 sj |
||
|
||
BS: An Easter Question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:45 PM Steve Shaw says: If I say that the gospels are full of inconsistencies, and that some guy in the third century decreed that a large number of other gospels were persona non grata and should be destroyed... If you were to say that, I would agree that the Gospels are full of fascinating inconsistencies to explore and ponder. They were written by four different groups of people in a time with very limited communication, in the period from 55-105 AD, by second-hand witnesses who wanted to write down what the eyewitnesses who were dying off had said. I would also say that these four Gospels, all from the first century, gradually became recognized as part of the "canon" of the New Testament. The official canon was not decreed until the fourth century, but most of the books chosen had risen to prominence by 150 AD and were read at liturgical celebrations. There were many other gospels and epistles, mostly written in the second century, many reflecting more of the thinking of the gnostics, which were more closely tied to the mystery religions of the time. There were also many writings of the Church Fathers, the second and third generations of church leaders, which were not included in the New Testament and were not used in liturgy. Many of these writings are still in print to this day, and some are still being discovered. I don't know of any being suppressed, but I suppose that happened to some along the way. There really was no unified church authority capable of such suppression until the church took on a more hierarchical structure in the fourth century. Some of the gnostic gospels are very interesting, and some are really kinda weird. All have value, and are worthy of discussion. Some have some really good stories in them, some have folkloric value, and some are nice complements to the four Gospels. Next question? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:00 PM Very dismissive, Joe. That does not help you much. The answers are actually much simpler than you pretend. Wrapping up the simple misconceptions of religion in cod complexities is a time-honoured strategy, and you're very good at it, but, well it's time-worn as well, unfortunately. Tactics prolong arguments, but the truth will always win out. And the truth here is that your dogma is predicated on very shaky tenets. That doesn't meant that it can't be true, of course. I'll always allow you that much, but don't go thinking that that amounts to the usual conception of fence-sitting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:51 PM 'Steve said recently that there is plenty of evidence for religion, but he did not specify Christianity." Yes Keith, this one keeps on popping up, doesn't it? Well let's look at a few examples of the evidence for religion: Every town and village hereabouts has a church, a chapel or both. In less rural areas than mine, and I know many, I see duomos, basilicas, parish churches, synagogues, mosques, cemeteries full of crosses, shrines and wayside pulpits. When I turn on the radio or telly, I get Thought For The Day, Choral Evensong, The Morning Service, the Pope's Easter blessing, festivals of carols and Songs Of Praise. When I read the papers, I read about all those clerics in the Lords and I read articles by Giles Fraser and all the rest. Once a month I get a visit from my dear friend the local Jehovah's Witness (he knows he'll get nowhere with me but we always have a really good chat and I always read Watchtower and Awake!) Now I think we have something there, Keith. Let's call it "religion." Of course, as I'm a scientist, I don't expect you to accept all this evidence that religion occurs without challenge. On this occasion, however, I respectfully request that you take your challenge elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:36 PM And yes, Steve, many of those questions are worth discussion - one at a time. And the answers to each are complex and diverse. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:31 PM Jim says: By the very terms used, God reigned supreme and Mary was, and still is the Queen of Heaven and you questioned that in peril of your eternal soul. But Jim, if one doesn't believe in God, where's the peril? Yes, I knew conservative clergy who were dictatorial and often filled with anger. I also knew conservative clergy (and nuns) who were patient and tolerant and compassionate and joyful - even though their theology might have been a bit stodgy. And the same goes for liberals. But I knew many priests in the 1970s who were fresh from Ireland. Sacramento imported most of its priests from Ireland back then, more than almost any other U.S. diocese. Some were like the oppressive people you speak of, but most were not. