Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on April 04, 2016, 04:51:30 PM
-
Assume for now that the Big Fella finally showed up a second time around, would you want to kill him - or at least have a few stiff words?
After all, first time round he could presumably a least have bothered leaving behind a cure for childhood cancer or fixed it so that earthquakes and tsunamis didn't carry away countless innocent people.
And while we're about it, what's with sitting on his hands for the last 2,000 years? Surely if he'd just deflected a bit the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand or squished the first flu virus before millions died in the subsequent events his Dad would have approved wouldn't he?
We punish people in the real world for culpable negligence - why should JC get a free pass if ever he makes it to court?
-
I always prefer the "few stiff words" approach over killing, personally.
-
Shakes,
I always prefer the "few stiff words" approach over killing, personally.
Yeah, me too. I guess I was channelling the "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him" line but I'd probably settle for a few stiff words instead. Clearly he's a very naughty boy after all....
-
If he were to make the ultimate sacrifice today......
200 hours community service or even life imprisonment doesn't have the same wow factor as crucifixion.
The worlds gone soft.
-
And just try putting 200 hours' community service on a chain around your neck.
-
john,
If he were to make the ultimate sacrifice today......
200 hours community service or even life imprisonment doesn't have the same wow factor as crucifixion.
The worlds gone soft.
Well, presumably the court would take background reports into account - mother violated to conceive him, absentee father, that kind of thing so perhaps community service would be the right option after all?
-
Why would one want to kill him?
-
You might find you like him. Quite a few people did, first time around, and there was illness, war and famine then. Not to mention the Roman occupation. Yet Jesus still had fans.
I've just remembered something. Fiction I know but the last but one episode of Rev had the Rev at a very low ebb, then he meets Jesus (played by Liam Neeson). He certainly liked him.
-
Threads like this make me somewhat sympathetic to the various Christians complaining that it's a bit clique(y) with a hint of having to pass the tough kids smoking and about to ask you for your dinner money. And I know the type of mockery goes on on other boards on here but there is a responsibility that needs to be taken if atheists are in the majority on the boards to at least attempt not to use that in simply empty mockery.
It's not really enough to say you wouldn't do it to the pagan because they don't tell you it's true for you too. There are plenty of Christians on here who have an admirably live and let live approach, who often challenge their fellow Christians and theists on those sort of attitudes. Maybe instead of Beavus and Butthead approach to them, we could drag ourselves into an attempt at dialogue.
-
Brownie,
You might find you like him. Quite a few people did, first time around, and there was illness, war and famine then. Not to mention the Roman occupation. Yet Jesus still had fans.
I've just remembered something. Fiction I know but the last but one episode of Rev had the Rev at a very low ebb, then he meets Jesus (played by Liam Neeson). He certainly liked him.
Oh I know I might - I see him as a sort of lovable rogue, a bit Terry Thomas. That wouldn't absolve him of the culpable negligence charge though would it?
-
NS,
Threads like this make me somewhat sympathetic to the various Christians complaining that it's a bit clique(y) with a hint of having to pass the tough kids smoking and about to ask you for your dinner money. And I know the type of mockery goes on on other boards on here but there is a responsibility that needs to be taken if atheists are in the majority on the boards to at least attempt not to use that in simply empty mockery.
It's not really enough to say you wouldn't do it to the pagan because they don't tell you it's true for you too. There are plenty of Christians on here who have an admirably live and let live approach, who often challenge their fellow Christians and theists on those sort of attitudes. Maybe instead of Beavus and Butthead approach to them, we could drag ourselves into an attempt at dialogue.
I've tried to keep it light, but there's a serious point nonetheless. If some people seriously think a second coming is due, should JC get a free pass when he returns or be challenged on the good he could have done but didn't both the last time around and while he was away? The "If you see Buddha on the road, kill him" line is quite a well-known one after all.
-
NS,
I've tried to keep it light, but there's a serious point nonetheless. If some people seriously think a second coming is due, should JC get a free pass when he returns or be challenged on the good he could have done but didn't both the last time around and while he was away? The "If you see Buddha on the road, kill him" line is quite a well-known one after all.
Except I think the basic point is simply a repetition of the problem of suffering, done to death, I would suggest. And then we have a collection of extracts or bon mots from or inspired by the Life of Brian. I don't see how it attempts to create dialogue and I would suggest your initial lightness is also likely to shut it down.
-
NS,
Except I think the basic point is simply a repetition of the problem of suffering, done to death, I would suggest. And then we have a collection of extracts or bon mots from or inspired by the Life of Brian. I don't see how it attempts to create dialogue and I would suggest your initial lightness is also likely to shut it down.
It might, though in my experience it's more likely to lead to someone beginning a post with, "Actually..." and it takes off from there.
The Buddhist angle for example could be an interesting one to explore in the Christian context. Let's see - if it dies it dies, but you never know.
-
NS,
It might, though in my experience it's more likely to lead to someone beginning a post with, "Actually..." and it takes off from there.
The Buddhist angle for example could be an interesting one to explore in the Christian context. Let's see - if it dies it dies, but you never know.
Not of a group of atheists then suddenly go 'hrurr, hrurr, JC idiot, hrurr'. You aren't responsible for how others respond but then responding in the same way backs up the mockery aspect. My complaint was about the whole tone of the entirety of the thread when I posted.
-
Assume for now that the Big Fella finally showed up a second time around, would you want to kill him - or at least have a few stiff words?
Well, if he was to return for a second time (as he actually promised he would), I'm not sure that any of us would be a position to be having 'a few stiff words', let alone killing him - after all, that will herald the end of times.
After all, first time round he could presumably a least have bothered leaving behind a cure for childhood cancer or fixed it so that earthquakes and tsunamis didn't carry away countless innocent people.
If what I read recently is true, cancer is very much a recent development, reflecting lifestyle and diet. As for earthquakes and tsunamis, you seem to be asking for a less dynamic planet; which would, in turn, probably hold less oxygen and other important chemicals in its atmosphere.
And while we're about it, what's with sitting on his hands for the last 2,000 years? Surely if he'd just deflected a bit the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand or squished the first flu virus before millions died in the subsequent events his Dad would have approved wouldn't he?
So, you're arguing that he ought to short-circuit the natural consequences of human and other natural actions?
We punish people in the real world for culpable negligence - why should JC get a free pass if ever he makes it to court?
And who are culpably negligent in this case - humanity?
-
... should JC get a free pass when he returns or be challenged on the good he could have done but didn't both the last time around and while he was away?
That assumes, of course, that he didn't and hasn't done good over the last 2000-odd years. I'd suggest that he would have to be released without charge by any court. After all, the problems have been caused by humans.
-
If what I read recently is true, cancer is very much a recent development, reflecting lifestyle and diet.
[quote/]
the what you have read is rubbish.
-
the what you have read is rubbish.
Indeed: http://goo.gl/hCOVq5
-
And just try putting 200 hours' community service on a chain around your neck.
;D
-
As for earthquakes and tsunamis, you seem to be asking for a less dynamic planet; which would, in turn, probably hold less oxygen and other important chemicals in its atmosphere.
But an omniscient and omnipotent deity would (a) know how and (b) be able to create a "dynamic planet" without the full panoply of natural disasters, correct? This is already inherent in what those words mean, after all.
But perhaps you don't believe in such a god. Guess we'll never find out, eh?
-
Except I think the basic point is simply a repetition of the problem of suffering, done to death, I would suggest. And then we have a collection of extracts or bon mots from or inspired by the Life of Brian. I don't see how it attempts to create dialogue and I would suggest your initial lightness is also likely to shut it down.
I hear what you are saying, NS. But actually there's a saying that 'Christians are Christ's hands and feet' and I would be more interested in how anyone thinks they've done and whether anyone thinks Jesus would recognise that in the actions of the church.
I wouldn't bother having a go at him seeing as he's been dead 2,000 years.
-
Nearly Sane and Hope
Your pleas for greater sensitivity fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned because of your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
How about you make some concessions to other peoples (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc) point of view for a start.
But you won't will you? You are the only ones who know the truth. Such hypocrisy.
-
Nearly Sane and Hope
Your pleas for greater sensitivity fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned because of your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
How about you make some concessions to other peoples (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc) point of view for a start.
But you won't will you? You are the only ones who know the truth. Such hypocrisy.
What truth do you think I insist I know? Last time I looked was asking for recognition that people know virtually nothing.
-
I hear what you are saying, NS. But actually there's a saying that 'Christians are Christ's hands and feet' and I would be more interested in how anyone thinks they've done and whether anyone thinks Jesus would recognise that in the actions of the church.
I wouldn't bother having a go at him seeing as he's been dead 2,000 years.
Which is fair enough but not the tone of the OP, and especially not as it was reflected in the first few posts on the thread.
-
I don't find them especially offensive, and I still have something of my 'offended Christian' radar operational from when I was one. I'm not sure you can condemn an entire thread from four or five posts either.
-
I don't find them especially offensive, and I still have something of my 'offended Christian' radar operational from when I was one. I'm not sure you can condemn an entire thread from four or five posts either.
which is why when I replied, I put it in context. We have a thread which were it in those first few posts appear equivalently on the pagan thread, owlswing would have gone into minor meltdown and, I suspect,you might have got slightly cross at. I think there are more atheists currently posting, which is why I argued that they need to understand how that appears, not just to those on the board but those who might read it.
-
You think wrong if you think anything in the first few posts would have offended me in a pagan context. How exactly?
-
You think wrong if you think anything in the first few posts would have offended me in a pagan context. How exactly?
I think you need to translate it into 6 or 7 mocking posts on a thread on paganism which are based on a simplistic understanding. If Sassy, Johny Canoe, Vlad and Hope had posted simularly, I think you would have reacted that it was all a bit silly and they should stop wumming. Owlswing would have gone beyond that, and i would have been first up to point out the appropriateness. And again I am making a specific point about how the dynamics of the board, and that if there is a majority there is a responsibility on how to behave, do you disagree?
-
If what I read recently is true, cancer is very much a recent development,
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/oct/23/dinosaurs.science
Are you going to admit you are wrong about this or not? Because if not you look like and absolute fool.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/oct/23/dinosaurs.science
Are you going to admit you are wrong about this or not? Because if not you look like and absolute fool.
Sorry Stephen, I had forgotten that the article which I read - http://dailym.ai/1Vri7fa - was rather more specific than just 'cancer'. However, it does indicate that the condition is in a large part related to Western lifestyle.
It is alo worth pointing out that even your article is highly specific - "Only one group - the Hadrosaurs, or "duck-billed dinosaurs" - suffered from cancer."
-
Sorry Stephen, I had forgotten that the article which I read - http://dailym.ai/1Vri7fa - was rather more specific than just 'cancer'. However, it does indicate that the condition is in a large part related to Western lifestyle.
It is alo worth pointing out that even your article is highly specific - "Only one group - the Hadrosaurs, or "duck-billed dinosaurs" - suffered from cancer."
I was told that everyone will die from cancer if something else does not kill you first.
Cancer is caused by faulty gene copies and as you get older the chance of them happening increases.
-
Thanks for the support, Nearly.
OMW/Johnny Canoe was so upset by a poster's comment saying.... "all evangelists should be lined up and shot", that he felt he had to resign his membership. Johnny's father was an evangelist/pastor. He also told me he couldn't bear the thought of a Christian, possible newcomer to the board, seeing the comment and that it had gone unmoderated.
I feel the title of this thread falls in a similar category.
-
Thanks for the support, Nearly.
OMW/Johnny Canoe was so upset by a poster's comment saying.... "all evangelists should be lined up and shot", that he felt he had to resign his membership. Johnny's father was an evangelist/pastor. He also told me he couldn't bear the thought of a Christian, possible newcomer to the board, seeing the comment and that it had gone unmoderated.
I feel the title of this thread falls in a similar category.
And Johnny took enough opportunities to make very similar cracks against numerous people on here that his justification and your ignoring that has contributed to it. I'll defend anyone but making him out as some innocent martyr instead of a major contributor to the problem, is either disingenuous or foolish.
-
Thanks for the support, Nearly.
OMW/Johnny Canoe was so upset by a poster's comment saying.... "all evangelists should be lined up and shot", that he felt he had to resign his membership. Johnny's father was an evangelist/pastor. He also told me he couldn't bear the thought of a Christian, possible newcomer to the board, seeing the comment and that it had gone unmoderated.
