Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Outlaw witch burnings, not matches or religion

What is the Atheists motivation to "debunking religion and or Christianity? From my perspective I can see only 2 reasons why they should have any concern. The first one is the idea that we exclude people and make them feel left out and or divide families etc.. The second is the fact that religious beliefs shape the way we might vote politically.

To answer the first concern about "feeling left out". What should we do? Quit going to church and quit celebrating religious holidays? I don't want anyone to feel left out. But why would you even feel that way if it's something you don't even believe in? Does me reciting the "Apostle's Creed" in a private church service make you feel guilty or left out? The fact that families are divided and or split may happen but if it's done maliciously then there is a problem with the people involved, not religion. Making one choose or reject a position doesn't mean there must be animosity amongst the 2 sides.

So now politically, we all vote according to our beliefs, religion is just one part of our beliefs and how we might vote. Where do we draw the line? You can only vote if your IQ is higher than 100? Or if you were raised by hippies, or Jews or Mormons or foreigners or Christians or women or men or blacks or whites or little people or Atheists or anyone who thinks different than we do? I mean it was illegal before 9-eleven to fly a plane into a building you know.

I think it's admirable that people try to make a change for the better. Even if it's an Atheist trying to do what they feel is right. But "if I were an atheist" I would care less about all these things. I'd say whatever man, more power to 'em.

Is there something I'm missing?

P.S. Gandolph is out there somewhere lurking in the shadows. And if this post doesn't bring him out of his hiatus, nothing will?

Dueces Mooses, feeno

26 comments:

  1. I actually think that the reason why the world is so messed up is because the less educated (or IQ lower than 100) population do not vote or put a voice forward in their communities. Careful Feeno- generalizing us all is dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, in brief, there is. The campaigns against religion aren't just aimed at the "religious right". The issues aren't limited to our own countries either.

    A big reason why people want to debunk religions is that they honestly think the truth claims made by religions are mistaken. Besides the basic urge to show people right from wrong (i.e. "correct from incorrect" as opposed to the moral connotation), this implies that believers are devoting their time, energy and money to likely-false causes. If they thought this too, they wouldn't do it.

    These causes may have some benefits, like charity and guidance from well-meaning people, but the supernatural aspects are superfluous and take up a lot of resources. A missionary in the third world eventually chooses to erect a church before or instead of another building or amenity which might be more useful. Better, in principle, to separate the two oft-conflicting objectives. (Let's not even start on the anti-condom campaigns in Africa.)

    The greater direct drawbacks of religion itself are more visible in other countries and/or other times. Many of the early American settlers, from Britain and France for example, were escaping religious persecution (by Christians). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which of course has many different causes and factors, is nevertheless sustained by a huge number of people on each side who will not consider any compromise with the other on religious principle. The People's Temple, the cult which self-destructed in Jonestown, was a corruption of Christianity according to any Christian who wasn't in it, but it's the kind of corruption which can easily recur. We don't want to wait for religion to have these kinds of effect in our own countries (again) before speaking against it.

    The issues caused by religion in the United States today are small potatoes compared to the issues we've seen before, and elsewhere. Anti-religious activists in the US want to keep it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So now politically, we all vote according to our beliefs, religion is just one part of our beliefs and how we might vote. Where do we draw the line?

    Where do we draw the line? Heck, let everyone vote. Unless you receive public assistance then throw your voter registration card out the window because all you're going to do is vote yourself a "raise" each and every time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "What is the Atheists motivation to "debunking religion and or Christianity?"

    You know not every atheist is like that.
    It's hard to talk about all atheists in general.
    What's more, you say you only see 2 reasons but (and I think you agree that there may be some religions that are not all good) you should take in account that some people may have been through a hard experience in church that may have created a "hate" or something like that to all.

    As for me I spoke about it here:
    http://ayoungatheist.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-dont-have-need.html
    I'm sure you remember. =)

    ReplyDelete
  5. To answer the first concern about "feeling left out". What should we do?

