That New Testament malark.

Fallen Seraph

Lately this whole new tesatament malark has been troubling me a little. I simply don't accept that Jesus was the son of god, simply because God doesn't exist. But I find an acceptable probable explanation that reconciles 1: His miracles 2: his willingness to be crucified and 3: the subsequent lightning spread of the religion quite hard to come by. My problems being these:

I can get my mind around the miracles; them simply having been a mix of word of mouth-rumour-tripe with no one actually having seen anything but everyone knowing a friend of a friend who really got cured. And the disciples joining in and believing all this, it being a sort of cult for them (cf the reconstructions of the joesephus text which describe his followers as "those who welcome strange things gladly" or somthing to that effect).

But once we get on to this crucifixion malark I start getting a bit hazy. If jesus was simply manipulating crowds, people and illusions then why did he go to all this trouble of getting crucified..?

One possible solution is that he was a bit mad and honestly thought he was the son of god, but if this is so I can't image him being able to pull off the miracles malark; I mean if he actually thought he was then a very likely situation would be someone asks him to perform a miracle, he says yes thinking he's perfectly capable of it and completely fails, everyone sees this and tells him to sod off and he's got no followers left, which clearly didn't happen.

The only two other solutions that I can come up with are these:

The first: that, in fact, Jesus was not the mastermind behind all this and he was just as indoctrinated as the disciples. But frankly this seems a little far fetched and hollywoodish to me, and as far as I can tell no one actually benefitted monetarily or power wise in the immediate aftermath of that whole Jesus malark so there was no motive.

The second: that Jesus never actually died. But this to me seems to fall down on the basis that he goes completely out of the picture aftwards, i.e. with a few notable exceptions he's functionally dead.
I also feel that a stronger argument against this is how the religion spread. I mean the crucifixion seems to be a pretty vital moment in christianity which was witnessed by a large crowd of people and roman officials. If it had never in fact happened, I don't see the disciples convincing many others that they're on to something religion-wise...

The simplest explanations seem to be the "other mastermind" one and the "insane" one. Not only are these both pure speculation, but they don't honestly seem too plausible... That said they are infinately more plausible than any explanation involving god and whatnot.

How can ye get your minds around this? I'd quite like some guidance in my non-faith.

Scofflaw

It's been suggested (by Talmudic scholars amongst others) that the NT conflates stories about several "messiahs" and miracle workers who were active around Judea at that time, some of whom are known from the historical record. This accounts for the discrepancies in the NT quite neatly.

Alternatively, you might consider that the early writers made a lot of it up, or were edited later to fit the needs of the Church (but that they were inconsistent, or more charitably, unwilling to tamper with the text except where absolutely necessary).

Further to that, the Kashmiris (Northern India, which traded with the Roman Empire) have a tradition that Jesus moved to Kashmir, settled down, raised a family, and was run over in his 40's by a cart. They can show you his grave.

It's a book. A very old book, written by a lot of different people at different times, for different reasons, and extensively tampered with during the nearly 2000 years its been handed down through the Church. Why on Earth would it be accurate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Playboy

Maybe the Jesus story happened in the way the bible potrays and maybe it didnt. Doubt imo is always a good thing. I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism but I am overcome every now and then by incredible doubt concerning the 'truth' of Christianity. At the end of the day I have to follow my heart and my heart tells me it didnt happen like it is potrayed in the NT. But doubt leads to questiong and questioning leads to understanding and understading is always a good thing in a world in a where people really need to learn how to get along.

Zillah

There were several Jesus' around at the time. And historical records deny the existence of several of the places mentioned. And it wasn't written until well after the supposed events. Its most likely that the NT is a liberal gathering of various sources. Perhaps even by well meaning authors.

robindch

> I am overcome every now and then by incredible doubt concerning
> the 'truth' of Christianity

That's a good sign -- have a few beers with a few mates sometime and try to see if you can collectively figure out a definition you can all agree with for what "truth" is. Then see if the definition you can come up with can be fitted, in any meaningful way, into a religious context. You'll find that it can't

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

There were several Jesus' around at the time. And historical records deny the existence of several of the places mentioned. And it wasn't written until well after the supposed events. Its most likely that the NT is a liberal gathering of various sources. Perhaps even by well meaning authors.

Oh god don't say that on the Christianity forum. I suggested that and I got crucified (excuse the pun).

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

But once we get on to this crucifixion malark I start getting a bit hazy. If jesus was simply manipulating crowds, people and illusions then why did he go to all this trouble of getting crucified..?

Well he didn't have much of a choice in the matter

Jesus (if he existed) could have really believed he was the son of God. Lots of modern day religious cults with wacky nonsense at their heart even have people willing to die for them. Look at something like Heavens Gate.

Another possibility is that Jesus didn't want to be crucified but his followers spun the whole thing after he died to explain how the son of God was killed by a bunch of Romans.

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Further to that, the Kashmiris (Northern India, which traded with the Roman Empire) have a tradition that Jesus moved to Kashmir, settled down, raised a family, and was run over in his 40's by a cart. They can show you his grave.

I debated this very point with Excelsior in the Chritianity forum many moons ago. Of course I was shot down in flames on this one. However, there is one problem. There are many accounts in Buddhist writtings refering to the figure of Jesus who is venerated in Kashmir under the name of St Issa. He was not run over by a cart, but lived to a ripe old age. He is attributed as having spent his missing years (12 to 30) living and learning Janism and Buddhism in India. He is attributed as being a master in Yoga and other Vidic practises, one of which by the way, was the ability to go into a death like trance. It was speculated that he used this technique on the Cross, and escaped back to Kashmir to live out his days. There is absolutly no reason for the Buddhists talking about these accounts to tell lies, they have nothing to gain by it. It makes for fascinating reading, only problem is that it completly elinates the Christian perspective of being the Son of God, and the resurection. It is well worth taking the time to read some of the stuff on the link you provided and watch the video of the actual tomb. I would however draw the line at the information refereing to the tomb of Jesus Donkey that is also in another part of Kashimir. You will also find pictures of the tomb of Mary his mother.
Fascinating site for what it is worth.

growler

An identical twin would solve the coming back from the dead bit quite nicely. :eek:

Zillah

Wicknight wrote:

Oh god don't say that on the Christianity forum. I suggested that and I got crucified (excuse the pun).