I feel the title of this thread falls in a similar category.
I have alluded to this lack - in my view - of honest moderation, on a different thread.
-
I have alluded to this lack - in my view - of honest moderation, on a different thread.
So which mod(s) are dishonest?
-
And Johnny took enough opportunities to make very similar cracks against numerous people on here that his justification and your ignoring that has contributed to it. I'll defend anyone but making him out as some innocent martyr instead of a major contributor to the problem, is either disingenuous or foolish.
No, I'm not making him out to be an innocent martyr, I'm just trying to express that talk of killing or shooting anyone is inappropriate.
-
No, I'm not making him out to be an innocent martyr, I'm just trying to express that talk of killing or shooting anyone is inappropriate.
Depends on context, but I didn't see much of you speaking out when Johnny would indulge in similar mockery to this thread with pagans, why was that?
-
Depends on context, but I didn't see much of you speaking out when Johnny would indulge in similar mockery to this thread with pagans, why was that?
Probably, because he used to say he was trying to deflect all the bashing of Christians on the Christian topic threads.
-
Thanks NS for being direct, clear and courteous. It's better to say it as it is, which you did quite calmly, rather than trying to divert or dilute a conversation.
I'm sorry about OMW, SweetPea. He was good fun. I hope he comes back.
-
Thanks NS for being direct, clear and courteous. It's better to say it as it is, which you did quite calmly, rather than trying to divert or dilute a conversation.
I'm sorry about OMW, SweetPea. He was good fun. I hope he comes back.
He was also inclined to be deeply dismissive and attacking of posters and beliefs on here, was that fun?
-
No NS but I've noticed there's a lot of that across the board. Good and not so good from many posters. I gave up trying to work him out, but he was a larger than life character and could be amusing (despite the snork).
-
No NS but I've noticed there's a lot of that across the board. Good and not so good from many posters. I gave up trying to work him out, but he was a larger than life character and could be amusing (despite the snork).
Then deal with the whole person. Not a caricature to suit some idea that he was an innocent touted by some.
-
I found Johnny a mass of contradictions, and regularly disagreed with him; but more recently, I didn't really attempt 'combat' with him. Was saddened to hear of his going, but not to the extent of shedding a tear.
-
I disagreed with him too Hope, he was quite complex and I didn't always understand him yet I felt drawn to his posts, always read them when I saw his name as the most recent poster on a thread. I haven't seen anyone present him as an innocent!
-
This thread is descending quite unnecessarily into dividing the forum into sheep and goats, them and us. It's not something I've ever sought as a pagan; I've always taken people for who rather than what they are, although I'll debate ill thought-out bollockery with anyone.
-
Those last eight words are going to be my new signature when I change it :D
-
If what I read recently is true, cancer is very much a recent development, reflecting lifestyle and diet.
It's true that more people have had it recently but that is because they are not dying from other things anymore. And the reason for that is the hard work done by humans doing things like eradicating smallpox and making appendicitis survivable.
-
Would I want to kill him?
No, I really wouldn't. It would be far more entertaining to follow him around for a couple of weeks taking notes on his reactions to the things that have been, and are being, done in his name.
I think that that experience is very likely to be enough to make him kill himself!
-
I disagreed with him too Hope, he was quite complex and I didn't always understand him yet I felt drawn to his posts, always read them when I saw his name as the most recent poster on a thread. I haven't seen anyone present him as an innocent!
Both Sassy and SweetPea did, I would suggest, when he was banned/resigned, and also presented it as there was some vendetta against Christians. Vlad continues to raise threads on the idea of such a vendetta. I find that just as contributory to any problems as the first few posts on this thread.
-
Would I want to kill him?
No, I really wouldn't. It would be far more entertaining to follow him around for a couple of weeks taking notes on his reactions to the things that have been, and are being, done in his name.
I think that that experience is very likely to be enough to make him kill himself!
:) :) :) :) :)
Very good post, Owl, and probably true. Jesus would be appalled at the cruel actions of some of his followers.
-
Assume for now that the Big Fella finally showed up a second time around, would you want to kill him - or at least have a few stiff words?
After all, first time round he could presumably a least have bothered leaving behind a cure for childhood cancer or fixed it so that earthquakes and tsunamis didn't carry away countless innocent people.
And while we're about it, what's with sitting on his hands for the last 2,000 years? Surely if he'd just deflected a bit the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand or squished the first flu virus before millions died in the subsequent events his Dad would have approved wouldn't he?
We punish people in the real world for culpable negligence - why should JC get a free pass if ever he makes it to court?
Doh! Homer Simpson would be able to understand that when Christ returned people would be too busy grinding their teeth an wailing that they never believed in the first instance.
Reminds me of the day a friends parents house caught fire. He had gone to the chip shop for chips. Which was a good 30 minute walk there and back. When he got back his home was up in smoke with firefighters trying to put out the blaze and his mother was sat crying on the step of a neighbours house. He didn't ask if everyone okay or what has happened. He went up to his mum and said.." Here is your chips" She threw them at him and hit him.
Some people have no understanding of what matters and how they should react.
But Christ returning would mean all those things you spoke about do not matter. Because all those people especially Children are already with him and perfectly safe and restored.
Revelation 21:4
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
So what problem would there be to moan about and why would they be worried about the former things?
The fact he returns would give them far bigger problems to worry about especially if atheist or pagan.
-
I think I'd make him watch'The Life of Brian'!!!
-
I think I'd make him watch'The Life of Brian'!!!
He'd probably find it very funny, Susan.
-
I suspect the real Jesus was nothing like the gospels depiction of him.
-
I think I'd make him watch'The Life of Brian'!!!
Why?
-
Wasn't there a story once where Jesus had to be killed at the Second Coming in order to prevent a new Christianity forming around him?
There's also the idea that someone as good and blameless as Jesus is always killed because the rest of humanity can't bear to look upon it. Related to that is fear of the different; Richard Bach touches on this with the death of his messiah figure pilot in Illusions.
-
Those last eight words are going to be my new signature when I change it :D
Feel free. :D
-
Wasn't there a story once where Jesus had to be killed at the Second Coming in order to prevent a new Christianity forming around him?
I'd not heard that story before Rhiannon.
There are Christians who believe that Christ has come back, in the form of the Holy Spirit. He did say he would send His spirit. It's an idea, I honestly don't know what I believe about Christ's second coming and it doesn't bother me but it is quite possible that He didn't mean He would return in the flesh.
[/quote]There's also the idea that someone as good and blameless as Jesus is always killed because the rest of humanity can't bear to look upon it. Related to that is fear of the different; Richard Bach touches on this with the death of his messiah figure pilot in Illusions.[/quote]
Thanks, I've not read Illusions and will look up Richard Bach which sounds interesting. It is a story, we really don't know how Jesus will return.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(TV_serial)
Full plot here so don't read if you fancy getting it on DVD.
-
I think I'd make him watch'The Life of Brian'!!!
I think you should watch the life of Python.
-
Assume for now that the Big Fella finally showed up a second time around, would you want to kill him - or at least have a few stiff words?
After all, first time round he could presumably a least have bothered leaving behind a cure for childhood cancer or fixed it so that earthquakes and tsunamis didn't carry away countless innocent people.
And while we're about it, what's with sitting on his hands for the last 2,000 years? Surely if he'd just deflected a bit the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand or squished the first flu virus before millions died in the subsequent events his Dad would have approved wouldn't he?
We punish people in the real world for culpable negligence - why should JC get a free pass if ever he makes it to court?
I think it was Socrates who said that if a perfect person appeared people would want to kill them.
-
I think it was Socrates who said that if a perfect person appeared people would want to kill them.
Why?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(TV_serial)
Full plot here so don't read if you fancy getting it on DVD.
I won't get anything on dvd, I have a large 'to watch' pile already :).
Thanks for the link, I remember Jonathan Livingston Seagull well, just forgot who wrote it.
Richard Bach's philosophy is quite interesting and would have interested me very much when I was younger.
-
It is hard to imagine how we will react when confronted with the true reality in discovering God's perfect love and the evil deceptions of the Devil.
-
It is hard to imagine how we will react when confronted with the true reality in discovering God's perfect love and the evil deceptions of the Devil.
Another of your assumptions, without anything to back it up. ::)
-
Wasn't there a story once where Jesus had to be killed at the Second Coming in order to prevent a new Christianity forming around him?
Sounds something like the 'Grand Inquisitor' episode from Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov".
-
It is hard to imagine how we will react when confronted with the true reality in discovering God's perfect love and the evil deceptions of the Devil.
Well I think I would react by saying why didn't you dispose of the Devil if you didn't want us to be deceived.
-
I don't believe anyone here would seriously want to kill Jesus, despite the cheeky stuff posted earlier in the thread.
However, if he did come back in the flesh, which is not universally believed, it's highly likely that he would be viewed with great suspicion, as before, because people are and have always been naturally sceptical and suspicious.
-
Nearly Sane and Hope
Your pleas for greater sensitivity fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned because of your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
How about you make some concessions to other peoples (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc) point of view for a start.
But you won't will you? You are the only ones who know the truth. Such hypocrisy.
NearlySane is not a Christian. Simply because he criticises the tone of a message from a fellow atheist should not automatically make you think he is a believer and has some monopoly on religious truth.
Hope...on the other hand....
-
I don't believe anyone here would seriously want to kill Jesus, despite the cheeky stuff posted earlier in the thread.
However, if he did come back in the flesh, which is not universally believed, it's highly likely that he would be viewed with great suspicion, as before, because people are and have always been naturally sceptical and suspicious.
With my modest biblical critic hat on, I could say that the real historical Jesus never believed that he himself would return. He talked of a personage called "The Son of Man" who would soon appear to announce the winding-up of history. The gospel writers, and of course all subsequent strands of Christian theology (until recent times) have of course tended to conflate the two. But even in the gospels there are texts that give a strong impression that Jesus thought the 'Son of Man' (the judgment figure written of in Daniel) was some spiritual personage quite distinct from himself.
-
I think it was Socrates who said that if a perfect person appeared people would want to kill them.
What on earth is a 'perfect person'?
It is unlikely that anyone will ever be able to disentangle mythologising from historical truth in the gospels, but the 'wandering preacher of Nazareth' (not the man-god) seems to have had a powerful social message, and was extremely courageous, albeit somewhat irascible. That seems to have been enough to get him killed the first time round. 'Perfect' though?
-
Assume for now that the Big Fella finally showed up a second time around, would you want to kill him - or at least have a few stiff words?
After all, first time round he could presumably a least have bothered leaving behind a cure for childhood cancer or fixed it so that earthquakes and tsunamis didn't carry away countless innocent people.
And while we're about it, what's with sitting on his hands for the last 2,000 years? Surely if he'd just deflected a bit the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand or squished the first flu virus before millions died in the subsequent events his Dad would have approved wouldn't he?
We punish people in the real world for culpable negligence - why should JC get a free pass if ever he makes it to court?
My first thought on reading the thread, was, ........ would I want to see if he could come back to life again? ( hence the killing)
Me being a real doubting Thomas, wouldn't believe it was him, and even if he'd died again and was resurrected, I'd think it was a clever trick worked with smoke and mirrors ;)
But no, I don't think the person who was Jesus, is responsible for things other people did, using his name.
I think he would be horrified at many of the things done, supposedly in his name based on his teachings.
It isn't Jesus that needs a few stiff words, but the people who used his name as an excuse for inhumanity, IMO.
🌹
-
My first thought on reading the thread, was, ........ would I want to see if he could come back to life again?
Me being a real doubting Thomas, wouldn't believe it was him, and even if he'd died again and was resurrected, I'd think it was a clever trick worked with smoke and mirrors ;)
But no, I don't think the person who was Jesus, is responsible for things other people did, using his name.
I think he would be horrified at many of the things done, supposedly in his name based on his teachings.
🌹
So just to check that's none of the bad or good things carried out in his name, so any good work.by Christians is nothing to do with religion or belief in Jesus?
-
So just to check that's none of the bad or good things carried out in his name, so any good work.by Christians is nothing to do with religion or belief in Jesus?
No, not sure why you think that.
Jesus would only be responsible for those acts he encouraged by his teachings.
I don't think Jesus taught that bad things should be carried out in his name though, did he?
He did talk a lot about charity, and loving your enemy and neighbour.
He was only responsible for the things he taught, not for things he didn't teach.