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:29 PM "Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion, and I can't argue with a caricature. It's like trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with Donald Trump." Well, this is not only untrue but it is also an attempt at an insult that I'm sure Jim will laugh off just as much as I do. Joe, you really don't need to diminish yourself by adopting such a bitter, defensive attitude. Just try taking on the substantive argument for a change. You should be able to manage that quite cheerfully, given the Catholic education you never tire of telling us about. I can't caricature "religion" because religion is far too diverse a phenomenon, what with all the different creeds, different gods and different rules. If I make a point about your particular religion, for example by pointing out that all its doctrine is predicated on the existence of a deity that almost certainly doesn't exist, that's a serious challenge to you, not a caricature. If I say that the gospels are full of inconsistencies, and that some guy in the third century decreed that a large number of other gospels were persona non grata and should be destroyed, that is not a caricature either, it's a challenge, and, given your eight years in a seminary, one that I'd have thought you should be equal to. If I say to you that miracles should be the subject not of scepticism, but of outright dismissal, I am resorting to the laws of nature, not making a caricature out of your accommodation with miracles. It seems to me that your nerve all too often fails under these challenges, so you resort to insult and bitter and belittling accusations. I think you can do better than that when confronted by a rather casual atheist like me who spends most of his time....not really being much of an atheist, frankly, but living a life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:08 PM "Again, Jim, your generalizations are too broad to discuss. " And again Joe, that is the religion we were taught at school. I would be happy to learn that, now religion is in retreat and open to examination things may be different, but that is what formed the christian mind right up to my generation. It's a little like capital punishment - now largely accepted as an evil of the past but somewhat too late to undo the damage already done. "Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion," It really isn't a caricature - that is the religion that formed world though right up to the present day. Can't speak for the others but my understanding of religion didn't come as an outsider looking in, but as someone brought in the midst of it. I couldn't begin to claim to know what happen in America, but I do know first hand of how it ws in largely Catholic Liverpool and still is in Holy Ireland, where the word of the priest was the law, never mind god, though things are rapidly changing here. By the very terms used, God reigned supreme and Mary was, and still is the Queen of Heaven and you questioned that in peril of your eternal soul. You can still see this in the older, more conservative clergy who once ruled supreme. Your type of liberal Christianity was once stamped on nearly as firmly as my atheism. "And I would really like to more deeply explore the mystery of the missing noses on Egyptian statues." More deeply than what Joe? - we were told what we were told and I've read what I've read - perhaps you might like to suggest some specific reading material. Thank you for the comparison to Donald Trump, accepted in the spirit is was offered, I'm sure (thought we were under orders to stop name-calling - ah well!!) I really have put my cas as clearly as I can without abuse and can only hope that to be reciprocated. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:49 PM Dave the Gnome says: If everyone got together and told the Mullahs and Pastors and Shamans who are perpetrating the hate and violence that the message is wrong then maybe this world would be a better place. Worth a try surely? We've tried, Dave, we've tried. But telling hateful people they're wrong, just doesn't work. They think that they're the only ones not damned to hell, so why should they listen to the rest of us? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Dave the Gnome Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:33 PM The difficulty I have with god (little g - I do not believe it is a proper noun) is that it can only be accepted from a position of faith. Not logic or science but faith. I cannot say it does not exist, nor can I say it does. No-one can. Yet this mythical entity has, perhaps, been the cause of more suffering that anything else on this Earth. I think I am a good person in general. My children have all grown up to be fine people themselves. My grandsons are heading that way. I do not steal. I have not killed anyone (yet!). I do not lie. I give everyone the respect they deserve. This comes from within, not from the rules laid down by the church or from some spirit in the sky. I am heartily tired of these arguments yet I keep being told that it is me (an atheist) that is causing them. I am not. Honest! I was told, in my youth, that the likes of me will be damned to eternal damnation. Now I am told that was nonsense. People out there, influential people of all faiths, are still saying that their imaginary friend is better than everyone elses and all others are wrong. They are still killing and dying for an idea that is only a position of faith. And people wonder why religion gets a bad name. Sheesh. If everyone got together and told the Mullahs and Pastors and Shamans who are