    This issue is particularly based on individual actions. My wife, for example, was disowned by her family for marrying me (because I'm not Jewish). My family came to the wedding, even though it was not in a Catholic church (as my mother as requested). Between the two families, it's clear to see which one did the right thing, even if there was not complete agreement with what was being done.

    It is not only up to atheists to tolerate the religious (which most do, on a nearly constant basis), but it is up to the religious to tolerate the irreligious, especially in their own family. What you do in your church does not concern me one bit, so long as you're not sacrificing children or virgins or anything criminal.

    I mean it was illegal before 9-eleven to fly a plane into a building you know.

    You totally lost me here. I think your train of thought jumped the tracks.

    Regarding politics: Christians aren't out trying to make it illegal to worship other gods, nor is adultery or disobeying your parents illegal. There are clearly things Christians (and even most decent people) avoid doing which they do not feel compelled to legislate. This is why laws against things like homosexuality and abortion are so frustrating to non-Christians. It appears that Christians have decided to pick their battles based on which minority they can most easily marginalize: gays and women.

    If you wish to know my personal motivation for commenting and blogging, it is merely to seek understanding. I cannot convince anyone to change their mind, but it is important for me at this young age to go about learning as much as I can, so that someday maybe I will have some clout and can make decisions not based on my atheism, but based on the needs of people as a whole.

    Too often we only associate with those like ourselves, and I have noticed that historically it is those who go outside their comfortable zone of like-minded supporters and confront what is different who make any kind of impact.

    @ JD: Yes, we all know you're a horrible Christian who hates poor people who work two jobs and still need government assistance due to the cripplingly atrocious economic situation we are in solely because of people like you. I hope you choke to death.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Ginx- LOL- Because being poor, of course, should deprive you of the right to vote. Naturally.

    What is the Atheists motivation to "debunking religion and or Christianity? From my perspective I can see only 2 reasons why they should have any concern. The first one is the idea that we exclude people and make them feel left out and or divide families etc.. The second is the fact that religious beliefs shape the way we might vote politically.

    From my perspective, neither of these reasons are feasible. My motivation is two fold; One, to learn for a project that I am working on. And, two, similar to what Ginx said, I have no respect for religious people delving into public policy. I feel that we need to protect the public from having this agenda imposed on us. That is why.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks guys,

    I don't understand why religious people act like babies and not go to family gatherings because of religious fall outs. But those things should be blamed on the those babies. Religion might be the excuse they use, but it's there small mind that allows it to happen.

    Geenks, 9-11? I just meant that religion shouldn't perpetrate anything illegal onto society. People will blame 9-11 on religion, I blame it on dumb asses.

    JD,
    I don't really think Geenks wants you to choke to death. But I'd give you the Heimlich maneuver brah.

    Tink,
    I agree with what you said. I do not like generalizations either. I was just trying to make a point.

    'dinha
    Yes sir, I am aware of these things and once again it makes no sense to me. I can only use use the example of my kids, if they became atheists or just decided that the Christian life just ain't doing it for them, I'd be hurt, worried and concerned. But I'd love them just the same if not more. And I would be happy to be part of their life any way they wanted me to. People who act any other way are very shallow and near sighted.

    LX
    True, however it doesn't take religion to be involved in global atrocities. If 2 dudes are fighting over the last slice of pizza, do we outlaw pizza? And Jim Jones is one of those guys who did something that was illegal. I would hope Christians would be first in line to say, that anything done illegal should be punished no matter who does it.

    Check in after I drop off a couple boxes of tile off. late, feen

    ReplyDelete
  8. TB 13

    If you ever need me to e-mail something to you on Christianity for your school projects or anything, I'd be glad to do it.