IMO Jesus didn't teach Christianity, that came later.
-
No, not sure why you think that.
Jesus would only be responsible for those acts he encouraged by his teachings.
I don't think Jesus taught that bad things should be carried out in his name though, did he?
He did talk a lot about charity, and loving your enemy and neighbour.
He was only responsible for the things he taught, not for things he didn't teach.
IMO Jesus didn't teach Christianity, that came later.
Not sure why I think what? You seem to want to argue that Jesus only wanted the nice things done in his name, no true Scotsman fallacy? Why are you wanting to cherry pick? It's a bit hypocritical to me to say 'anything I think is good done in the name of JC is all fine, any bad stuff done in his name, nothing to do with it'.
-
Not sure why I think what? You seem to want to argue that Jesus only wanted the nice things done in his name, no true Scotsman fallacy? Why are you wanting to cherry pick? It's a bit hypocritical to me to say 'anything I think is good done in the name of JC is all fine, any bad stuff done in his name, nothing to do with it'.
Not really.
IMO someone is only responsible for what they set out to inspire others to do.
We only know what Jesus taught, from the bible.
He taught others to turn the other cheek love their neighbours and their enemy, not commit genoside or some other atrocity.
Or maybe you think Jesus taught " bad stuff"
Which bad stuff do you think he taught?
Yes I think Jesus only wanted people to do good things in his name.
That's because I think he thought he represented the good things.
-
Not really.
IMO someone is only responsible for what they set out to inspire others to do.
We only know what Jesus taught, from the bible.
He taught others to turn the other cheek love their neighbours and their enemy, not commit genoside or some other atrocity.
Or maybe you think Jesus taught " bad stuff"
Which bad stuff do you think he taught?
I am not saying what he taught you are, and you are off on a whole No True Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of people who have said they follow JC who argue his teachings allow them to do things you think are bad. Why are you right? And if his teachings 'inspired' them to do wrong as you see it how can you say they are wrong without falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy?
-
It is hard to imagine how we will react when confronted with the true reality in discovering God's perfect love and the evil deceptions of the Devil.
It is wasted on those posting today. As you can see from the replies they haven't a clue what the return of Christ would mean for them or for others like them.
They don't examine themselves or care how they appear to others. They are not bothered if they offend believers or anyone else.
The only thing they will regret is that Christ's return will show them their own heart and their own failings.
Worse still how their mockery and insult was really them amassing to their own misery when Christ returned.
Most atheists and pagans have themselves the 'me' at the centre of their lives.. It is all about them and they can't and won't let anyone else be at the centre of their lives. Till they find on that day they allowed themselves to be like Satan.
The same outlook of wanting to be like God in their own lives. The same as Adam and Eve who fell hook, line and sinker believing God withholding the best part for himself. In truth God is the best part in life for mankind. They just never saw/see it.
-
I don't believe anyone here would seriously want to kill Jesus, despite the cheeky stuff posted earlier in the thread.
However, if he did come back in the flesh, which is not universally believed, it's highly likely that he would be viewed with great suspicion, as before, because people are and have always been naturally sceptical and suspicious.
When Christ returns it is too late...
Who would there be to be sceptical or suspicious? How can his return on the clouds be anything but the dawn of truth that Christ was the Son of God and it is TOO LATE to change your mind?
-
With my modest dunce biblical critic hat on, I could say that the real historical Jesus never believed that he himself would return. He talked of a personage called "The Son of Man" who would soon appear to announce the winding-up of history. The gospel writers, and of course all subsequent strands of Christian theology (until recent times) have of course tended to conflate the two. But even in the gospels there are texts that give a strong impression that Jesus thought the 'Son of Man' (the judgment figure written of in Daniel) was some spiritual personage quite distinct from himself.
You need to take more water with it and stop changing what is written in the bible...
-
I am not saying what he taught you are, and you are off on a whole No True Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of people who have said they follow JC who argue his teachings allow them to do things you think are bad. Why are you right? And if his teachings 'inspired' them to do wrong as you see it how can you say they are wrong without falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy?
I can only give my answer, as I see it.
I don't really see that Jesus taught anything that allowed the Spanish Inquisition or the crusades for example.
It's not the one true Scotsman fallacy because I accept others interpret the teachings in the bible differently and I'm not saying it because I'm a Christian.
Jesus, the human being, taught things that were quite pacifist really, turning the other cheek etc.
If you want to murder and kill others or keep slaves, you have to dig into the OT to do it.
A Christian who justifies bad actions in Jesus name, usually doesn't use Jesus at all, but the OT.
The only way I see Jesus as responsible, is based on his teachings only.
Just like I consider Mohammed totally responsible for what he taught.
You have Jesus the person, and Mohammed the person.
I see Jesus as a lot more peaceful than I see Mohammed.
I have the same sources as everyone else, no one has to be a believer in anything.
Jesus taught turning the other cheek, Mohammed didn't. Mohammed's teachings seemed to be more about honour and was more warlike.
IMO Both are responsible for the things that they actually taught not for the accumulated crap that was attached to the religion.
If I chose to murder someone, in the name of Nearly Sane, you are not responsible for it, just because I use your name, unless you are shown to have been implicated or taught something that reasonably caused it to happen.
I don't think the teachings of Jesus, teach atrocities, and I don't see him as having any more control of what happened after his death, than you or I.
-
I can only give my answer, as I see it.
I don't really see that Jesus taught anything that allowed the Spanish Inquisition or the crusades for example.
It's not the one true Scotsman fallacy because I accept others interpret the teachings in the bible differently and I'm not saying it because I'm a Christian.
Jesus, the human being, taught things that were quite pacifist really, turning the other cheek etc.
If you want to murder and kill others or keep slaves, you have to dig into the OT to do it.
No, this is exactly a No True Scotsman since while you are accepting that others interpret things differently, you are saying they are incorrect and aren't being influenced by being Christian. If you want to say the good is inspired by Christianity, then the corollary is so is the evil.
-
If you want to murder and kill others or keep slaves, you have to dig into the OT to do it.
That was a different god, was it?
-
That was a different god, was it?
No, it was a history of the nation of the Jews and how they interpreted God and his/her relevance to their lives.
It's as much a political commentary as anything else.
-
No, this is exactly a No True Scotsman since while you are accepting that others interpret things differently, you are saying they are incorrect and aren't being influenced by being Christian. If you want to say the good is inspired by Christianity, then the corollary is so is the evil.
That's the problem.
You think I'm saying the good that was inspired by Christianity should be acknowledged but the evil done in its name shouldn't , I'm not.
The teachings of Jesus doesn't equal Christianity.
Jesus wasn't a Christian.
What I'm actually saying is that Jesus, who appears to have been Jewish shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of a religion called Christianity.
He should only be judged on his own teachings and doings, not on other peoples.
As far I can see, the teachings of Jesus were basically humanitarian ones.
Even whether he intended to start a new religion is debatable.
-
No, it was a history of the nation of the Jews and how they interpreted God and his/her relevance to their lives.
It's as much a political commentary as anything else.
So, they got god all wrong?
-
PS
Rose, Got any further on that (not necessarily materialistic) methodology, yet....
-
So, they got god all wrong?
Or their understanding increased over time.
Does it matter?
-
PS
Rose, Got any further on that (not necessarily materialistic) methodology, yet....
What do you mean?
Have you got me muddled with someone else?
Were you having a problem with your methodology ?
Why do I feel you think I'm a Christian ?
-
Have you got me muddled with someone else?
Yes, sorry, my bad. :-[
Trying to do two things at once.
-
An essay about Jesus from Richard Dawkins
I am no memetic engineer, and I have very little idea how to increase the numbers of the super nice and spread their memes through the meme pool. The best I can offer is what I hope may be a catchy slogan. 'Atheists for Jesus' would grace a T-shirt. There is no strong reason to choose Jesus as icon, rather than some other role model from the ranks of the super nice such as Mahatma Gandhi (not the odiously self-righteous Mother Teresa, heavens no). I think we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense which he inevitably espoused as a man of his time. And perhaps the oxymoronic impact of 'Atheists for Jesus' might be just what is needed to kick start the meme of super niceness in a post-Christian society. If we play our cards right - could we lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity enlightenment?
I think a reborn Jesus would wear the T-shirt. It has become a commonplace that, were he to return today, he would be appalled at what is being done in his name, by Christians ranging from the Catholic Church to the fundamentalist Religious Right. Less obviously but still plausibly, in the light of modern scientific knowledge I think he would see through supernaturalist obscurantism. But of course, modesty would compel him to turn his T-shirt around: Jesus for Atheists.
https://www.rationalresponders.com/atheists_for_jesus_a_richard_dawkins_essay
The teachings of Jesus don't equal Christianity.
At least Richard Dawkins can see it.
:)
So R D wouldn't kill him, just get him to wear a T shirt ;D ;D ;D
-
I think it was Socrates who said that if a perfect person appeared people would want to kill them.
Plato in his Republic argues:
Righteousness is often praised for the rewards it brings - honour, popularity, and the like - but that to see it in its true nature we must separate it from all these, strip it naked. He asks us therefore to imagine a perfectly righteous man treated by all around him as a monster of wickedness. We must picture him, still perfect, while he is bound, scourged and finally impaled.
-
Plato in his Republic argues:
Righteousness is often praised for the rewards it brings - honour, popularity, and the like - but that to see it in its true nature we must separate it from all these, strip it naked. He asks us therefore to imagine a perfectly righteous man treated by all around him as a monster of wickedness. We must picture him, still perfect, while he is bound, scourged and finally impaled.
No one perfect has ever lived, including Jesus.
-
When Christ returns it is too late...
Who would there be to be sceptical or suspicious? How can his return on the clouds be anything but the dawn of truth that Christ was the Son of God and it is TOO LATE to change your mind?
Why would it be too late!
If Christ arriving on a cloud did reveal the truth to me. Then I would believe the truth. Why the arbitrary cut off date?
-
How much of this discussion is predicated on making Jesus in one's own image, as every one is compelled to do in such a thought experiment?
Would a first-century Jew transplanted to the twenty-first century world - taking the scenario at face value - not look like what we now regard as a raving fundamentalist zealot?
-
No one perfect has ever lived, including Jesus.
Wait a minute Floo!
ippy
-
How much of this discussion is predicated on making Jesus in one's own image, as every one is compelled to do in such a thought experiment?
I suppose you may predicate the discussion on making Jeus in your own image, but many Christians woulod regard the situation as the reverse.
Would a first-century Jew transplanted to the twenty-first century world - taking the scenario at face value - not look like what we now regard as a raving fundamentalist zealot?
No, he'd probably look like what we would now regard as a Jew whose family has lived in Palestine for centuries.
-
Wait a minute Floo!
ippy
Sorry, with the exception of Ippy! ;D
-
I suppose you may predicate the discussion on making Jeus in your own image, but many Christians woulod regard the situation as the reverse.
They may well do, but Christians are after all the masters of making Jesus in their own image, making a contradictory and/or ambiguous gaggle of texts depict Jesus as saying whatever it is they want him to have said. They've had two thousand years of practice at it.
No, he'd probably look like what we would now regard as a Jew whose family has lived in Palestine for centuries.
Why?
-
Hope did say ''probably''. I've never thought about how he would look. Sass believes he will come in glory in clouds which is what is written by John in Revelation. I have mixed feelings, Jesus could have meant the Holy Spirit. If he does return in the flesh (not descending on a cloud), I doubt anyone would recognise him.
-
Hope did say ''probably''. I've never thought about how he would look. Sass believes he will come in glory in clouds which is what is written by John in Revelation. I have mixed feelings, Jesus could have meant the Holy Spirit. If he does return in the flesh (not descending on a cloud), I doubt anyone would recognise him.
I bet the guy would look nothing like the artistic depictions of him.
-
Sorry, with the exception of Ippy! ;D
Being perfect is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
It's all subjective
-
If Jesus behaved towards Pagans and atheists like Sassy implies he wouldn't be perfect.
-
If Jesus behaved towards Pagans and atheists like Sassy implies he wouldn't be perfect.
You only have to read the gospels to see the guy was far from perfect.
-
You only have to read the gospels to see the guy was far from perfect.
I've read them plenty of times, and can't say that I've notice that 'the guy was far from perfect'.
-
I've read them plenty of times, and can't say that I've notice that 'the guy was far from perfect'.
