The Paris Attacks: The Consequence of Goodness Without Truth

[jeremyp]

Dear ad,

This is not what I know about Islam ( which is very little ) but I do remember something about if you take a life you are killing God, something like that!! and from reading Armstrong Islam in the beginning was a very tolerant religion, anyway I don't think the problem is just Islam.

But then Outrider could be right, just my version

Gonnagle.

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

That should be a start.

[BashfulAnthony]

The historicity of Jesus is not accepted by historians.

That's why it's not taught in history.

Nonsense.  The vast majority of scholars regard Jesus' historicity as fact.  As to your comment on the teaching of it, you are speaking from ignorance.

[BeRational]

Nonsense!

Can you find a university where  Jesus is taught in a History course?

You must know that Jesus is not an historical figure.

[BeRational]

Nonsense.  The vast majority of scholars regard Jesus' historicity as fact.  As to your comment on the teaching of it, you are speaking from ignorance.

Instead of throwing insults, just find a university teaching Jesus in a History course.

If you cannot then you are just wrong.

[jeremyp]

I refer you to my comment about actually knowing the NT, rather than simply googling bits to suit you.  Your quote is from Matthew, a strongly Jewish, orthodox, writer, whose aim was to present to Jews a version of Jesus that would fit their needs:  it is called midrash.

So we have discarded the Old Testament. Now we have jettisoned one of the four gospels.

Rather than doing this piece meal, why not tell us which verses have the seal of your approval?

[BashfulAnthony]

Instead of throwing insults, just find a university teaching Jesus in a History course.

If you cannot then you are just wrong.

I am talking of Divinity teaching.

I am not insulting you, just telling you that you're wrong, unless you are actually a theological expert, rather than a casual critic.

[jeremyp]

Good grief!  Whole books have been written about it.  I'm afraid I still have to suggest you do little, or lot, more researching.

I tend to think that, if somebody can't articulate their reasons for accepting or rejecting an idea, they don't really understand them or they don't want to admit them.

[BashfulAnthony]

So we have discarded the Old Testament. Now we have jettisoned one of the four gospels.

Rather than doing this piece meal, why not tell us which verses have the seal of your approval?

I have not discarded one of the four Gospels: I merely read it with a critical eye:  a method I would have thought you would agree with.

[BeRational]

I am talking of Divinity teaching.

I am not insulting you, unless you are actually a theological expert, rather than a casual critic.

I am talking about History. Jesus is NOT taught in history and is NOT accepted as a historical figure.

These are just facts.
Why would you disagree?

[BeRational]

I have not discarded one of the four Gospels: I merely read it with a critical eye:  a method I would have thought you would agree with.

A critical eye is not a method.
This will NOT ensure that different people using the method will arrive at the same answer.

[BashfulAnthony]

I am talking about History. Jesus is NOT taught in history and is NOT accepted as a historical figure.

These are just facts.
Why would you disagree?

I am talking about RE in the National Curriculum, where Jesus is most certainly taught as a historical person Read it and learn. I have done it all my teaching life. What do you base your remark on? 

[BeRational]

I am talking about RE in the National Curriculum, where Jesus is most certainly taught as a historical person Read it and learn. I have done it all my teaching life. What do you base your remark on?

You are talking about religious education, and of course that IS the place to teach about Jesus.

That does NOT make Jesus a historical figure and that is why it is not taught in a proper subject like history

Jesus is NOT an accepted historical figure.

That just is the way it is. You may not like it but that is the truth.

[BashfulAnthony]

You are talking about religious education, and of course that IS the place to teach about Jesus.

That does NOT make Jesus a historical figure and that is why it is not taught in a proper subject like history

Jesus is NOT an accepted historical figure.

That just is the way it is. You may not like it but that is the truth.

You are totally wrong.  I think you should do some serious reading and try to  get a non-biased view of the subject.

 But, again, I am off now.  Good night.

[BeRational]

You are talking about religious education, and of course that IS the place to teach about Jesus.

That does NOT make Jesus a historical figure and that is why it is not taught in a proper subject like history

Jesus is NOT an accepted historical figure.