    Late, feen

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you so much!!!!! Not for school though, I have been asked to coauthor a book in the summer. I am kinda an unorthodox person, so this is how I decided to conduct my research. Actually, Feeno, I would more appreciate a constructive debate. I am on here trying to learn how to be challenged by my atheist position, so far, not happening. Mostly getting attacked, and it does not help that I am the only girl. Come on my blog and challenge what I write, I would like to have to defend what I say.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Feeno: 9/11 was almost about religion. It was about as close to being about religion as you can get without ACTUALLY being about religion. It was actually about Israel, which I blame on Britain, not religion.

    And I really do wish he would choke to death.

    @ Tink: I'm almost a girl. I'm about as close to being a girl as you can get without ACTUALLY being a girl. I think of myself as a transexual lesbian who just finds it convenient for reproductive purposes to not undergo surgery.

    Let's see someone try to take what I just said out of context... death threats, sexual confusion, I hope JD's head doesn't explode (otherwise how would be choke to death?).

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9/11 was almost about religion. It was about as close to being about religion as you can get without ACTUALLY being about religion

    There is a HUGE difference between the 9/11 hijackers and Christianity.

    The 9/11 hijackers hoped that their Koran was correct.

    The apostles were willing to suffer truly horrific deaths rather than recant the miracles that they were witnesses to. People typically won't endure minor discomfort trying to preserve a lie, nevermind be executed for it.

    Mohammed would go to the seclusion of a cave to privately receive his "revelations" from 'Allah".

    The apostles witnessed miraculous appearences and occurances (Pentecost)in the company of others.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ... which is why I said religion, not Christianity.

    And trust me, it's all voodoo, whether you do it in groups or alone in a room. Do we measure religion based on whether its adherents can self-induce trance and enter an ecstatic state? Sufi Muslims to this day have group religious ceremonies. Is their faith fake?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Feeno.

    I didn't say that only religion causes global atrocities. Plenty of other things do, but that's no reason not to confront religion as a cause. Cancer kills way more people than malaria, but some scientists are still looking for ways to eradicate malaria while others work on cancer. A life saved is a life saved.

    I did say that any surviving Christian would condemn and disown the acts of Jim Jones, which you have. Of course you would. I would. I do condemn them. Unfortunately, religion maintains its motivational power even when drastically misinterpreted, and it's misinterpreted all the time.

    In the light of events like Jonestown, 9/11, the Inquisition, etc. it it's possible to see religion as a huge machine which is impossible to perfectly maintain and which endangers people whenever it malfunctions. Sometimes people break it on purpose. Its intended purpose is very poorly defined and therefore constantly debated, and it may even endanger people when used "correctly". In fact, its primary purpose appears to be its own continued operation. That's why I'd like to see its owners and operators voluntarily decommission it.

    JD, I recognise your apostles/hijackers comparison as a Lee Strobel argument, one I picked up on over a year ago. I had a great back-and-forth with a literal Christian soldier at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh yeah, the next month I had a much more aggressive back-and-forth with another guy over it, which was also interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I actually heard it on a Christian radio station driving on I-95 near the GA-FL border. It made sense to me anyway. Maybe Strobel uses it also.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow. You contribute to the Rational Response Squad? Color me impressed. What ever happened to Kelly and here *ahem* dismantleing of Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist? Guess she never got past Mount Chapter Four.

    With all do respect, I doubt your explanation. We have a more contemporary example we can compare the testimony of the apostles with.

    "As the Watergate scandal unfolded and I went to prison, I learned—to my surprise—just where the true power in life really is. It was in a little prayer group where two dope pushers, a car thief, a stock swindler and a former special counsel for the President of the United States got down on our knees at night and prayed. We saw men give their lives to Christ, their hearts transformed by the power of the living God.

    Why Jesus and not some other religious leader? The truth turns on the fact of Jesus Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead. I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true.

    Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world—and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.