Killing a large number of animals for absolutely no reason whatever; cursing a tree; improvising a DIY weapon with which to attack people; referring to a group of people as dogs (all very much allegedly, needless to say) ... shall I continue?
-
I've read them plenty of times, and can't say that I've notice that 'the guy was far from perfect'.
Committing genocide in the OT? He is the same guy after all, apparently.
-
I've read them plenty of times, and can't say that I've notice that 'the guy was far from perfect'.
Didn't he supposedly trash the Temple which is vandalism, frighten some pigs over the cliff when playing silly beggars by pretending to cast out demons, tell people to leave their responsibilities to follow him? Jesus had a very high opinion of himself, which wasn't shared by his family and people where he grew up. Had he been the spawn of the deity it should have been obvious to all.
-
Killing a large number of animals for absolutely no reason whatever; cursing a tree; improvising a DIY weapon with which to attack people; referring to a group of people as dogs (all very much allegedly, needless to say) ... shall I continue?
Come, come....surely you know you are taking these passages out of context, not allowing for the allegorical, hyperbolical, diabolic elements that the authors were so clearly trying to express. Do keep up with the excuses.
-
Come, come....surely you know you are taking these passages out of context, not allowing for the allegorical, hyperbolical, diabolic elements that the authors were so clearly trying to express. Do keep up with the excuses.
WHOOPS! ;D
-
If Jesus behaved towards Pagans and atheists like Sassy implies he wouldn't be perfect.
Hi Rose,
Nope! Looked but cannot find the 'implies' bit.
Will you show us and explain what it is you think it implies and why Jesus would not be perfect as in perfectly free from sin, I assume.
-
Killing a large number of animals for absolutely no reason whatever;
He saved a persons life and set them free from suffering. If it was a choice between a sounder of swine or your sons life which would you choose? Why do you not tell the truth as it is written?
Do you think the meat you eat comes from animals who died of natural causes?
cursing a tree;
Don't we cut trees down for furniture and paper etc? What is your problem they cut them down to build all the time.
No different in Christs time.
improvising a DIY weapon with which to attack people;
That amused me... he replaces the ear cut off by a sword when people came with swords to fetch him and Peter tried to stop them. As Christ said: If you live by the Sword you will die by the sword. You have to fight if using a sword so chances are that is the way you will go. The sword for the believer is the Spirit of God who is the giver of the word to us.
referring to a group of people as dogs (all very much allegedly, needless to say) ... shall I continue?
But even the dogs are allowed to eat up the crumbs from their masters table.
Maybe twisting things out of context is how you survive but in the end the truth always comes out. Just as Christ will return.
-
He saved a persons life and set them free from suffering. If it was a choice between a sounder of swine or your sons life which would you choose? Why do you not tell the truth as it is written?
Supposedly being an omnipotent entity I assume that the option of saving a life without the destruction of a herd of pigs was an option? By that I mean removing (so-called) demons to another place, simply making them disappear back to the infernal regions or whatever, without the cheap parlour trickery with the pigs.
Could Jesus have done that or could he not have done that?
If he could have, why didn't he?
If it wasn't an option, why wasn't it?
Bertrand Russell also picked up on this point: "There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that he was omnipotent, and he could have made the devils simply go away; but he chose to send them into the pigs."
Do you think the meat you eat comes from animals who died of natural causes?
I haven't eaten meat in twenty-three years. I was a vegetarian for eight years and have now been largely vegan for the past fifteen.
Don't we cut trees down for furniture and paper etc? What is your problem they cut them down to build all the time.
No different in Christs time.
Trees aren't sentient. Any more than you appear to be, for that matter.
Maybe twisting things out of context is how you survive but in the end the truth always comes out. Just as Christ will return.
Good luck with that.
-
Supposedly being an omnipotent entity I assume that the option of saving a life without the destruction of a herd of pigs was an option? By that I mean removing (so-called) demons to another place, simply making them disappear back to the infernal regions or whatever, without the cheap parlour trickery with the pigs.
Could Jesus have done that or could he not have done that?
If he could have, why didn't he?
Tell me where this other place is? Did the demons not want to go before their time?
Hence a time and place for everything...Why are you bothered about a herd of pigs when you do not think your own soul important enough to save? You cannot have any real concern for those pigs when you hold your own life and soul in such little regard.
If it wasn't an option, why wasn't it?
Why did it require such an option?
Bertrand Russell also picked up on this point: "There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that he was omnipotent, and he could have made the devils simply go away; but he chose to send them into the pigs."
I haven't eaten meat in twenty-three years. I was a vegetarian for eight years and have now been largely vegan for the past fifteen.Trees aren't sentient. Any more than you appear to be, for that matter.Good luck with that.
Christ died a horrible death worse than pigs running down a cliff and into water.
You claim to be concerned for the pigs but ignore the fact God who is true Omnipotent sent his son to die for the WRONGS YOU DID and yet you insult him. Till you can show reasoning based in true concern for others then you shall have no answer.
Simply because you have no real empathy, love or truth for anyone human let alone pigs.
-
Tell me where this other place is?
The hell that Jesus believed in, according to your book.
Did the demons not want to go before their time?
Why would Jesus care about what demons want?
Why are you bothered about a herd of pigs when you do not think your own soul important enough to save? You cannot have any real concern for those pigs when you hold your own life and soul in such little regard.
I like pigs, and consider talk of immaterial souls superstitious bilge of the terminally credulous.
Christ died a horrible death worse than pigs running down a cliff and into water.
That was up to him, according to the story. The pigs had no choice in the matter.
You claim to be concerned for the pigs but ignore the fact God who is true Omnipotent sent his son to die for the WRONGS YOU DID and yet you insult him.
You can't insult what doesn't exist.
Till you can show reasoning based in true concern for others then you shall have no answer.
Coward.
-
If Jesus was any sort of deity he wouldn't have needed to transfer demons to a herd of pigs, unless he wished to case them suffering and ruin the pig farmer! :o
-
Tell me where this other place is? Did the demons not want to go before their time?
Maybe if he had sent them into a swarm of bluebottles and have them eaten by a bird that would have been a natural thng and a lot less onerous?
Or even at the very, very least put all of the devils into just one poor pig, after all they were all in one man. :o
What were the pigs there for, did they not belong to some poor swine farmer?
Did he loose his livelihood, did people go hungry at the loss of a food source (there were about 2000 of the poor animals for goodness sake!)
This is not showing the main player in a good light!
-
Maybe if he had sent them into a swarm of bluebottles and have them eaten by a bird that would have been a natural thng and a lot less onerous?
Or even at the very, very least put all of the devils into just one poor pig, after all they were all in one man. :o
What were the pigs there for, did they not belong to some poor swine farmer?
Did he loose his livelihood, did people go hungry at the loss of a food source (there were about 2000 of the poor animals for goodness sake!)
This is not showing the main player in a good light!
Maybe a herd of pigs were frightened over a cliff by accident on the part of Jesus and his crowd of followers, and the silly demonic possession tale was put about as an excuse for the incident?
-
Maybe herd of pig were frightened over a cliff by accident on the part of Jesus and his crowd of followers, and the silly demonic possession tale was put about as an excuse for the incident?
You mean he preached and the pigs ran off?
I've met people occasionally that as soon as they start, people make themselves scarce ;)
-
You mean he preached and the pigs ran off?
I've met people occasionally that as soon as they start, people make themselves scarce ;)
Plenty of those on here ;)
-
Personally I favour the idea that the story of the Gaderene Swine was a satirical reference to a Roman legion, possibly even the Tenth Fratensis. It would have been intended to give hope to Christians that Jesus - and by association his followers - would be triumphant over the Roman occupation.
And yet some two thousand years later apparently educated people believe it should be taken literally and that it really did happen.
-
Personally I favour the idea that the story of the Gaderene Swine was a satirical reference to a Roman legion, possibly even the Tenth Fratensis. It would have been intended to give hope to Christians that Jesus - and by association his followers - would be triumphant over the Roman occupation.
And yet some two thousand years later apparently educated people believe it should be taken literally and that it really did happen.
The probloem with the idea that "It would have been intended to give hope to Christians that Jesus - and by association his followers - would be triumphant over the Roman occupation" is that by this stage, Jesus had already taught that he wasn't here to overthrow the Romans but had a far wider remit to fulfil. If yoiu can come up with a metaphorical meaning that takes that existing teaching into account, I'd be happy to hear it.
-
Not sure what the problem is with pigs being possessed and then throwing themselves over a cliff.
Did the pigs cause it or the demons?
-
Not sure what the problem is with pigs being possessed and then throwing themselves over a cliff.
Because (according to the story) it was deliberately and unnecessarily cruel to the pigs, given that presumably Jesus could have simply made these so-called demons disappear or if not that, then to go into some inanimate object rather than a herd of pigs.
Did the pigs cause it or the demons?
Neither - Jesus did according to the story.
-
Not sure what the problem is with pigs being possessed and then throwing themselves over a cliff.
Did the pigs cause it or the demons?
Of course the pigs weren't possessed that is arrant nonsense. ::) Jesus was playing silly hocus pocus and frightened the poor creatures, which wasn't to his credit at all. The poor pig farmer certainly lost out.
-
Personally I favour the idea that the story of the Gaderene Swine was a satirical reference to a Roman legion, possibly even the Tenth Fratensis. It would have been intended to give hope to Christians that Jesus - and by association his followers - would be triumphant over the Roman occupation.
And yet some two thousand years later apparently educated people believe it should be taken literally and that it really did happen.
Yes, some scholars take it as a joke. Points in favour of it are that X Legio Fretensis used a boar as one of their standards, and they were based around Jerusalem, so the idea is that local Jews would see pigs as a ref to them. There is supposed to be a church somewhere with X LEG FRE stamped into the wall, and also pottery has been found with X LEG F on it.
I guess we'll never know if it was a joke. The legion had an amazing history - they fought against Mark Antony, and defeated him at sea. And I think they took part in the later Jewish wars, and were pretty ruthless.
Actually, I checked and that church has VEXILLATIO LEG X FRE on the wall, and vexillatio means detachment, I think. Wow, I would love to see that.
-
I forgot the other clue, one of the demons says 'my name is Legion', although of course this could mean many.
-
And I think the evidence is that pigs were not kept in vast herds - certainly not by the thousand.
-
And I think the evidence is that pigs were not kept in vast herds - certainly not by the thousand.
One or a million, the fact remains it was needless cruelty on the part of Jesus if the story is true.
-
One or a million, the fact remains it was needless cruelty on the part of Jesus if the story is true.
That wasn't my point, Floo.
-
And I think the evidence is that pigs were not kept in vast herds - certainly not by the thousand.
I've found that people don't want to think that there could be jokes in the Gospels. This is true also of some atheists, not sure why. I suppose literalism casts a long shadow.
-
I've found that people don't want to think that there could be jokes in the Gospels. This is true also of some atheists, not sure why. I suppose literalism casts a long shadow.
And the joke is?
-
I've found that people don't want to think that there could be jokes in the Gospels. This is true also of some atheists, not sure why. I suppose literalism casts a long shadow.
Yes, it kind of turns on its head what the Bible is for.
-
And the joke is?
That after 2000 years anyone thinks it was all supposed to be taken literally?
-
And the joke is?
Well, it's not a hilarious joke, it's the idea that the Romans are pigs, (they carry the sign of the pig on their standard), and wouldn't it be a laugh if they were all driven over a cliff, and they're demonic anyway.
-
Yeah, you can see why Mark hasn't gone down as one of the great stand-ups of ancient times.
-
That after 2000 years anyone thinks it was all supposed to be taken literally?
Frightening pigs over a cliff, might or might not be true, who knows?
-
Yeah, you can see why Mark hasn't gone down as one of the great stand-ups of ancient times.
It could also be a joke with an edge, 'you know those Romans, we all hate them, don't we? (Crowd groan in sympathy). Well, how about we fill them with demons and throw them over the cliff?' Crowd cheer, meanwhile keeping an eye open for X Leg Fret, who don't like the piss taken out of them.
It's plausible if we accept that parts of the Gospels came out of oral stuff, passed around. But it's a guess really.
-
Well it would have to be hidden, wouldn't it? Too dangerous to make the joke too obvious. But I agree, I think it was there to stir up feeling.
Discussing this always reminds me of Lister and the religion of the cat people in Red Dwarf.
-
Yeah, you can see why Mark hasn't gone down as one of the great stand-ups of ancient times.
