and [nearly] incontrovertible: There are, today, massive numbers of people who read the transcripts of what Jesus had to say some 2,000 years ago.
[Edited to correct minor forum-code blotches]
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff
Edited by - Computer Org on 06/01/2002 09:25:52 |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2002 : 08:08:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Computer Org wrote:
My conclusion was, as I said, based on a deep skepticism that the Romans could have executed someone who had been identified (--or so write the authors of the four Gospels--) as a likely god;--perhaps one from the Roman pantheon.
To which Lars responded:
I kind of doubt, that the Romans at that time would have expected to find a real god walking among them anymore then we would today.
Even among religious people gods walking the earth is mostly something, that happened in the past leaving all kinds of teachings and justification for their authority. Gods walking the earth at present only ever happens to small sects.
I agree with you, Lars, when you use the noun "Romans" or even "[Roman] religious people".
However we are talking about the Roman military government and soldiers, WorldWide, always, are exceptionally superstitious, particularly about gods or anything which might influence the "chaos of the battlefield" in their favor. Contrary to popular opinion, soldiers (--and sailors--) pray a lot--to anyone or anything that they believe might help make things go better for them.
Roman soldiers (--Roman generals were always near the thick of battle and were, themselves, prime targets--), although they were engineers by nature, were no different in this respect, in my opinion, than any other soldier. (I speak as an old soldier and as someone who has known many other old soldiers: When the chips are down, we all pray.)
When Jesus did some of the things that are recorded in the New Testament, there was no way that the Roman military government could have not noticed and, equally, no way that they would not have considered the possibility that a god (or a god's agent) had come among them. (Recall the tale that at least once, no less than a Centurian "checked out" Jesus and his capabilities.)
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2002 : 08:44:27 [Permalink]
|
I guess I did not express my point clearly enogh the last time. I will try again.
There is a difference between beliving that something magical has happened in the past and believing that something supernatural is happening right before your eyes.
If Jesus really had walked the earth 2000 years ago and really did the miracles he is today belived to have done there still would not have been anymore reason for the Romans to assume that he was one of their gods in disguise then for the Jews to accept him as their supposed Messiah.
What should have concinced them otherwise? That he was thought to be the son of God by his followers. That people told stories about him having miracle powers?
There are plenty of saviours, god-men and prohpets walking the earh at any given point in time, who have the same things going for them that Jesus would have had.
You don't see any of the many cult-leaders today treated with respect by the law-enforcment agencies on the chance that one of them could actually have been send by their lord.
And your point about the roman military does not make much sense to me either. There is a difference between being superstitious and gulible.
It also seems to me like you are trying to use the no atheists in foxholes cliche.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2002 : 09:26:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Org: Your analogy is good except that there are no WorldWide religions founded on Jupiter, Ra, or Thor which still exist. Nor did any of those religions last for anything like 2,000 years. Your analogy fails. A similar attempt based on Hindu gods would also fail, albeit for different reasons.
I would like to hear those reasons.
I also, even If I can't be entierly sure without looking stuff up, doubt your claim about the shortlivedness of the egyptian and Roman/Greek gods. Surely there were some deities that have been around for more then 2(1.7) Millenia at a time.
quote:
Org:You've lost me, Slater. I was only critisizing your proposed story-line that the Romans founded a religion on a persona which never exixted--except as a fiction. I merely stated that if the Romans (i.e., Constantine) had attempted such a concoction, that they could pick a much better UniGod's prophet example than someone from Palestine; the Persian Zoroaster, for example.
While I don't completly agree with Slaters theory, I can't see a problem here. Considering that the other major contendor for the spot that christianty got at the end was Mithraism picking any persian gods would not have been a wise choice.
quote:
Org: On what do you base your claim that Jesus was a "god" or a "god's son" (--and, for that matter, why do you assume a masculine pronoun for that god, when Jesus, himself, bluntly said otherwise? (C. Org intends no disrespect whatsoever to The Lord by his use of such terms as "Jesus' god" etc.)
I don't get it; Jesus said, that his father was his mother?
quote:
Org:[green] Again, my primary evidence that Jesus existed and taught [roughly] as described in the four Gospels is both indirect and [nearly] incontrovertible: [b]There are, today, massive numbers of people who read the transcripts of what Jesus had to say some 2,000 years ago.
Again I don't get your point Jesus must have been a real person because a lot of people belive so today? Is this just an argument from popularity or am I missing something? A massive amount of people belive all kinds of shit and it does not make it true.
Why would have the populartity of a religion any sort of correalation with the truth of its myths? Does God help push christiantiy in popularity rankings somehow? If yes, then why are ther more people who do not belive in God then those who do?
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2002 : 04:01:08 [Permalink]
|
Peter Brown writes in "The Making of Late Antiquity": quote:
The Mediterranean basin, as Plutarch saw it, was 'a well-mixed bowl of myths.' ... we have to make the considerable imaginative leap of entering into a world where religion was taken absolutely for granted and belief in the supernatural occasioned far less excitement than we might at first sight suppose. Mediterranean men shared their worlds with invisible beings, largely more powerful than themselves, to whom they had to relate.