That just is the way it is. You may not like it but that is the truth.
[/quote

You are totally wrong.  I think you should do some serious reading and try to  get a non-biased view of the subject.

 But, again, I am off now.  Good night.

Show that I am wrong by citing a university has history course covering Jesus.

Religious courses do NOT count!

[Spud]

Since the OT is in the 'DNA' of your religion, ad_o, and since the god in that supports mass slaughter including children, then I would suggest your post is arguing you are a dangerous person liable to kill innocents.

When I first heard of this 'caliphate' and Islamic State my thoughts were that they seem to be copying the Israelites in their conquest of Canaan.

[Rhiannon]

I have not discarded one of the four Gospels: I merely read it with a critical eye:  a method I would have thought you would agree with.

But how is your critical eye any better than the eye of those who disagree with you?

[BashfulAnthony]

But how is your critical eye any better than the eye of those who disagree with you?

If you, or anyone, disagrees, then articulate the reasons why, rather than the usual blanket rebuttal.

[BeRational]

If you ,or anyone, disagrees, then articulate the reasons why, rather than the usual blanket rebuttal.

But you are putting forward your reasons for accepting or rejecting certain text.

As far as I can see, there is no method you just accept the bits you like, and discard what you don't.

The problem is, that if someone else makes a different choice, you have no method to distinguish if one of you is correct.
It then just becomes opinion.

[BashfulAnthony]

But you are putting forward your reasons for accepting or rejecting certain text.

As far as I can see, there is no method you just accept the bits you like, and discard what you don't.

The problem is, that if someone else makes a different choice, you have no method to distinguish if one of you is correct.
It then just becomes opinion.

I have already said this: pay attention!  I base my views on my study, and what seems to me to be the correct view.

[Rhiannon]

If you ,or anyone, disagrees, then articulate the reasons why, rather than the usual blanket rebuttal.

What I'm seeing, BA, is that you want to believe in a kind, loving, universal God who doesn't do bad stuff. So you've followed the theological paths of those who want to believe as you do to select the parts of the Bible and church doctrine that fit with that, and discard those that don't.

The only problem with that approach is when you try to call it 'the truth'.

[BashfulAnthony]

What I'm seeing, BA, is that you want to believe in a kind, loving, universal God who doesn't do bad stuff. So you've followed the theological paths of those who want to believe as you do to select the parts of the Bible and church doctrine that fit with that, and discard those that don't.

The only

Jesus can't be both loving and a saviour to all,  and at the same time one who casts people into a fiery furnace:  He instructed us to forgive, as He does.   So, it seems a pretty clear choice wart to accept.

[jeremyp]

Jesus is NOT an accepted historical figure.

That is an interesting question. I think, even the mythicists accept that theirs is a minority position. However, that does not make them wrong.

The question hinges on what you mean by "Jesus". The Jesus of the gospels is quite clearly not historical, even if you excise all the supernatural elements. However, there is some evidence that there was a founder of Christianity and weak evidence that he was eventually executed, but that doesn't matter, because the Romans were executing people left right and centre - it's not particularly extraordinary. The question is whether this "minimal" Jesus still counts as Jesus.

[Rhiannon]

What I'm seeing, BA, is that you want to believe in a kind, loving, universal God who doesn't do bad stuff. So you've followed the theological paths of those who want to believe as you do to select the parts of the Bible and church doctrine that fit with that, and discard those that don't.

The only

Jesus can't be both loving and a saviour to all,  and at the same time one who casts people into a fiery furnace:  He instructed us to forgive, as He does.   So, it seems a pretty clear choice wart to accept.

In which case it would appear that you are discarding Jesus' own words.

[BashfulAnthony]

In which case it would appear that you are discarding Jesus' own words.

No:  the words of a Gospel writer, with an agenda.  It simply does not make any kind of sense to accept the main message of Jesus  -  one of love and forgiveness  -   with the idea of a vengeful Being.  The two concepts are irreconcilable.

[Nearly Sane]

I have already said this: pay attention!  I base my views on my study, and what seems to me to be the correct view.

Yes, and as was then pointed out that isn't a useful argument. You are being asked for the methodology, not certificates on your wall.