Marcus Brigstocius antitheistus comicus unfunnicus
-
Assume for now that the Big Fella finally showed up a second time around, would you want to kill him?
No point, he would just pop right up again 3 days later.
-
If Jesus behaved towards Pagans and atheists like Sassy implies he wouldn't be perfect.
Thanks, Rose.
I'm glad that i am not the only one who noticed this.
-
I've read them plenty of times, and can't say that I've notice that 'the guy was far from perfect'.
Yeah, but then we are not all as blinded by hero worship as you.
-
Yeah, but then we are not all as blinded by hero worship as you.
I don't regard him as a hero; I regard him as God in human form.
-
I don't regard him as a hero; I regard him as God in human form.
So completely different in every way, then ::)
-
Threads like this make me somewhat sympathetic to the various Christians complaining that it's a bit clique(y) with a hint of having to pass the tough kids smoking and about to ask you for your dinner money. And I know the type of mockery goes on on other boards on here but there is a responsibility that needs to be taken if atheists are in the majority on the boards to at least attempt not to use that in simply empty mockery.
It's not really enough to say you wouldn't do it to the pagan because they don't tell you it's true for you too. There are plenty of Christians on here who have an admirably live and let live approach, who often challenge their fellow Christians and theists on those sort of attitudes. Maybe instead of Beavus and Butthead approach to them, we could drag ourselves into an attempt at dialogue.
N S, you it seems to me, can't see how ludicrous religious belief or faith appears to be to a large number of people referred to as atheists.
ippy
-
The probloem with the idea that "It would have been intended to give hope to Christians that Jesus - and by association his followers - would be triumphant over the Roman occupation" is that by this stage, Jesus had already taught that he wasn't here to overthrow the Romans but had a far wider remit to fulfil. If yoiu can come up with a metaphorical meaning that takes that existing teaching into account, I'd be happy to hear it.
I suppose that if you believe that the texts of the gospels are all arranged in chronological order of Jesus' sayings and doings, and that he said and did everything recorded there, then that would be a likely conclusion. However....
-
I don't regard him as a hero; I regard him as God in human form.
Your God was the "hero" I was saying that you worship!
-
Hi all. Apologies for starting a thread and appearing to ignore it for so long. I've actually been locked out of this site for no good reason, and this morning "Some" very kindly suggested a workaround using a proxy site that's actually worked.
NS - I fundamentally disagree with you here. There are various potential issues that could be discussed that have nothing to do with just poking the christians:
- "If you meet a Buddha on the road, kill him" is an old saw, variously interpreted. One is that if you did meet a perfect being on your journey then necessarily you cannot know him to be perfect so you should destroy him (or the idea of perfection) and continue the journey.
- If, say, a 90-year-old on his deathbed said, "by the way, I found the cure for cancer 60 years ago but kept it to myself" I suspect many would want to have a few words.
- If you seriously think that a man/god Jesus was real then surely you'd be curious at least about why he took so long in human history to show up at all, about why he didn't fix it so innocents didn't die when he did finally show up the first time, why he sat on his hands and watched so many blameless people suffer horribly over the last 2,000 years etc.
Wouldn't you?
-
If you seriously think that a man/god Jesus was real then surely you'd be curious at least about why he took so long in human history to show up at all, about why he didn't fix it so innocents didn't die when he did finally show up the first time, why he sat on his hands and watched so many blameless people suffer horribly over the last 2,000 years etc.
Wouldn't you?
No argument with that statement here.
-
Hi all. Apologies for starting a thread and appearing to ignore it for so long. I've actually been locked out of this site for no good reason, and this morning "Some" very kindly suggested a workaround using a proxy site that's actually worked.
NS - I fundamentally disagree with you here. There are various potential issues that could be discussed that have nothing to do with just poking the christians:
- "If you meet a Buddha on the road, kill him" is an old saw, variously interpreted. One is that if you did meet a perfect being on your journey then necessarily you cannot know him to be perfect so you should destroy him (or the idea of perfection) and continue the journey.
- If, say, a 90-year-old on his deathbed said, "by the way, I found the cure for cancer 60 years ago but kept it to myself" I suspect many would want to have a few words.
- If you seriously think that a man/god Jesus was real then surely you'd be curious at least about why he took so long in human history to show up at all, about why he didn't fix it so innocents didn't die when he did finally show up the first time, why he sat on his hands and watched so many blameless people suffer horribly over the last 2,000 years etc.
Wouldn't you?
Yes, any parent of a terminally ill or murdered child definately would. ( not that I am, but I can see some serious questions would be asked)
-
Hi all. Apologies for starting a thread and appearing to ignore it for so long. I've actually been locked out of this site for no good reason, and this morning "Some" very kindly suggested a workaround using a proxy site that's actually worked.
NS - I fundamentally disagree with you here. There are various potential issues that could be discussed that have nothing to do with just poking the christians:
- "If you meet a Buddha on the road, kill him" is an old saw, variously interpreted. One is that if you did meet a perfect being on your journey then necessarily you cannot know him to be perfect so you should destroy him (or the idea of perfection) and continue the journey.
- If, say, a 90-year-old on his deathbed said, "by the way, I found the cure for cancer 60 years ago but kept it to myself" I suspect many would want to have a few words.
- If you seriously think that a man/god Jesus was real then surely you'd be curious at least about why he took so long in human history to show up at all, about why he didn't fix it so innocents didn't die when he did finally show up the first time, why he sat on his hands and watched so many blameless people suffer horribly over the last 2,000 years etc.
Wouldn't you?
I think you are mixing up the omnigod concept and the Jesus Christ of the Bible. He cured individuals who had faith in him. There's nothing to suggest that he could find a cure for a particular disease, or prevent famine or war. The model in the gospels is healing some individual believers, nothing more.
-
Ri,
I think you are mixing up the omnigod concept and the Jesus Christ of the Bible. He cured individuals who had faith in him. There's nothing to suggest that he could find a cure for a particular disease, or prevent famine or war. The model in the gospels is healing some individual believers, nothing more.
Could not a man/god - especially one who's a third of a "trinity" - have done anything he felt like doing, or are you suggesting that the real god sent him down with only very parochial powers like serving tapas to the 5,000 but not capable of anything bigger?
-
I'm not a believer so I'm not suggesting anything. If you take the Gospel stories at face value then individual and local miracles seem to be about it.
-
Chi,
I'm not a believer so I'm not suggesting anything. If you take the Gospel stories at face value then individual and local miracles seem to be about it.
Yes it's just party tricks all the way but as I understand it christians make claims for his abilities way beyond that. If they're right about that, why didn't he exercise any of them either then or since? Surely a genuine man/god could have done away with cerebral palsy for example whenever he felt like it couldn't he?
-
Not really. Some Christians believe that praying to Jesus should bring physical healing to believers and get a bit bothered when it doesn't until they remember Satan and unrepented sin and stuff like that. Mostly though people think in terms of spiritual and/or emotional healing, mainly because the other kind tends not to happen without the help of a doctor.
God the Father should be able to do anything though.
-
Rhi,
Not really. Some Christians believe that praying to Jesus should bring physical healing to believers and get a bit bothered when it doesn't until they remember Satan and unrepented sin and stuff like that. Mostly though people think in terms of spiritual and/or emotional healing, mainly because the other kind tends not to happen without the help of a doctor.
God the Father should be able to do anything though.
Happy to defer to your knowledge of christian beliefs but I'd be surprised if many christians think there to be a god who can do the big stuff and a son he limited just to party tricks and parlour magic.
-
Christians think that the biggie Jesus did/does was the Cross - defeating death. You have to bear in mind that even many liberals have their eyes at least partly on the next life; evangelicals even more so.
I'm not saying that beliefs such as you put across don't exist - I've come across them - but the majority see Jesus' earthly ministry as a run-up to the Crucifixion, designed to demonstrate who he was. There were regular healing services held here at one time, very well attended, and all anyone expected was a spiritual and emotional benefit.
-
Rhi,
Christians think that the biggie Jesus did/does was the Cross - defeating death. You have to bear in mind that even many liberals have their eyes at least partly on the next life; evangelicals even more so.
Yes I know, but why send your son with a party trick visible only to a tiny number who may or may not have recorded it as story that may or may not have caught the wind from among the countless other miracle stories available at the time to make our point rather than, say, saying something like: "This is my son. He's part-divine, and to prove it I'll eliminate overnight a disease that affects whole populations"?
I'm not saying that beliefs such as you put across don't exist - I've come across them - but the majority see Jesus' earthly ministry as a run-up to the Crucifixion, designed to demonstrate who he was. There were regular healing services held here at one time, very well attended, and all anyone expected was a spiritual and emotional benefit.
But again, if it was designed to show who he was why do it in exactly the same way as you'd expect to find from a peripatetic mystic and street conjuror with no divine capacity at all?
-
Those are questions that I can't answer, given that I'm not a believer. But I think most Christians will just point to the cross as their answer.
-
Rhi,
Those are questions that I can't answer, given that I'm not a believer. But I think most Christians will just point to the cross as their answer.
Well, perhaps they're in something of a cleft stick: if they opt for the divine JC, then he'd have all sorts of questions to answer about sitting on his hands all this time; if instead they opt for the human JC, then he'd be off the hook for criminal negligence but the whole edifice of divinity would have collapsed.
-
Hi all. Apologies for starting a thread and appearing to ignore it for so long. I've actually been locked out of this site for no good reason, and this morning "Some" very kindly suggested a workaround using a proxy site that's actually worked.
NS - I fundamentally disagree with you here. There are various potential issues that could be discussed that have nothing to do with just poking the christians:
- "If you meet a Buddha on the road, kill him" is an old saw, variously interpreted. One is that if you did meet a perfect being on your journey then necessarily you cannot know him to be perfect so you should destroy him (or the idea of perfection) and continue the journey.
- If, say, a 90-year-old on his deathbed said, "by the way, I found the cure for cancer 60 years ago but kept it to myself" I suspect many would want to have a few words.
- If you seriously think that a man/god Jesus was real then surely you'd be curious at least about why he took so long in human history to show up at all, about why he didn't fix it so innocents didn't die when he did finally show up the first time, why he sat on his hands and watched so many blameless people suffer horribly over the last 2,000 years etc.
Wouldn't you?
I'm not sure how relevant this is to your project but there is a crucial difference between Jesus and Buddha which might make the use of Linji's saying here not quite so appropriate. According to Zen Buddhism (Linji was a Zen master) we are all already Buddhas, although we may not realise this. According to Christianity Jesus - being one aspect of the Trinity - was unique. We can emulate his behaviour but we can never be God.
Meeting the Buddha (on the road) suggests holding a concept of Buddha as something separate and external to oneself. Doing this 'deifies' Buddha as something essentially 'other' which in practice makes it so, in other words keeps one from realising ones own essential nature. This is why it is necessary to kill him. The idea of Buddha as some kind of role model has to be dropped because it reinforces a hierarchical view of things, which in Buddhism equates to pride. By contrast, Jesus is forever a role model and completely 'other'. We can only strive (hopelessly) towards that perfection and can only ultimately fail. Christianity is inherently hierarchical and so we must seek salvation from the higher power. In Zen Buddhism there is no higher power and no vicarious salvation.
So I imagine most Christians would make little sense of the idea of killing Jesus. Jesus may have been a man but as God he is a concept and must remain so. To kill the concept would be fatal to the religion, whereas in Zen it is essential. One sometimes comes across the idea that God is not a concept or object of any sort (in negative theology) but perhaps for obvious reasons this has never been mainstream and (in my limited experience) most Christians find this at best very puzzling and at worse downright dangerous. I have also noted that those who do dip their toes in this water invariably also swim in the sea of cataphatic theology, which deals in concepts and talks of God as an object. There would seem to be a large measure of cognitive dissonance involved in maintaining these two positions simultaneously and I have noticed that those who find the dissonance troubling are sometimes dismissed as 'literal minded people!' There are some interesting characters in the history of Christian thought who seem to have come very close in their writings to dissolving the God concept altogether but they are invariably also 'believers' in some other part of their psyche, presumably because one couldn't kill God without killing Jesus, or at least 'reducing' him to just another human, and then what would be left of Christianity?