    Today, I thank God for Watergate. It taught me the greatest lesson of my life, the paradox of power: that he who seeks to save his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for Jesus’ sake shall find it." Chuck Colson, former Special counsel to President Richard Nixon, Watergate co-conspirator, and founder of the largest prison ministry in the world. Link to full article.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I do awful things, and rather than correct my mistakes I'll accept Jesus."
    ~ Every Christian

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here's Strobel telling it himself, if you're interested.

    I was never part of the RRS officially. They invited me to moderate Ask the Atheist after I wrote some long comments, and they basically left me to it. They appear to have gone their separate ways, though Brian Sapient still maintains the main RRS website. Jake, the big face at the top of the old ATA banner, recreated ATA on Wordpress when Drupal problems nearly killed it. He didn't see fit to visually associate it with the RRS this time around.

    I wish I could remember now what Nixon wrote about Colson in his memoirs, but I read them too long ago. My dad had them on a shelf when I was in high school. I do remember that RMN proclaimed his own innocence all the way.

    Doubting my explanations (I hope you noticed that I presented several in the links) is fine, because I'm not trying to say, "No, this is what really happened." The arguments from Strobel and Colson push toward the position, "It could not have happened any other way." I respond by saying, "Actually, it could have happened like this, or this, or...and that's just the ways I can come up with by myself." The answer to an argument by elimination is alternatives.

    Watergate is an interesting event to use for comparison, though depending on how you mean "contemporary" it's either 27 years farther from the present than 9/11 or only a negligible amount closer to AD 33.

    One aspect of what I was trying to tell Phil and "iens" is that even if the apostles were in on the hypothetical hoax, they still had something important to defend. The fate of their religion rested on their shoulders. The fact that Jesus (again, hypothetically) did not resurrect would not have stopped his closest followers from believing in him (see true-believer syndrome). Even if they didn't buy any of the supernatural claims at all, they had still devoted their lives to Jesus' teachings. If they let it all be dismissed within a generation, they had wasted their lives.

    Now the comparison: what were Nixon's people defending? The Nixon administration, and their own political careers. Not huge in the scheme of things, considering the above. Also, Colson fails to mention that some of them may have defended Nixon better by cracking early and throwing themselves under the wheels.

    My other big point was that the whole question of suffering to protect a lie evaporates when considering another alternative: that the apostles didn't know, and the hoax was independent of them. The variant of this which seemed most plausible, even given Gary Habermas' supposed list of accepted events, was the theft of the body and the use of a lookalike for brief appearances. (You have to admit, visits by post-execution Jesus never lasted long.) I reiterate, that's just what I came up with at the time.

    Finally, and I didn't really go into this before, perhaps the apostles were simply braver in the accounts than they were in real life. Think about it; if one of them (Peter, perhaps) had cracked under torture and denied everything, how would the devout within earshot (who would have thought he was lying to save himself) go about defending the young faith? By changing the story. Just how many accounts of each apostle's death are there, not counting Judas? If you had the pen, you had the power.

    There's a lot to merely suppose in all of the alternatives, of course, but comparing such mundane suppositions to the a priori likelihood of miracles is a whole other subject.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Feeno --"P.S. Gandolph is out there somewhere lurking in the shadows. And if this post doesn't bring him out of his hiatus, nothing will?"

    Sometimes the realization that those with faithful addictions of gambling on salvation,as gamblers are not very likely to ever consider if their gambling habits are effecting others.

    Sometimes leaves me a little lost for words Feeno.

    You said --"I don't understand why religious people act like babies and not go to family gatherings because of religious fall outs. But those things should be blamed on the those babies. Religion might be the excuse they use, but it's there small mind that allows it to happen."


    Even this attempted denial of the actual obvious detrimental effect of faith,to me seems just like somebody trying to make himself feel better about playing one armed bandit gambling machines.

    The bibles OBVIOUSLY been the cause of spilts and divides and witch killings suicides and so very very many abusive cults and still does ...Yet here you are quietly patting your christian concience on the back and in between reciting mantras at church,trying to somehow keep yourself convinced that the faith and the bible cannot possibly be responsible for the problems.