perpetrating the hate and violence that the message is wrong then maybe this world would be a better place. Worth a try surely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:13 PM Raggy asks: 2. Is there actual evidence of Jesus's existence or, if he did exist, his death. Well, yes, there are four Gospels, although three seem to come from a common source. There are also numerous non-canonical gospels, along with canonical and non-canonical epistles. None of these documents conform with modern standards for historical accuracy. But then, no documents of the time conform with modern standards. You also have the fact that a significant number of people claimed to have known this Jesus, and they passed on their experiences to numerous others who considered them to be credible. If it's true that Jesus never existed, then the body of literature that has built up around him would be the most humongous conspiracy ever known. Either that, or the denial of the existence of Jesus must be a conspiracy theory. I choose the latter, although I readily agree that there is actually very little that we know or can document about Jesus, other than that which is written in the Gospels. Joe tells Jim Carroll: "I'll ignore the rest of your remarks" Jim replies: Pity - I would like to have had them seriously challenged by somene who I have a fair mount of respect for - but then again, I do have history and logic on my side. Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion, and I can't argue with a caricature. It's like trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with Donald Trump. I readily admit that religion is rife with corruption, stupidity, and evil. I am willing to discuss specific instances of corruption, stupidity, and evil in religion - and you will most likely find that I will agree with you in most instances. However, logic and my own experience tell me that no human endeavor can be so uniformly corrupt, evil, and stupid as what you describe. I have studied many different religions and the history of unbelief over my lifetime, and I have found both good and bad in all. The one thing I have not found, is uniformity. Therefore, it is impossible for me to argue against your blanket condemnations, because you cannot apply any single accusation to all people in all religions. And most religious groups are diverse within themselves, so it is also usually impossible to apply any blanket statement to any particular religious group. So, rather than attempting to apply generalizations to groups, it is far better to discuss issues and incidents - with the realization that within any given group, there will be a wide variety of opinions, actions, and responses. So, if you speak of the Catholic Church, are you speaking of it as Pope Francis would like it to be, or as John Paul II would want; or maybe are you looking at it through the eyes of Pius IX, lamenting his loss of political power? Or shall we go back to Alexander VI Borgia, the most notorious of all Popes? Or is it better to stay away from Popes and view from the perspective of the people of the Catholic Church? Which people? See what I mean, Jim? It's impossible to take your broad statements and make any sense of them. And even when discussing issues, I have to give an answer from a number of perspectives to give any semblance of accuracy. I don't defend the Catholic Church and I cannot defend the Catholic Church - because there is so much wrong within it that I simply cannot defend. But there are many, many Catholics who love their church and openly acknowledge and oppose its faults. I'm one of them. Jim says: The ongoing thread throughout the history of religion is that you may squabble among yourselves as much as you like, but yu never question the motives of god - he's in charge! Religion has produced nothing new that resembles evidence - it never really did - it is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspense of logic. Again, Jim, your generalizations are too broad to discuss. You say that God is in charge, and I say that God (no humanizing pronoun) acts through humans and other creatures that have varying amounts of free will and that are also governed by the laws of nature and coincidence and natural/logical consequence. Your description of God is far too anthropomorphic and monarchic. I define God as essence and spirit, and come to vague but very different conclusions. And while you say that religion is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspension of logic, that's not my experience at all. The people I respect for their genuine faith, are those who constantly question their own faith and challenge it with brutal logic. The others are robots. -Joe- P.S. And I would really like to more deeply explore the mystery of the missing noses on Egyptian statues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 02:39 PM "I certainly was not having a go at you for starting the thread. " Same here - it's more than a little refreshing to be able to discuss a topic like religion without falling out. Life of Brian remains one of my favourite films - it was banned in Ireland up to 2003, 24 years after its release, rather astoundingly, 3 years later than The Marx Brothers film, Monkey Business (1931), which remained on the 'banned list for sixty-one years in all. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Dave the Gnome Date: 31 Mar 16 - 01:55 PM Hear, hear, Eliza. I certainly was not having a go at you for starting the thread. It has been very interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Senoufou Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:49 PM I suppose any thread about religious ideas/beliefs is going to become a bit heated along the way. I think discussion and debate are an excellent way to expand ones thinking, or at least to start to understand the opposite viewpoint. I hope no-one here thinks I'm trying to 'sell' Christianity (or to deride it either!) I was just trying to explore some of the details of the resurrection, and to get other folks' ideas about them. I mentioned earlier the film 'Life of Brian', (I've watched it many times) It does of course poke fun at some of the doctrine, and has offended many of the devout. But it does encourage one to plonk large amounts of salt on some of the more bizarre and rather dubious practices which have evolved from some ancient texts. I've always trusted humour as a way of seeing things in a more sensible light. I hope God can have a laugh too, or I'm truly in the soup. Some of my husband's Muslim tenets are in my view a bit weird, but we have lovely discussions and never get nasty or offended. And my dearest friend is a complete atheist; we too have some interesting chats about belief, or lack of. It's never become a problem for us. I'm a nosy old thing, and just like to see inside people's heads and understand their mindsets. We're all here on this planet together, and it's best we try to be kind, if possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:29 PM "You don't have to believe anything, and no-one here is trying to make you." Religion has been forced onto us all atone time or the the other, mainly at a time when we were least able to deal with it in a rational manner. Now that this situation is changing, it is essential that we are able to debate it whenever we have the opportunity. Discussions like this are such an opportunity for both sides to state their case - if you don't feel that you wish to, fair enough - please don't stand in the way of those who do. A Dave has just pointed out, this thread was started by a believer; what are we expected to do, stay silent, as we always have? Those days are long gone, I'm pleased to say. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Dave the Gnome Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:15 PM Atheists always start these things and we just respond to your statements and answer your questions as best we can. Eliza started this thread and has already stated she is a committed Christian. Exactly what is it that atheists always start? Crusades? Inquisitions? Terror attacks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Mar 16 - 11:18 AM If you are not prepared to defend your belief in the supernatural, at least tell us why we should believe you. You don't have to believe anything, and no-one here is trying to make you. Atheists always start these things and we just respond to your statements and answer your questions as best we can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 10:48 AM "Well one doesn't need to belong to an organised religion to open ones mind to spirituality." And you don't have to wrap yourself in superstition to appreciate the finer, non material things in life - spirituality has nothing whatever to do with supreme beings or life-after death - a belief in god - any god, is totally immaterial to the appreciation of natural beauty or art or music. Humanity is humanity no matter what you believe or don't believe. You have stated one of the great myths of your and allreligion - that if you don't believe in a god you can't appreciate art or music... or any of the non-material things of life that is utter nonsense, and typical of the arrogance of all religions. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 16 - 09:22 AM Well one doesn't need to belong to an organised religion to open ones mind to spirituality. Once the petals have opened, the possibilities are endless...a whole new perspective appears....even the benefits of organisation can be examined. You lot are so constricted....conservatism in social issues is beneficial to society, but not so the mind it should always be exploring pastures new. Hmmm mental conservatives....oh the shame!!! :0) PFR I don't see you as a fettered mind......but you can have too much of a good thing!! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 09:04 AM "It must be terrible to go through life in a literalist vacuum" It's not literalist to ask for proof of something that is beyond all reason, especially something that has had such a profoundly damaging effect on all our lives. The ability to question, reason and make use of what we learn stands us out from all other species - it's why chimpanzees don't drive buses. If you are not prepared to defend your belief in the supernatural, at least tell us why we should believe you. I've said before, if those professing to be Christians (or believers in any religion) lived up to the philosophy proclaimed by their religion, the world would possibly be a better place - all to often, they don't, which is why people are slaughtering each other today in the name of their particular deity - The Middle East, former Yugoslavia.... you name it. God was an attempt by primitive people to explain what they saw around them - it was formalised and marketed as a product and became one of the great threats to the existence of mankind. ow that's what I call"terrible". Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:55 AM Being a bit condescending there... my mind is constantly alive to the realms of imagination, wonderment, mystery, surrealist absurdity, lovingness, lust, and electric guitars... but no needing to wrap it all up in the restrictive dictates of man made fibre religions.... 😜 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:38 AM It must be terrible to go through life in a literalist vacuum, how can people who purport to appreciate music and poetry, shut their minds to spirituality. I suppose a song/ tune, is just a collection of notes and words? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:43 AM "God told us not to pick the fruit from the "tree of life/truth."" No he didn't - how do you know he did? "We destroyed our environment, not "god". Quite so - what have supernatural beings got to do with it? Thee is certainly evidence that religion exists - tere is none whatever to sugest that what it propounds exists - we have to take someone's uncorroborated word for that one - wouldn't stand up in any court I know. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:35 AM Rag, Is there actual evidence of Jesus's existence No. At least none that I know of. Steve said recently that there is plenty of evidence for religion, but he did not specify Christianity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Raggytash Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:34 AM Which god? As far as I'm aware there loads of them. Hinduism alone is said to have more than 32,000,000 of them This is typical of god botherers, they expect the rest of us the cower before their particular god. I would suggest that for each god botherer there is a god of their own making so there's a possibility for billions of gods. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:22 AM We destroyed our environment, not "god". God told us not to pick the fruit from the "tree of life/truth." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:02 AM "To treat the rays of the sun as "god" was to lead to the protection of the environment and the planet." Far from it - to place natural phenomena in the hands of gods is to absolve ourselves from any responsibility - "nuffin' to do with me guv - go and tell god (whosever), about it." I can still recall the battle we had with our insurance company when they told us that the tile which blew off our roof and smashed on to the roof of our car came under "an act of god" and refused to pay up. We won in the end of course - there is no such thing. Until proved otherwise all gods and their acts are pure invention Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Raggytash Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:56 AM 1. Is there any actual evidence of how Akhenaton died, I know there is evidence of his existence. 2. Is there actual evidence of Jesus's existence or, if he did exist, his death. The broad statement "they killed them" doesn't appear to hold water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:32 AM Akhenaton was the first recorded theist, who's god was the disc of the sun who's rays protected and promoted all life. His theories still hold good if we disregard the damage done to our atmosphere by humanity. To treat the rays of the sun as "god" was to lead to the protection of the environment and the planet....no need for wars, all between earth and heaven was to be ours.....but we know what happened to him....and Jesus.......they killed them.....unforgiven. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:33 AM It is not possible, Keith, to have a sensible discussion with someone who doesn't recognise sarcasm when he sees it, instead taking everything literally. When I say "Jesus had an audience..." it does not imply that I know for sure that he existed. It means I am taking on believers on their own ground. It's a ploy, Keith. Try to keep up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:15 AM "My guide in Luxor and Aswan gave me the understanding that each new pharaoh defaced the images of his predecessors, usually by destroying the nose of the image" So did one of mine - but the archaeologist who guided our trip for the emtire two weeks told me different and reading I have done since being inspired by that wonderful experience seems to confirm the latter. The Pharaohes were gods and often ran in families and you didn't muck aout with the feller who came before you if you didn't want to be gobbled up by beetles and jackals. "I'll ignore the rest of your remarks" Pity - I would like to have had them seriously challenged by somene who I have a fair mount of respect for - but then again, I do have history and logic on my side. "The question of why there is suffering has always been an issue." he ongoing thread throughout the history of religion is that you may squabble among yourselves as much as you like, but yu never question the motives of god - he's in charge! Religion has produced nothing new that resembles evidence - it never really did - it is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspense of logic. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:39 AM Darn, Jim. My guide in Luxor and Aswan gave me the understanding that each new pharaoh defaced the images of his predecessors, usually by destroying the nose of the image. If there were pairs of images, only one had to be defaced. I haven't seen any evidence that the Coptic Christians had a practice of defacing statues, but I'm open to proof if you can provide it. I have seen images of Isis, Osiris, and Horus that very much resemble Coptic images of the Holy Family, and I have seen Coptic Christian altars carved into the walls of ancient Egyptian temples. Historic preservation wasn't really a priority until recent times, which is too bad. So, they opted for "adaptive re-use." I'll ignore the rest of your remarks. I got my Theology degree from the Catholic Church in 1970, and Catholic Theology and teaching haven't changed radically since then. The teachings you speak of are not within my experience, although I'll readily admit that there have been some strange ideas in religion through the years. But what you're expressing is a caricature of religion. I don't believe it. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:37 AM The modern stance that all this bad stuff is "nuffin' to do wiv 'Im lads" has only come into the equation since the existence of god has been seriously challenged by science and logic Not true. The question of why there is suffering has always been an issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:11 AM "So, if there's evil in the world, it's up to good people to fix it. Why blame God?" Because that's what we were taught by our teachers - a omnipotent god that could do anything if we worshipped him and led a "good" life The modern stance that all this bad stuff is "nuffin' to do wiv 'Im lads" has only come into the equation since the existence of god has been seriously challenged by science and logic - pretty much like "he created the world in seven days", which doesn't mean seven days, or any partticular time anymore. If the ills of the world are due to "evil", then diseases and illnesses that wipe out millions, or natural disaster that decimate countries.... and all those things that are totally beyond the control of humanity, are god's doing...... making him a real sadistically dangerous piece of work - who we are supposed to worship without question. Supporters of this myth are constantly moving the goalposts and telling us that what they were saying twenty, fifty or a hundred years ago is no longer relevant; despite the fact that the word of god is "timeless": if the believers here had written some of the things they have on this thread they would have been guilty of severe, punishable blasphemy. The 'miracles' were no different to the showman's tricks of the shamen, and the fakirs and the sleight-of-hand con-mens all trying to sell something - patent medicine or holy relics.... or just trying to get a living without having to work for it - and they occurred within all religions and outside them - Christianity is a fairly late-comer on the scene. Many of the Christian myths, such as virgin birth, were part of ancient Egyptian mythology and were taken over at a later date. These different religions were/are little different from commercial companies competing for our business with the slickest advertising and the showiest wrapping - and at one time Christianity was as vociferous as any other in telling us that if we worshipped the "wrong god" we would be spend eternity being tortured and persecuted. Until we visited Egypt, I always believed that the poor state of many of those beautiful artifacts - the temples and statues - was due to the passage of time, exposure to the weather, wars... but in fact the bulk of the damage was carried out by the Coptic Christians who didn't liked being looked over by "false gods", and so, deliberately defaced them. Christians claim that we atheists don't have the answers to "life the universe and everything" any more than they do, putting us on an equal footing with believers - not true. Science is based on long-term research which has provided us with actual facts, certainties and strong probabilities, whereas religion has remained, as it always has been, totally dependent on the suspension of logic and the blind acceptance of the supernatural - blind faith - at one time under the threat of earthly punishment, including horrendously painful death - and to top it all, eternal damnation - another goalpost that has been moved out of necessity and progress. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:07 AM Well, Senofou, if life were a happy-ending script written by a God who made all things happen as planned, then where would there be room for creativity and independence? I think it is the Will of God that humankind create their own solutions. And I also think compassion is the Will of God. The mystic Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) wrote:
I see God as an essence that is within us all and beyond us all. All compassion, all creativity, all solutions to the evil of the world - all flow from that essence. I see compassion and love and mercy and creativity, and I call that God. Others don't, and that doesn't matter. What does matter, is that we believe in compasssion, love, mercy, and creativity - and in our obligation to be that for the world. Your results may vary. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Senoufou Date: 31 Mar 16 - 02:44 AM Interesting Joe. I don't think people expect God to come down and fix stuff, but rather, they wonder why he doesn't. After all, he's supposed to be able to do anything isn't he? And as for the idea that it's up to the good people to overcome the evil in the world, that's not always possible is it? At least, not at our present level of technology and medical advancement. Scientists have been struggling with malaria for centuries, but although it's said we're on the brink of a vaccine, it's not available yet. Ditto with cancer, HIV, and a myriad other dangerous and ghastly diseases. I have seen some sights and had some experiences in Africa which would make anyone weep. And who 'created' these diseases? Allegedly, a 'father-like' and benevolent deity, who seems not to weep at all. I also consider terrible drought, famine, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and other major disasters. No human being is responsible for those, and there's very little we can do about them. How can God watch the suffering they cause without feeling immense pity and sorrow? Jesus said in the Bible God can move mountains, demolish and rebuild temples etc. Then why doesn't he intervene and protect us? My Muslim husband is far more submissive and accepting of God. He just says everything is 'the will of Allah' and we mustn't question it. He's always saying 'insh Allah' even when I merely say "We'll go up the city tomorrow'. ie it's entirely up to God what does or doesn't happen, and everything he decides is good. When his young brother died in agony of cerebral malaria after three days of suffering, the family comforted themselves by saying it was 'the will of God'. It's a bit like the typical British mantra "Mustn't grumble." I just can't think like that. I always want to know WHY? WHY? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:57 PM I don't know of many Christian denominations that believe that God is gonna come down and fix stuff. I suppose that some do. Most Christian denominations believe that the grace of God is supposed to inspire individuals to break through the status quo and fix stuff - but it's up to individuals to respond to that grace. I think most most denominations believe that grace is available to all, no matter what they do or don't believe. So, if there's evil in the world, it's up to good people to fix it. Why blame God? As for Jesus and his miracles, I don't know. I tend to believe in them, but I've read that there were many faith healers at the time who did things that appeared to be miracles. Whatever the case, I think it's most important for human beings to take responsibility for the evil that exists in this world, and it's our responsibility to do our best to fix it - no matter what we do or don't believe. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Jeri Date: 30 Mar 16 - 10:04 PM Far out! We've never, ever had an argument about religion here before. (meh) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 30 Mar 16 - 09:42 PM not exactly... if he performed for an audience he may or may not have been a fake. If he performed without an audience there is only the word of a select few acolytes that he ever even performed at all.. These accounts are gathered from a redacted book which may or may not have been inspired by a true story...??? Cue Hollywood disclaimers.. "This movie may or may not be based on a true story, and characters may or may not be fictitious depending on how heavily lawyered up they are and ready and prepared to sue our pants off..." 😜 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Mar 16 - 08:55 PM Steve, I was just joining the debate. You stated, "Jesus had an audience of suckers who wanted to believe. " Did that "fail your much-vaunted historicity test on several counts:?" Well, Steve, it's good to know that even you can suspend disbelief... I pointed out that he did not seek and often did not have an audience. In reply to PFR stating, "Seriously, so if there was no audience.. that can also be taken to mean there were no witnesses... ??? You replied "YEP!" Did that "fail your much-vaunted historicity test on several counts:?" Well, Steve, it's good to know that even you can suspend disbelief... The case being made by you and others being that if he performed for an audience it means He was a fake, and if he performed without an audience it means He was a fake. According to the NT, He was tempted to use the power of miracles to make everyone believe in Him, but He chose not to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:18 PM My poor eyes can't cope