-
Hi Bramble,
I'm not sure how relevant this is to your project but there is a crucial difference between Jesus and Buddha which might make the use of Linji's saying here not quite so appropriate. According to Zen Buddhism (Linji was a Zen master) we are all already Buddhas, although we may not realise this. According to Christianity Jesus - being one aspect of the Trinity - was unique. We can emulate his behaviour but we can never be God.
Meeting the Buddha (on the road) suggests holding a concept of Buddha as something separate and external to oneself. Doing this 'deifies' Buddha as something essentially 'other' which in practice makes it so, in other words keeps one from realising ones own essential nature. This is why it is necessary to kill him. The idea of Buddha as some kind of role model has to be dropped because it reinforces a hierarchical view of things, which in Buddhism equates to pride. By contrast, Jesus is forever a role model and completely 'other'. We can only strive (hopelessly) towards that perfection and can only ultimately fail. Christianity is inherently hierarchical and so we must seek salvation from the higher power. In Zen Buddhism there is no higher power and no vicarious salvation.
So I imagine most Christians would make little sense of the idea of killing Jesus. Jesus may have been a man but as God he is a concept and must remain so. To kill the concept would be fatal to the religion, whereas in Zen it is essential. One sometimes comes across the idea that God is not a concept or object of any sort (in negative theology) but perhaps for obvious reasons this has never been mainstream and (in my limited experience) most Christians find this at best very puzzling and at worse downright dangerous. I have also noted that those who do dip their toes in this water invariably also swim in the sea of cataphatic theology, which deals in concepts and talks of God as an object. There would seem to be a large measure of cognitive dissonance involved in maintaining these two positions simultaneously and I have noticed that those who find the dissonance troubling are sometimes dismissed as 'literal minded people!' There are some interesting characters in the history of Christian thought who seem to have come very close in their writings to dissolving the God concept altogether but they are invariably also 'believers' in some other part of their psyche, presumably because one couldn't kill God without killing Jesus, or at least 'reducing' him to just another human, and then what would be left of Christianity?
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I wasn’t particularly attempting a comparison of Buddhist and Christian beliefs, but rather was responding to the charge of gratuitous offensiveness by mentioning that the notion of killing the perfect being has resonances in other belief systems. I’m aware of the difference between the Buddhist indivisibility tradition and the Christian reliance on “other” – for the latter supposedly we can join god but we can never be god etc.
As for why christians would or should ask a returning JC a few tough questions though, the point remains I think: only by the use of some pretty convoluted casuistry could you argue that not appearing for some 150,000 years of human history, then appearing briefly but making no long term fixes, then not showing up for 2,000 years while countless innocents suffered and died horribly was the behaviour of a man/god possessed of the “omnis”.
Of course of JC was just a sort of proto David Koresh then the issue goes away, but so then does the fundamental rationale for the faith. That’s the cleft stick: mortal = no divine; divine = criminally negligent.
It’s the christian thinkers who have – of who have come close to – dissolving god who interest me more than the by and large literalists who pitch up here, but I’m struggling to find a proponent of this approach. There must be thoughtful and nuanced christians (Wiggs is one such I think) who despair at the nursery-level thinking of some of the arguments here, but sadly not many of them feel the need to talk on this mb.
Ah well.
-
Hi Bramble,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I wasn’t particularly attempting a comparison of Buddhist and Christian beliefs, but rather was responding to the charge of gratuitous offensiveness by mentioning that the notion of killing the perfect being has resonances in other belief systems. I’m aware of the difference between the Buddhist indivisibility tradition and the Christian reliance on “other” – for the latter supposedly we can join god but we can never be god etc.
As for why christians would or should ask a returning JC a few tough questions though, the point remains I think: only by the use of some pretty convoluted casuistry could you argue that not appearing for some 150,000 years of human history, then appearing briefly but making no long term fixes, then not showing up for 2,000 years while countless innocents suffered and died horribly was the behaviour of a man/god possessed of the “omnis”.
Of course of JC was just a sort of proto David Koresh then the issue goes away, but so then does the fundamental rationale for the faith. That’s the cleft stick: mortal = no divine; divine = criminally negligent.
It’s the christian thinkers who have – of who have come close to – dissolving god who interest me more than the by and large literalists who pitch up here, but I’m struggling to find a proponent of this approach. There must be thoughtful and nuanced christians (Wiggs is one such I think) who despair at the nursery-level thinking of some of the arguments here, but sadly not many of them feel the need to talk on this mb.
Ah well.
I suppose one problem is that so much of religion is underpinned by the craving for (human, my) significance in an apparently indifferent universe. Apparently Hegel wrote that humans will never be happy until they live in a world of their own making. Theology duly 'makes' a universe that is really all about us. OK, it's about God, but for the most part only about the God whose credentials we supply, so it's little surprise that he turns out to have an inordinate fondness for us rather than, say, beetles, as the geneticist J.B.S. Haldane once suggested. The trouble with this is that it not only makes us great (or perhaps just grandiose), it makes God absurdly small and anthropic, with much of our pettiness and peculiarity, so perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect theology to bear much scrutiny. But the project of human sanctification and significance certainly isn't confined to the religious; it unites most of our kind. The non-religious may not believe that the universe came custom-built for our purposes but we're damn well going to make it ours by our own efforts because effectively we are God now. I don't know that I like this version any better - at least religion sometimes speaks of humility as a virtue.
-
Hi again Bramble,
I suppose one problem is that so much of religion is underpinned by the craving for (human, my) significance in an apparently indifferent universe. Apparently Hegel wrote that humans will never be happy until they live in a world of their own making. Theology duly 'makes' a universe that is really all about us. OK, it's about God, but for the most part only about the God whose credentials we supply, so it's little surprise that he turns out to have an inordinate fondness for us rather than, say, beetles, as the geneticist J.B.S. Haldane once suggested. The trouble with this is that it not only makes us great (or perhaps just grandiose), it makes God absurdly small and anthropic, with much of our pettiness and peculiarity, so perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect theology to bear much scrutiny. But the project of human sanctification and significance certainly isn't confined to the religious; it unites most of our kind. The non-religious may not believe that the universe came custom-built for our purposes but we're damn well going to make it ours by our own efforts because effectively we are God now. I don't know that I like this version any better - at least religion sometimes speaks of humility as a virtue.
I’d readily strike with a wet kipper any man who disagreed with pretty much any of that. It’s fantastically solipsistic isn’t it, this “God created a whole universe just for little old me and what’s more he’s at my beck and call when I make the right genuflections and supplications to fix Granny’s cataracts” but there it is nonetheless.
I take your point too that the god we’ve invented is a remarkably parochial one – a few party tricks 2,000 years ago to some illiterate desert nomads and a whole bunch of logical fallacies later re little Timmy’s surprise recovery after prayer when the doctors had given up and Bingo Schmingo!...God!
That’s partly at least why I’m more interested in the more subtle and nuanced theologians – presumably learned and intelligent people after all, rather than in the mediaeval ontologies we see so often here. That said, I remember trying to plough through some of Rowan William’s thoughts only to find them as confused and logically hopeless as those of the nursery school theologians, yet he’s generally thought of as being at the thinking end of the spectrum I think.
As for being god now, my fifteen-year-old (who’s become a vegetarian) asked me the other day whether it would be more morally wrong for a super advanced species to farm humans for food than it is for humans to farm, say, chickens for the same purpose.
Kids say the darndest things eh?
-
Dear Nearlysane,
What kind of forum do I want, the kind of forum where Blue and Bramble have excellent discussions like these.
Gonnagle.
-
Hi again Bramble,
I’d readily strike with a wet kipper any man who disagreed with pretty much any of that. It’s fantastically solipsistic isn’t it, this “God created a whole universe just for little old me and what’s more he’s at my beck and call when I make the right genuflections and supplications to fix Granny’s cataracts” but there it is nonetheless.
I take your point too that the god we’ve invented is a remarkably parochial one – a few party tricks 2,000 years ago to some illiterate desert nomads and a whole bunch of logical fallacies later re little Timmy’s surprise recovery after prayer when the doctors had given up and Bingo Schmingo!...God!
That’s partly at least why I’m more interested in the more subtle and nuanced theologians – presumably learned and intelligent people after all, rather than in the mediaeval ontologies we see so often here. That said, I remember trying to plough through some of Rowan William’s thoughts only to find them as confused and logically hopeless as those of the nursery school theologians, yet he’s generally thought of as being at the thinking end of the spectrum I think.
As for being god now, my fifteen-year-old (who’s become a vegetarian) asked me the other day whether it would be more morally wrong for a super advanced species to farm humans for food than it is for humans to farm, say, chickens for the same purpose.
Kids say the darndest things eh?
Strictly speaking theology should mean the study of God but in practice it means the study of human thoughts and ideas to which the word God has been applied. I'm not sure how one would study God as such or even if this even makes any kind of sense unless we're talking a purely naturalistic god. My wife once put a question of mine to Rowan Williams regarding the matter of whether God as a concept or belief can ever be anything other than idolatry, to which he replied 'It's crampons on the rock face'. Crampons are, of course, for snow and ice rather than rock, and perhaps concepts are similarly the wrong tool for the job (of theology), but I don't know whether this is what the man meant. I like to think so.
I like the sound of your 15 year old :)
-
Strictly speaking theology should mean the study of God but in practice it means the study of human thoughts and ideas to which the word God has been applied. I'm not sure how one would study God as such or even if this even makes any kind of sense unless we're talking a purely naturalistic god. My wife once put a question of mine to Rowan Williams regarding the matter of whether God as a concept or belief can ever be anything other than idolatry, to which he replied 'It's crampons on the rock face'. Crampons are, of course, for snow and ice rather than rock, and perhaps concepts are similarly the wrong tool for the job (of theology), but I don't know whether this is what the man meant. I like to think so.
I like the sound of your 15 year old :)
How can you study something for which there is not the slightest bit of evidence it exists, like the deity?
-
Hi again Bramble,
Strictly speaking theology should mean the study of God but in practice it means the study of human thoughts and ideas to which the word God has been applied. I'm not sure how one would study God as such or even if this even makes any kind of sense unless we're talking a purely naturalistic god. My wife once put a question of mine to Rowan Williams regarding the matter of whether God as a concept or belief can ever be anything other than idolatry, to which he replied 'It's crampons on the rock face'. Crampons are, of course, for snow and ice rather than rock, and perhaps concepts are similarly the wrong tool for the job (of theology), but I don't know whether this is what the man meant. I like to think so.
Yup, how on earth would one ever think of studying a god other than by taking at face value the stuff he’s supposedly decided to tell you through non-contemporaneous, multiply translated and heavily edited “holy” texts? Whatever else this god may be he’s a lousy PR man…
As for RW, presumably he meant bolt anchors but it would have been helpful to know why he thought it was actually anything more than Velcro at best, and indeed why he thought there was a rock face to start with. You need to make several pretty major assumptions I’d have thought before talking about crampons or bolt anchors. I like the wrong tools for the job analogy, though I’ve yet to hear of any tools more suitable.
That’s the thing though with RW and others of his ilk – beautifully enunciated and mild in tone as his pronouncements may be, they tend to be prolix and obscurantist to a degree that makes them – for me at least – impenetrable. I think the idea is that we’re just too theologically illiterate to grasp the subtlety of his meaning, but it all seems a bit emperor’s new clothes to me – especially when he gets evidently tangled in his own rhetoric. I remember for example a radio interview on (I think) some aspect of gay rights when he stared telling us that the bible was the inerrant word of god, but finished by explaining that we could interpret it differently as the Zeitgeist changed. What use then would it be if we have no method to figure out whether out current interpretation is the “correct” one?
I like the sound of your 15 year old
Thanks. She’s a sweetie – she bought a load of small presents at the weekend that she’s leaving around the house for her big sister to find to help with the stress of taking the International Baccalaureate exams in a week or two. I like to think we’ve done something right at least ;)
-
Strictly speaking theology should mean the study of God but in practice it means the study of human thoughts and ideas to which the word God has been applied. I'm not sure how one would study God as such or even if this even makes any kind of sense unless we're talking a purely naturalistic god. My wife once put a question of mine to Rowan Williams regarding the matter of whether God as a concept or belief can ever be anything other than idolatry, to which he replied 'It's crampons on the rock face'. Crampons are, of course, for snow and ice rather than rock, and perhaps concepts are similarly the wrong tool for the job (of theology), but I don't know whether this is what the man meant. I like to think so.