    You are just like some sad arsed Muslim trying to keep yourself convinced that surely Islam and the koran cannot be held (at all) responsible for Jehad or abuse of muslim women etc.

    Still the average gambling addict cares only of himself and that large win he hopes for ..The christian its about his/her dreams of salvation,and if some kids elsewhere need to suffer or die being acused as witches .Or if some woman need to get mistreated by morman poligamists,or some folks need to suffer somewhere in some christian cult so people like Feeno can continue holding onto and keep promoting faith in the bible and THEIR prize of salvation ...Pfttttt ...Mere statistical problem thats all part of gambling !

    Feeno"Is there something I'm missing?"

    No shit no,no nothings missing for you Feeno .. not unless you`d care to consider running a few miles in some other poor bastards shoes whos lives you so called caring loving faithful folk are prepared to continually promote gambling with

    Feeno--"But "if I were an atheist" I would care less about all these things. I'd say whatever man, more power to 'em."

    Yes there is some (christian athiests)like that that suggest folks shouldnt worry to much.You know the type who dont like the new atheist movement etc,those who have (not been) personally effected and who suggest atheists should be all sweet and kind and fuck around for another few thousand years, having sweet little wee talkies with folks of faith.These christian athiest are very much like their christian brothers,when they havent been personally effected in a bad way themselves by faith belief in this world ...They just cannot see any reason why some folks see things as maybe a little more urgent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I do awful things, and rather than correct my mistakes I'll accept Jesus."

    Hucksters and frauds come in every stripe. Christianity is not exempt. If someone made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and yet there isnt any noticeable change in their lives, how credible do you think that profession was?

    I wish I could remember now what Nixon wrote about Colson in his memoirs, but I read them too long ago. My dad had them on a shelf when I was in high school

    The one book I read about Watergate was G. Gordon Liddy's autobiograpy Will.I highly recommend it being that Liddy is quite a, shall we say, "unique" individual. I don't think he much cared for Colsen though.

    what were Nixon's people defending? The Nixon administration, and their own political careers. Not huge in the scheme of things, considering the above

    Other comparisons we could make are that Nixon's people were highly educated, enjoyed status, were the cream of the crop acaademically, and werent facing first century jails. They were, if they got convicted, first time offenders and probably would have gotten off lightly.

    Jesus's followers were "fishermen" and other tradesmen. Simple folk. Not the first people that you would think of to scheme up and perpetrate upon the world the idea that "Love thy enemy" would hopefully take root and fly in the face of conventional wisdom.

    Also, Colson fails to mention that some of them may have defended Nixon better by cracking early and throwing themselves under the wheels

    If Liddy doesnt care much for Colsen, then he absolutely hates John Dean like poison. Apparently Dean sang like a canary and told the investigators that he discussed the cover-up of Watergate 35 times with Nixon. Nixon's appointment secretary (Alexander Butterfield) didnt exactly help matters by revealing to congress that Nixon taped EVERYTHING, phone calls, meetings etc. in the oval office. So much for falling on the sword for your leader. Liddy is the only one that refused to talk and spent more time in jail than any of them.


    My other big point was that the whole question of suffering to protect a lie evaporates when considering another alternative: that the apostles didn't know, and the hoax was independent of them. The variant of this which seemed most plausible, even given Gary Habermas' supposed list of accepted events, was the theft of the body and the use of a lookalike for brief appearances. (You have to admit, visits by post-execution Jesus never lasted long.)

    The thing is, there really arent ANY widespread competeing claims during the 1st century of what happened to the body. No x stole the body and did y with it. Nothing like that at all. If there was, we'd still be talking about them today.