I suspect that we seriously underestimate the presumption of the supernatural that characterized the period.
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2002 : 09:25:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Lars_H:
I guess I did not express my point clearly enogh the last time. I will try again.
I'm afraid that I have done the exact same thing, Lars. I, too, will try again.
quote:
Lars:
There is a difference between beliving that something magical has happened in the past and believing that something supernatural is happening right before your eyes.
If Jesus really had walked the earth 2000 years ago and really did the miracles he is today belived to have done there still would not have been anymore reason for the Romans to assume that he was one of their gods in disguise then for the Jews to accept him as their supposed Messiah.
If Jesus actually did the things that it is recorded that he did, then the Romans would have had a close eye on him. As it turns out, I can remember at least one time when a Centurion asked Jesus to do something that we, today, would call a "miracle". Jesus, it is recorded, did it; the "miracle" worked as the Centurion requested it.
A Roman Centurion was a pretty big cheese--as, until the recent gutting of our own (--the U.S. and, perhaps, NATO--) military authority channels by excessive centralism, were the Western officers who were CompanyCommanders. (If I remember correctly, the Centurion commanded about 100 men and a modern Infantry Company is about the same--plus some for overhead and very light, organic artillery.)
There is little doubt in my mind that were a Centurion to become involved with [the likes of] Jesus, that the details would become very quickly known to the Governor,--if, in fact, the MilitaryGovernor hadn't directed the action in the first place.
In short, I don't see how a military government could not be aware--in detail--of almost everything "miracle-wise" that we know about from the New Testament. Under these conditions, the question must have arisen: "Who is this Jesus?"
My guess is that the Romans would conclude that Jesus was a god or a god's personal agent.
I was led to this conclusion not by belief (--I was raised a Catholic with all the standard dogmas of Catholicism--) nor by revelation, but by simple skepticism: I, very simply, do not believe that the tales of Jesus' end at the hands of the Roman soldiery could be true (--or, at least, could be rational; I suppose that nearly anything could actually happen  ).
Having, via skepticism, decided that the Bibical tales of Jesus' end at the hands of the Roman soldiers were, at best, ridiculous, I became curious as to what was the most likely course of actual, historical events. I concluded that they were as I described them, with (in my opinion) remarkably little room for variation.
quote:
Lars:
What should have concinced them otherwise? That he was thought to be the son of God by his followers. That people told stories about him having miracle powers?
I keep hearing this "son of God" stuff but I don't see where it has any foundation. Jesus called the Jewish God "the Father"--in, I suspect, sharp contrast to the old version of "a wrathful God" or "a vengeful God". Jesus asked: "If you ask your father for a loaf of bread, does he give you a rock?" I can't see how calling God "your Father in heaven" leads to concluding that Jesus was "the son of God". Perhaps I'm just dense on this subject, however.
quote:
Lars:
There are plenty of saviours, god-men and prohpets walking the earh at any given point in time, who have the same things going for them that Jesus would have had.
You don't see any of the many cult-leaders today treated with respect by the law-enforcment agencies on the chance that one of them could actually have been send by their lord.
First of all, the Romans had to deal with Jesus; the other holy men of the time didn't do the phenomenal things that Jesus was recorded as doing; and it was recorded that the Romans did take note.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Romans didn't have the benefit of the brand of atheism available to (and widely used by) today's law-enforcers (--from cop-on-the-beat to the U.S. Supreme Court). Atheism is a very convenient foundation when one wants to be unaccountable to any "higher authority". The Romans were stuck with lots and lots of gods: their own gods and the gods of every society that they conquered.
quote:
Lars:
And your point about the roman military does not make much sense to me either. There is a difference between being superstitious and gulible.
It also seems to me like you are trying to use the no atheists in foxholes cliche.
Perhaps I used a bad word when I said "superstitious". It is most likely that, as with most people who think of themselves as being 'firmly rooted in reality', we'd rather not think of ourselves as prayerful--so we say "superstitious".
Only someone truly stupid (--I'm not name-calling: I mean the word most literally--) would ignore something or someone who could, at a whim, destroy you--merely, say, by causing a battle to go in a different direction, with different results. "Hmmm.", says the soldier or sailor. "What's to hurt in a small prayer--just in case."
Not that such are too chargrined to pray: George Patton is reputed to have prayed regularly. The Roman soldiery likewise prayed regularly. What could be better than to run across a real, live, incarnated god--one who is favorable to your cause,--as Jesus seemed favorable to the Roman cause.
(I don't know the "no atheists in foxholes" cliche but I can make a good guess. I can, however, make no comment about the validity of the cliche--it was not one that I had in mind.)
Finally, ReasonableDoubt's quote from Peter Brown makes a good point about the mores of the time.
(I'm out of time; I will try to respond to your next post as soon as possible. )
[/quote]
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