I like the sound of your 15 year old :)
Not long ago, I started a topic on another forum), 'What do toptheologians know, really know, about God?' The answer is of course that all any theologian can know is what other theologians have said about the imaginary being. There were many interesting tangent discussions, but not a single fact!
-
Blue, We can probably all agree that God is a mystery. There's a line from a guy called Cheng-tao Ke that goes, 'In not being able to get it, you get it'. I like that. I think I get it.
-
Susan, Indeed!
-
Hi Bramble,
Blue, We can probably all agree that God is a mystery.
Well, so far as the concept "God" is concerned it doesn't seem to be mysterious to me at all - just a manifestation to our species' pattern-finding nature and preference for a conspiracy theory over no theory at all. If it turned out that there was a God (or lots of gods) though then there'd be mysteries aplenty alright, not least the mystery of why He/they created a universe exactly consistent with there being no god at all.
There's a line from a guy called Cheng-tao Ke that goes, 'In not being able to get it, you get it'. I like that. I think I get it.
Then you don't!
-
Dear Nearlysane,
What kind of forum do I want, the kind of forum where Blue and Bramble have excellent discussions like these.
Gonnagle.
Too right! Fascinating.
-
Dear Nearlysane,
What kind of forum do I want, the kind of forum where Blue and Bramble have excellent discussions like these.
Gonnagle.
Agreed, and because of which I owe blue am apology
What had appeared after the first few posts a mock the Christians thread has now that blue can post become very interesting, and is a good template for how we can talk about theism without the jejune snobbery
-
NS,
Agreed, and because of which I owe blue am apology
What had appeared after the first few posts a mock the Christians thread has now that blue can post become very interesting, and is a good template for how we can talk about theism without the jejune snobbery
No apology needed my friend (and kudos for the "jejune"!).
-
Hi Bramble,
Well, so far as the concept "God" is concerned it doesn't seem to be mysterious to me at all - just a manifestation to our species' pattern-finding nature and preference for a conspiracy theory over no theory at all. If it turned out that there was a God (or lots of gods) though then there'd be mysteries aplenty alright, not least the mystery of why He/they created a universe exactly consistent with there being no god at all.
Then you don't!
First of all, as noted in post to Gonzo, my apologies, you were right and I was wrong to judge this thread after the first few posts.
Now, on the subject of the universe appearing th same as on with no god(s),i would suggest that the theological response would be a universe with no god would not exist. That without a reason the complexity that exists makes no sense. I know we look on the god talked of by many on here as a god of the gaps but I suspect it's more a god of the abyss. The abyss of strange weirdness that having consciousness creates. The abyss of not quite being able to connect completely with what appear to be our fellow creatures. The abyss that with all this awareness hard solipsism is unbreakable.
The gap that creates god is not mystery but the gap of the phenomenal which we experience and the noumenal.
-
NS,
First of all, as noted in post to Gonzo, my apologies, you were right and I was wrong to judge this thread after the first few posts.
Thank you, but it's really not necessary.
Now, on the subject of the universe appearing th same as on with no god(s),i would suggest that the theological response would be a universe with no god would not exist. That without a reason the complexity that exists makes no sense. I know we look on the god talked of by many on here as a god of the gaps but I suspect it's more a god of the abyss. The abyss of strange weirdness that having consciousness creates. The abyss of not quite being able to connect completely with what appear to be our fellow creatures. The abyss that with all this awareness hard solipsism is unbreakable.
Perhaps, but that would at best be an argument for deism rather than for theism - the disinterested clockmaker who put together all the springs and cogs and then disappeared. It's Einstein's, "If by "God" you mean "the Universe", then I believe in God" but it says nothing to a theistic god concerned with human affairs. It also leaves open the infinite regression problem - if not for god's dad, whence god? - because the argument from necessity of an uncaused cause just sounds like special pleading to me.
As for the god of the abyss line, well I hear you but it still looks like a variant of god of the gaps. Yes many things seem to us to be deep and profound and unfathomable, but the key words there are "to us". Doubtless to a chimpanzee a helicopter or an iPod seems every bit as mysterious. The point is that we rely on our perspective to sort the mundane from the profound, whereas that's just one reference point. If, say, an advanced race of aliens had cracked consciousness in all its workings they'd point at us for referencing the divine as we point at tribespeople who ascribe an erupting volcano to their god.
Why in other words jump from "don't know" to "god" to explain the (currently) inexplicable?
The gap that creates god is not mystery but the gap of the phenomenal which we experience and the noumenal.
But it's still just a gap isn't it? What's the logical path from gap to god?
-
I'm not making an argument for gods, jus indicating that I don't think that most people's actual motivation for believing is a pat set of arguments. When people make arguments for gods like that it never seems to be why they actually believe.
The abyss is a gap, but it's not a scientific gap. It's not about lack of knowledge, it's a philosophical issue about what our limitations are. The feeling of being marooned but so close to being able to reach out but never touch. Like Tantalus, we are imprisoned with objectivity beyond our reach.
Given the feelings that this creates, i'm suggesting that that is what causes the gods that proliferate. No argument for them, just an indication that I see most arguments that people put forward as post hoc rationalisations of their feelings.
-
I'm not making an argument for gods, jus indicating that I don't think that most people's actual motivation for believing is a pat set of arguments. When people make arguments for gods like that it never seems to be why they actually believe.
The abyss is a gap, but it's not a scientific gap. It's not about lack of knowledge, it's a philosophical issue about what our limitations are. The feeling of being marooned but so close to being able to reach out but never touch. Like Tantalus, we are imprisoned with objectivity beyond our reach.
Given the feelings that this creates, i'm suggesting that that is what causes the gods that proliferate. No argument for them, just an indication that I see most arguments that people put forward as post hoc rationalisations of their feelings.
Given that we can only know phenomena, there is nonetheless an increasing capacity (partly due to science) in the complexities of phenomena we can know. I wonder whether some people's immediate jumping to the conclusion 'God' results from the brain suddenly being overwhelmed with a host of unexplained phenomena on occasion, phenomena which are indeed out of the normal everyday range of experience, but for which other explanations are available, if people were only prepared to take the time to investigate them.
That, of course, can be hard when you have an experience like Pascal's* (which people only knew about after his death).
*L'an de grâce 1654,
Lundi, 23 novembre, jour de saint Clément, pape et martyr, et autres au martyrologe.
Veille de saint Chrysogone, martyr, et autres,
Depuis environ dix heures et demie du soir jusques environ minuit et demi,
FEU.
« DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob »
non des philosophes et des savants.
Certitude. Certitude. Sentiment. Joie. Paix.
DIEU de Jésus-Christ.
Deum meum et Deum vestrum.
« Ton DIEU sera mon Dieu. »
Oubli du monde et de tout, hormis DIEU.
Il ne se trouve que par les voies enseignées dans l'Évangile.
Grandeur de l'âme humaine.
« Père juste, le monde ne t'a point connu, mais je t'ai connu. »
Joie, joie, joie, pleurs de joie.
Je m'en suis séparé:
Dereliquerunt me fontem aquae vivae.
« Mon Dieu, me quitterez-vous ? »
Que je n'en sois pas séparé éternellement.
« Cette est la vie éternelle, qu'ils te connaissent seul vrai Dieu, et celui que tu as envoyé, Jésus-Christ. »
Jésus-Christ.
Jésus-Christ.
Je m'en suis séparé; je l'ai fui, renoncé, crucifié.
Que je n'en sois jamais séparé.
Il ne se conserve que par les voies enseignées dans l'Évangile:
Renonciation totale et douce.
Soumission totale à Jésus-Christ et à mon directeur.
Éternellement en joie pour un jour d'exercice sur la terre.
Non obliviscar sermones tuos. Amen.
-
Given that we can only know phenomena, there is nonetheless an increasing capacity (partly due to science) in the complexities of phenomena we can know. I wonder whether some people's immediate jumping to the conclusion 'God' results from the brain suddenly being overwhelmed with a host of unexplained phenomena on occasion, phenomena which are indeed out of the normal everyday range of experience, but for which other explanations are available, if people were only prepared to take the time to investigate them.
That, of course, can be hard when you have an experience like Pascal's (which people only knew about after his death).
I don't know, it seems to me more likely that it's being overwhelmed with the feelings engendered by trying to think about thinking. Take the ongoing discussions on free will and the self on the Searching for God thread. The disjunct between how we experience life, for most people as if it is a continuous experience with something that feels like free will, and the evidence of neurology is too schocking to be processed.
This applies on either side of the god debate as well as others, as when people argue for rationality without understanding that as Hume said 'Reason is a slave to the passions', or that our conscious decisions seem explanations of sub conscious ones, not real decisions.
-
I don't know, it seems to me more likely that it's being overwhelmed with the feelings engendered by trying to think about thinking. Take the ongoing discussions on free will and the self on the Searching for God thread. The disjunct between how we experience life, for most people as if it is a continuous experience with something that feels like free will, and the evidence of neurology is too schocking to be processed.
This applies on either side of the god debate as well as others, as when people argue for rationality without understanding that as Hume said 'Reason is a slave to the passions', or that our conscious decisions seem explanations of sub conscious ones, not real decisions.
esp.
"The disjunct between how we experience life, for most people as if it is a continuous experience with something that feels like free will, and the evidence of neurology is too schocking to be processed."
I noticed that Leonard in particular was extremely loath to accept such a conclusion. And even if we accept the illusory nature of self and free-will in theory, it's still an extremely bitter pill to swallow.
-
NS,
I'm not making an argument for gods, jus indicating that I don't think that most people's actual motivation for believing is a pat set of arguments. When people make arguments for gods like that it never seems to be why they actually believe.
Which is fine for them, but it leaves the evangelical with nothing - absent an argument for why I should believe too, why should I?
The abyss is a gap, but it's not a scientific gap. It's not about lack of knowledge, it's a philosophical issue about what our limitations are. The feeling of being marooned but so close to being able to reach out but never touch. Like Tantalus, we are imprisoned with objectivity beyond our reach.
I get that - it's an existential gap - but still it's a gap. We can ascribe labels and significance to it it as we please, and it may well be that it's a gap we can never close but still the basic principle stands that a gap is no argument for something to fill it. "This is the limit of what we know and what we can know" may lead to an existential yearning to reach beyond that, but just making shit up and calling it "god" doesn't seem to me to be in any way up to the job. Why in other words call our ignorance "God" and then worship it?
Given the feelings that this creates, i'm suggesting that that is what causes the gods that proliferate. No argument for them, just an indication that I see most arguments that people put forward as post hoc rationalisations of their feelings.
Quite possibly, though this thread is more of a what if?: if JC was divine and came back he'd be a scumbag; if he was mortal the faith would collapse. Neither I'd have thought are particularly palatable to the Christian, but I don't see a third option just yet. Perhaps though someone can propose one?
-
esp.
"The disjunct between how we experience life, for most people as if it is a continuous experience with something that feels like free will, and the evidence of neurology is too schocking to be processed."
I noticed that Leonard in particular was extremely loath to accept such a conclusion. And even if we accept the illusory nature of self and free-will in theory, it's still an extremely bitter pill to swallow.
The odd thing is on a day to day level, I'm with Leonard. It's an unimportant discussion 99% of the time. I act and have to act as if I have free will. It'd only when we look at as a claim to actual truth that it becomes significant.
Also, if we say there is no such thing as free will, it makes no difference, since thinking that wouldn't be a free choice.
-
Quite possibly, though this thread is more of a what if?: if JC was divine and came back he'd be a scumbag; if he was mortal the faith would collapse. Neither I'd have thought are particularly palatable to the Christian, but I don't see a third option just yet. Perhaps though someone can propose one?
The Sea of Faith group are doing their best :) Many more traditional Christians see such ideas as a rapid route to the demise of the Christian faith - maybe so. Strip away the myth and you are left with a courageous bloke with some interesting and maybe important ideas. Can't have too many heroes - especially of the non-violent kind. I personally don't think you could make much of a people's religion of this. The lure of the supernatural is very strong.
-
NS,
The odd thing is on a day to day level, I'm with Leonard. It's an unimportant discussion 99% of the time. I act and have to act as if I have free will. It'd only when we look at as a claim to actual truth that it becomes significant.
Also, if we say there is no such thing as free will, it makes no difference, since thinking that wouldn't be a free choice.