    Insofar as length of time spent with others during appearances, we know it was at least long enough to eat a meal with them. (John 21). If I spent the better part of 3 years with you LX. I think I would know it was you and not a "double". Just sayin'

    Think about it; if one of them (Peter, perhaps) had cracked under torture and denied everything, how would the devout within earshot (who would have thought he was lying to save himself) go about defending the young faith?

    I think it would have been loudly procalimed to the point we would still be hearing it today. It's this reason, among others that I just can't take Mormonism seriously.

    There's a lot to merely suppose in all of the alternatives, of course, but comparing such mundane suppositions to the a priori likelihood of miracles is a whole other subject

    One thing to keep in mind is that the resurrection isnt attributed to "Frank" from Palestine but the most unique person in history in the opinion of many people,before you even get to the resurrection account.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nixon's people...were, if they got convicted, first time offenders and probably would have gotten off lightly.

    Which is probably why they didn't hold out very long.

    The consequences for the Watergate crew were trivial compared to the consequences for the apostles, but that's equally true of the consequences of confessing or not confessing. It works both ways, and muddies the comparison.

    Jesus's followers were "fishermen" and other tradesmen. Simple folk.

    Led by, from all accounts, a carpenter. Simple doesn't mean stupid or naive. And they did have time to plan. I quote myself responding to iens:
    "...They had brains, they had a purpose and they had one heck of a leader to inspire them.

    "If the apostles had any doubts whatsoever about Jesus' ability to resist arrest and prosecution, or any inkling of his willingness to submit to it, they wouldn't have waited for his capture to plan for the future. Jesus, knowing as he must have that the soldiers would one day come for this upstart Messiah, would have planned with the apostles, or at least tried to prepare them for his absence."

    Dean sang like a canary...Butterfield didn't exactly help matters by revealing to congress that Nixon taped EVERYTHING...

    That's two down from the twelve Colson mentions, and I did only say "some". It would take more research to determine that none of them took personal responsibility for any wrongdoing which was ultimately Nixon's, whether or not it helped Nixon in the end.

    The thing is, there really arent ANY widespread competeing claims during the 1st century of what happened to the body.

    That's an interesting point; in fact, there aren't any surviving contemporary claims at all which deny any aspect of the resurrection. Do you think it's because nobody denied it at all? Would the Jewish authorities, the group with the greatest vested interest in eliminating Jesus (at the time), have stayed completely silent when their enemy appeared to have come back to life? No, I think it's safe to say that if the trial and execution happened in the first place, we are missing a hell of a lot of information about it, and that includes competing accounts.

    If I spent the better part of 3 years with you LX. I think I would know it was you and not a "double".

    Probably, yes. Still, and again I quote myself, "...it's not as if a hypothetical replacement Jesus had to come back looking as if nothing had happened, or resume his old life. He came and went, he had supposedly been to the afterlife and back, he didn't say much at a time up close, everyone spent a lot of time looking at his wounds, there weren't any cameras, his mother was old (average life expectancy of 25-30 years in that era, and JC died at 33) and those who had depended on him were desperate for him to really be back. So yeah, I can see it."

    I think [Peter's denial] would have been loudly procalimed to the point we would still be hearing it today.

    Same issue as with the missing body. Even if the Resurrection were true, there'd be people circulating claims of a stolen body. Even if the apostles all held firm, did nobody try a Lady Hope to win them over posthumously? Christianity did have its enemies, whether or not it was legitimate, and their output post-crucifixion is completely lost.

    ...the resurrection isnt attributed to "Frank" from Palestine but the most unique person in history in the opinion of many people...

    The one person who didn't write a word of any of the accounts, before or after. The importance of a character gives weight to the question of his/her existence, but that weight doesn't come down on one side or another. Especially when most of that importance and reverence was imbued well after the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with you there, JD.

    What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

    ~ James 2:14-17

    ReplyDelete
  23. The consequences for the Watergate crew were trivial compared to the consequences for the apostles, but that's equally true of the consequences of confessing or not confessing. It works both ways, and muddies the comparison

    I disagree. Think about it.