with capital I and lower-case i on this soddin' iPad. Order me a hearse, somebody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:30 PM "He healed quite a large number of folk during his ministry. What I can't get my head round (and bombard God with in my prayers) is why he seems to let people the world over go on suffering appallingly, doing absolutely zilch in the way of eradicating their distress & agony." The simplest explanation, nay, the most obvious, is that he did neither. "OK, there are some successes at Lourdes" In the immortal words of my dad, the day I hear of a one-legged man coming back from Lourdes with two legs is the day i start to believe in miracles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Raggytash Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:23 PM Senoufou, That, for some bizarre reason, is a very endearing picture. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Senoufou Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:08 PM raggytash, I see what you mean. I expect I should have said, "The Bible tells us that Jesus was compassionate..." We're now heading towards Pentecost, and the rushing wind, flames on the disciples' heads, and the speaking with tongues etc. Now that does interest me, as I'm absolutely obsessed with languages and heartily wish I could speak many more than I actually do. I have been confirmed in the C of E, and had to wear a veil (rather High Church). I didn't feel anything special when the bishop put his hand on my head, but I was only ten years old. Sigh. I honestly just don't know about all of this. I keep thinking about that brilliant film 'The Life Of Brian'. As I'm pretty old now, no doubt I shall find out the truth in the not too far distant future! I sometimes tease my husband about his 57 virgins that Muslims are supposed to get when they arrive in Paradise. I can watch him cavorting with them up there while I munch my crumpets and drink my Old Speckled Hen ale, chatting with some nice angels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Raggytash Date: 30 Mar 16 - 03:49 PM "I do see that Jesus was tremendously compassionate" I'm puzzled Senoufou. How can you say this when there is no contemporary record of Jesus having ever existed. All the documentation regarding Jesus was written decades (and in some cases hundreds of years) after he is supposed to have lived. Now, some Christian teaching could be seen as compassionate........... Again I have stopped myself because I am being a good boy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Greg F. Date: 30 Mar 16 - 02:38 PM And when one considers the Holocaust Obviouisly, Jesus was a Jew-hating antisemite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Senoufou Date: 30 Mar 16 - 01:18 PM I do see that Jesus was tremendously compassionate, and was often moved by the plight of, say, lepers, or the blind. He healed quite a large number of folk during his ministry. What I can't get my head round (and bombard God with in my prayers) is why he seems to let people the world over go on suffering appallingly, doing absolutely zilch in the way of eradicating their distress & agony. OK, there are some successes at Lourdes, and some prayers are answered, but generally speaking, people (and even little children) suffer most terribly from famine, disease, terror, disabilities etc while God looks down unmoved. If Jesus and God are the same chap, why has this compassion not been put into operation? And why should just one person's ardent prayers be answered but others get no response? Why should one sick child be healed but all the others go on suffering? Surely if Jesus could heal ten lepers at one go, he could have healed the blooming lot of everything and done the job properly? And when one considers the Holocaust... where was God in all that eh? Just a spectator? I can almost hear God groaning when I begin my nightly prayers! "Oh Lord here she is again! That nagging old biddy!" while the angels get him a cup of tea and a digestive biscuit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Mar 16 - 01:11 PM They were well witnessed according to the people who wrote the stories down long after Jesus allegedly died, at least 40 years or more. There is no corroboration, and the writers were arguably biased. Keith, this fails your much-vaunted historicity test on several counts: too many years had passed, the writers are dead and there is no corroboration. On top of that, we are talking about highly unlikely acts of magic. Well, Keith, it's good to know that even you can suspend disbelief... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Mar 16 - 12:43 PM The water walking and wine changing tricks were those most mentioned here. No witnesses, but just two of the many tricks. The loaves and fishes trick had thousands. Most of the tricks involved healing people and they were usually well witnessed, although Jesus sometimes asked recipients not to tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Mar 16 - 12:42 PM Yep! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:52 AM Seriously, so if there was no audience.. that can also be taken to mean there were no witnesses... ??? .. so we just take their word for it... ??? |