I agree - I proceed on the basis that I have "free" will even though I know that it's a logical dead end, and indeed that the meaning of "I" is opaque too. After all, what choice do I have? When though the Alans of this world seek to deploy their misunderstanding of the term to argue for a "true for you too" god, then it's appropriate to falsify his argument.
-
NS,
Which is fine for them, but it leaves the evangelical with nothing - absent an argument for why I should believe too, why should I?
I get that - it's an existential gap - but still it's a gap. We can ascribe labels and significance to it it as we please, and it may well be that it's a gap we can never close but still the basic principle stands that a gap is no argument for something to fill it. "This is the limit of what we know and what we can know" may lead to an existential yearning to reach beyond that, but just making shit up and calling it "god" doesn't seem to me to be in any way up to the job. Why in other words call our ignorance "God" and then worship it?
Quite possibly, though this thread is more of a what if?: if JC was divine and came back he'd be a scumbag; if he was mortal the faith would collapse. Neither I'd have thought are particularly palatable to the Christian, but I don't see a third option just yet. Perhaps though someone can propose one?
Existential gaps aren't ignorance. It's not about fact, it's about feeling. Again, i'll emphasise I am not making or providing an argument for gods. Rather I am looking at what seems to me the difference between what causes people to believe and how they argue for it. This difference then means that when you argue against a lot of what appears on here as justification, it's not really arguing against why people believe.
When you overlay that with how people interpret their personal experiences, which are culturally and socially modulated, which we then ask the to deny then it's not as easy to break out of. Further since we are also bound by the same thing, it's difficult to make a sensible case for doing that.
And that's not even dealing with the idea that no free will means belief is a determined state.
-
Hi Dicky,
Many more traditional Christians see such ideas as a rapid route to the demise of the Christian faith - maybe so.
Just reflect on the import of that sentence for a moment - the faith can't withstand logic and facts and reason and evidence so, um, best to bar the door against them just in case...
I find that astonishing. Really.
Strip away the myth and you are left with a courageous bloke with some interesting and maybe important ideas. Can't have too many heroes - especially of the non-violent kind. I personally don't think you could make much of a people's religion of this. The lure of the supernatural is very strong.
For what it's worth, I do think of JC as "a courageous bloke with some interesting and maybe important ideas" albeit possibly a delusional one re his relationship to "God", hence the "Why has thou forsaken me?" on the cross - he really believed his own PR. It's a lousy basis for a religion I agree, but insofar as it goes so what? If though he actually was as most (I think) Christians believe him to be and he put in another appearance next week, any reasonable person would I think be entitled to ask him some pretty stiff questions.
-
NS,
I agree - I proceed on the basis that I have "free" will even though I know that it's a logical dead end, and indeed that the meaning of "I" is opaque too. After all, what choice do I have? When though the Alan's of this world seek to deploy their misunderstanding of the term to argue for a "true for you too" god, then it's appropriate to falsify his argument.
It's a non falsifiable claim,as it doesn't have a methodology to support it.
-
47 feet 10 inches!
This is how far this discussion now passes over the top of my head!
WTF does "jejune" mean? Thick?
-
NS,
Existential gaps aren't ignorance. It's not about fact, it's about feeling.
But isn't the "feeling" just a different type of itch that can't be scratched? Whatever would satisfy the feeling would plug the gap, and so there'd be nothing into which to drop a pat explanation like "god". I see the difference, I really do. It seems to me though to be a difference without significance - whatever the nature of the gap, factual or existential, it's still a gap and so the principle applies.
Again, i'll emphasise I am not making or providing an argument for gods. Rather I am looking at what seems to me the difference between what causes people to believe and how they argue for it.
Yes I know.
This difference then means that when you argue against a lot of what appears on here as justification, it's not really arguing against why people believe.
Perhaps, but when these same people want me to believe too why not instead deploy their actual reasons for believing? Could it be that they know that the "real" reasons are ineluctably limited to the personal, the subjective and so they can never bridge the gap to a "true for you too" god but, if so, why not just say so?
You're telling me that I'm arguing against what people say, but not against what they really think. Surely the fault lies with them then doesn't it - you can only play the team in front of you as the philosopher Ron Atkinson used to say.
When you overlay that with how people interpret their personal experiences, which are culturally and socially modulated, which we then ask the to deny then it's not as easy to break out of. Further since we are also bound by the same thing, it's difficult to make a sensible case for doing that.
Yes, the remarkable co-incidence of so many people's experiences just happening to be caused by the god to which they're most enculturated isn't a knock down argument against them by any means, but I think that if I were one of them it would at least give me pause.
And that's not even dealing with the idea that no free will means belief is a determined state.
Indeed.
-
47 feet 10 inches!
This is how far this discussion now passes over the top of my head!
WTF does "jejune" mean? Thick?
It means, in this context, uninteresting
-
It means, in this context, uninteresting
My thanks to you, Sir!
-
NS,
It's a non falsifiable claim,as it doesn't have a methodology to support it.
You can falsify the argument(s) made for a claim without concerning yourself with whatever claim happens to pop out at the end. Hence "...falsify his argument" rather than "...falsify his claim".
Logically fallacious arguments are always wrong - the claims they produce are usually wrong too, but sometimes they may not be for the same reason that a stopped clock is right twice a day: co-incidence.
-
Owls,
It means, in this context, uninteresting
It's also in my entirely subjective and rarely humble opinion a particularly lovely word too.
-
Existential gaps aren't ignorance. It's not about fact, it's about feeling. Again, i'll emphasise I am not making or providing an argument for gods. Rather I am looking at what seems to me the difference between what causes people to believe and how they argue for it. This difference then means that when you argue against a lot of what appears on here as justification, it's not really arguing against why people believe.
When you overlay that with how people interpret their personal experiences, which are culturally and socially modulated, which we then ask the to deny then it's not as easy to break out of. Further since we are also bound by the same thing, it's difficult to make a sensible case for doing that.
A great and thoughtful post.
-
Because (according to the story) it was deliberately and unnecessarily cruel to the pigs, given that presumably Jesus could have simply made these so-called demons disappear or if not that, then to go into some inanimate object rather than a herd of pigs. Neither - Jesus did according to the story.
Really... The pigs themselves rushed over the cliffs.
No one made them do it.. but the devils within them drove them mad and they rushed over the cliff.
Are you saying the pigs did not know what they were doing or the demons killed them?
The demons asked to go into the pigs. One human being worth more than many pigs.
Would you save the human or the pigs?
Basically the choice was to save the one man worth more than the pigs.
You do make a fuss about nothing because you have absolutely nothing in these discussions to support your disbelief.
If moaning about pigs is the height of your argument I guess that you being a vegetarian means eventually pigs will die anyway.
The truth is,if people stopped eating meat animals would not be kept and looked after as they are by farmers.
They would be put down or left to die from horrible diseases in horrible states because no one would feed them or pay for medical attention for them.
Not eating meat would harm animals far more than them being well looked after and then slaughtered for their meat.
Look at the stray dogs and cats who are flea ridden and diseased. You would condemn all animals to that life if people stop eating meat.
So if they stop drinking milk and eggs we see that even hens and cows would probably die out. No one to milk them and no one to feed and keep them healthy. Seems vegetarians will cause more harm to animals than eating them ever did.
-
Really... The pigs themselves rushed over the cliffs.
No one made them do it..
That's not what the story says.
Are you saying the pigs did not know what they were doing or the demons killed them?
I'm saying that your storybook has Jesus transfer these alleged demons into a herd of pigs, which he need not have done. I would say that I'm finding it difficult to believe why you seem to be struggling with this very simple point, except I know who I'm dealing with and all becomes clear.
Would you save the human or the pigs?
Instinctively, with nothing else to go on, the pigs. I like pigs. What if the human was a child molester or torturer, for instance?
Basically the choice was to save the one man worth more than the pigs.
That's a matter of opinion, but doesn't change the point that according to the terms of the story, magic miracle man Jesus could have done anything with these so-called demons apart from sending them into a herd of pigs leading to their death. That's unless he was constrained in his actions in some way - was he?
You do make a fuss about nothing because you have absolutely nothing in these discussions to support your disbelief.
What supports disbelief is lack of reasons for belief. Unless you are irremediably fallacy-prone (i.e. Hope; you) belief needs reasons; disbelief is the default setting until and unless those reasons are provided. That's basic logic.
If moaning about pigs is the height of your argument I guess that you being a vegetarian means eventually pigs will die anyway.
... and that isn't.
The truth is,if people stopped eating meat animals would not be kept and looked after as they are by farmers.
You seem to have a different idea of 'looked after' to me - and to sundry organisations such as VIVA, PETA, Compassion in World Farming and so forth.
They would be put down or left to die from horrible diseases in horrible states because no one would feed them or pay for medical attention for them.
No they wouldn't. If people stopped eating meat these poor creatures wouldn't even exist in the first place as there would be no demand for their flesh. Supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand.
Not eating meat would harm animals far more than them being well looked after and then slaughtered for their meat.
No it wouldn't. See above. Food animals exist in the numbers that they do to meet the demand for flesh. If the demand is cut off, the supply will die.
Look at the stray dogs and cats who are flea ridden and diseased. You would condemn all animals to that life if people stop eating meat.
What sort of mental aberration links cats and dogs to cows, pigs and sheep?
So if they stop drinking milk and eggs we see that even hens and cows would probably die out.
Yes, and like food animals that would be fine by me. I'd rather creatures were never brought into being in the first instance rather than being brought into being to live miserable lives and suffer horrendous deaths.
No one to milk them and no one to feed and keep them healthy. Seems vegetarians will cause more harm to animals than eating them ever did.
Only if you're incapable of rational thought, as you are.
-
If the pig story has any credibility, I reckon Jesus was responsible for frightening them over the cliff, but pretended it was mythical demons wot dun it!
-
One human being worth more than many pigs.
Would you save the human or the pigs?
Basically the choice was to save the one man worth more than the pigs.
Why not at least only put all of the demons into just one pig?
After all they were all in just one man.
Then the choice could have been to save the one man against just one pig.
Many pigs being worth more than one pig.
Would you save many pigs or just one pig?
-
Dear Seb,
Ah but ::) then that one pig would have all those demons to contend with, spare a thought for that one poor pig, maybe Jesus was thinking, divide and conquer ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Seb,
Ah but ::) then that one pig would have all those demons to contend with, spare a thought for that one poor pig, maybe Jesus was thinking, divide and conquer ::)
Gonnagle.
Has anyone else noticed that in their straw clutching the antis suddenly become all protective of Pigs and Figs....is it the alliteration or what.
Antitheists! enjoy your cups of tea, Bacon and Fig Rolls!
-
Has anyone else noticed that in their straw clutching the antis suddenly become all protective of Pigs and Figs....is it the alliteration or what.
I think it's rather more to do with exposing the illogicality of a daft story, Vlad.
-
I think it's rather more to do with exposing the illogicality of a daft story, Vlad.
Not so much that the stories are daft - they could be satire, allegory, fable, a literary device - but that some two thousand years' later people treat them as fact. Now that really is daft.
-
That's what I meant ;)
-
So did I. :D
-
I did as well ;)
-
Dear Auditors, ( no not you Rhiannon or for that matter Shaker, I was a bit drunk last night when I took you out of the ranks of Auditor, a man cant go back on his drunken word, not done, don'tcherknow )
Ah yes! but the pig story, we still debate, still argue, still discuss this little story, wonderful book/books the Bible, we still pour over it, still discuss, still debate, it has entered our very psyche, we quote it with gay abandon, don't we Dear Leonard. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
... the Bible, we still pour over it, still discuss, still debate, it has entered our very psyche, we quote it with gay abandon, don't we Dear Leonard. ;)
Gonnagle.
Yes, and it's about time we abandoned all of it except "love thy neighbour as thyself".
-
Dear Seb,
Ah but ::) then that one pig would have all those demons to contend with, spare a thought for that one poor pig, maybe Jesus was thinking, divide and conquer ::)
Dearest Gonneriah.
I get it, if it was just one poor pig it would get all confused to such an extent it might to something rash like throw itself.......
oh wait a minute! :-[
-
Has anyone else noticed that in their straw clutching the antis suddenly become all protective of Pigs and Figs....is it the alliteration or what.
Well, there sure is a huge surplus of straw around, it having fallen off your innumerable straw men! ;)
-
Dear Seb,
Dearest Gonneriah.
Your spelling is quite atrocious young man, but many would agree, quite apt. :-\
Gonnagle.