    "Look pal, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Recant and we'll give you 10 lashes and you make a public statement. Then we'll call it a day.

    Apostle: No.

    Wanna play tough-guy? OK, We'll instead we'll throw you in a vat of boiling oil. Do you want to recant now?

    Apostle: No.

    Heat up the oil! We have a "tough guy" here!"

    Again, we'll just have to disagree.

    Led by, from all accounts, a carpenter. Simple doesn't mean stupid or naive. And they did have time to plan

    Again, we'll just have to disagree. I don't think that the apostles were "stupid". I just think that they were from humble backgrounds, and that they probably lacked the "vision" to keep in mind the "fraud" they were allegedly propogating. I don't see anything along the lines of "planning" for his (Jesus) departure.

    Do you think it's because nobody denied it at all? Would the Jewish authorities, the group with the greatest vested interest in eliminating Jesus (at the time), have stayed completely silent when their enemy appeared to have come back to life?

    I think there was a story concerning certain "hush money" paid to the guards from the authorities to testify that they were asleep at the time. If you want to examine it and post it on a thread, email me.

    those who had depended on him were desperate for him to really be back. So yeah, I can see it

    Did He reappear for seconds? Minutes? Hours? Again, we disagree.

    The importance of a character gives weight to the question of his/her existence, but that weight doesn't come down on one side or another. Especially when most of that importance and reverence was imbued well after the fact

    There are external sources apart from the gospels that exist that support His existance. Insofar as the "imbued well after the fact" part, I'm going to endeavor to post something this week on Trees For Lunch to discuss exactly that, the dating of the gospels. TV has submitted his opinion on the matter. I'll email you when I post as such. It should make for an interesting discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ginx posting from James? What next? One of my favorite verses from the bible is James 1:27, Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

    That's why I think Jesus disliked the Pharisees so much. They were MUCH more caught up in "custom" than "meaning".

    ReplyDelete
  25. Damn JD, That was some good stuff.

    Good lookin' out, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  26. [Romans:] "Recant and we'll give you 10 lashes and you make a public statement."

    Wrong threat. The real consequences for confessing wouldn't have come from the Romans, but from the first generation of zealous Christians, suddenly deprived of their peaceful leader and faced with their very first heretic.

    Physical danger aside, confessing would have invalidated the last three years, and made abandoning their previous lives a complete waste. There's an element of sunk cost there.

    I don't see anything along the lines of "planning" for his (Jesus) departure.

    Considering that if not the apostles themselves then very sympathetic Christians wrote the Gospels, preparations for a planned deception would hardly have been chronicled.

    In some small way we do in fact read about Jesus preparing the apostles for, even predicting, his own capture, most obviously at the Last Supper when he predicts the betrayal. Not much of what is said before or after the supper is added to the accounts.

    I think there was a story concerning certain "hush money" paid to the guards from the authorities to testify that they were asleep at the time.

    I might look into that, thanks.

    Did He reappear for seconds? Minutes? Hours?

    Probably hours, so if there was a double he did a good job. You didn't quote the item in my list which strikes me as the most important: Jesus had supposedly been to the afterlife and back. There's no limit to the extent a man could conceivably be changed by temporary death. If I were the double, that's the angle I'd use to explain differences, apparent lapses in memory, etc. Shock, hope and scarcity of interaction would have to finish the job.

    There are external sources apart from the gospels that exist that support His existance.

    Using the word "existence" was my honest mistake in the last post. Above, I'm not trying to challenge Jesus' existence, the consensus for which is pretty major even among atheists. The real battlegrounds are each of the specific events written into his Biblical life, and that's what I was trying to highlight. If Jesus was resurrected, that's important. If he wasn't, that's important too, considering how many people think he was.

    I'll be interested in the Gospel dating material when it comes, JD.

    ReplyDelete