Actually im banned from the Christianity forum. Its from years ago, and I could probably get unbanned at any stage, but for what purpose? I'd get into several insufferable debates and get banned again for not respecting fairytales

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Actually im banned from the Christianity forum. Its from years ago, and I could probably get unbanned at any stage, but for what purpose? I'd get into several insufferable debates and get banned again for not respecting fairytales

I think you will find that most charters demand a certain amount of respect for other people including this one. Is it really that hard to rise above the kind of attitude that atheists/agnostics despise in creationists and the like?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I think you will find that most charters demand a certain amount of respect for other people including this one. Is it really that hard to rise above the kind of attitude that atheists/agnostics despise in creationists and the like?

There is a difference between respect for someones beliefs and accepting someeones beliefs.

I respect that anyone can believe what ever they want, but when they start posting nonsense (for want of a better word) that the Bible proves historically that Jesus existed and rose from the dead I'm going to wade in to object, even if it is in the Christianity forum.

I think you will find most have no objection to people believing what they like, its when they start perverting areas of science/history/medicine etc for this belief that people like myself start to object.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

I'd get into several insufferable debates and get banned again for not respecting fairytales

Hmmm. I bet you wouldn't wander into a prayer group meeting and start throwing out guff.

If you contest the rantings of a creationist with plain science, or fact - fair enough. But throwing out words like "fairytales" implies delusion on the part of every type believer, and understandably isn't welcome on a Christianity forum.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

If you contest the rantings of a creationist with plain science, or fact - fair enough. But throwing out words like "fairytales" implies delusion on the part of every type believer, and understandably isn't welcome on a Christianity forum.

I don't think he said that in the Christianity forum itself (maybe he did and that is why he is banned .. Zillah you fool! ) ... of course those fairytell believers are constantly insulting atheists, calling it immoral and selfish. And more insulting calling it a belief!

I say the final war will so be upon us, between the forces of light and of darkness.. i've got my sword under my desk for when the theists orcs come to force me to worship their false gods ....

(umm, watching LotR at 2am before work probably isn't the best idea)

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

i've got my sword under my desk for when the theists orcs come to force me to worship their false gods ....

Call me a nerd* - but I actually own a sword.
(Though I blame George RR Martin)

* anyone who calls me a nerd will be banned :P

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Call me a nerd* - but I actually own a sword.
(Though I blame George RR Martin)

I have about a dozen, stacked about three feet from my desk! Hmm. Is there a trend here?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Hmmm. I bet you wouldn't wander into a prayer group meeting and start throwing out guff.

If you contest the rantings of a creationist with plain science, or fact - fair enough. But throwing out words like "fairytales" implies delusion on the part of every type believer, and understandably isn't welcome on a Christianity forum.

Im not a patient man. Hence, I won't be wandering into any prayer meetings. Why are people giving me this reaction? I said quite clearly that me going to the Christianity forum would be a bad idea.

fobster

And all the malarky about the loaves and fishes and how there was loads of people there.

We all know how crowd size gets exaggerated.

Person A to person B: There was 10 people at it.

Person B to person C: Person A said there was a crowd at it.

Person C to person Person B said that person A said that there was a big enough crowd at it.

Person D to person E: Person C said that person B said that person A said there was loads of people at it, about 500 or so I think.

Zombrex

fobster wrote:

And all the malarky about the loaves and fishes and how there was loads of people there.

We all know how crowd size gets exaggerated.

Person A to person B: There was 10 people at it.

Person B to person C: Person A said there was a crowd at it.

Person C to person Person B said that person A said that there was a big enough crowd at it.

Person D to person E: Person C said that person B said that person A said there was loads of people at it, about 500 or so I think.

Sure everyone knows asylum seekers get new cars and free €300 hair cuts from the Health Board ... except they don't, never have

Scofflaw

If you'd like a real demonstration of people's reliability as eye-witnesses, have a look here:

Visual Cognition Lab

People apparently don't notice if someone they're giving directions to is suddenly replaced by a different person!


cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

fobster wrote:

And all the malarky about the loaves and fishes and how there was loads of people there.

I studied all this stuff about a year ago, wish I could find the link now,
What was said to have actually taken place was that at this sermon Jesus through his charisma persuaded the crowd (I think it was 500 in number ) to share what food they had brought with them with the persons sitting on either side of them. He in turn shared the 5 loaves and 5 fishes that his troop had with people sitting around them. There was no miracle, all that happened was people seem to have been so impressed that they forgot their distrust and hostility to one another and shared with their neighbor. This got blown out of proportion (for what ever reason) and hence the miracle of feeding the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 5 fishes.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

I have about a dozen, stacked about three feet from my desk! Hmm. Is there a trend here?

What are you, a bladesmith?!

Zillah wrote:

Im not a patient man. Hence, I won't be wandering into any prayer meetings. Why are people giving me this reaction? I said quite clearly that me going to the Christianity forum would be a bad idea.

Apologies if my comment came out as a reaction. I was really just agreeing with you (albeit badly) about your plan not to spend time in the Christianity forum.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Apologies if my comment came out as a reaction. I was really just agreeing with you (albeit badly) about your plan not to spend time in the Christianity forum.

Its quite fine ^_^

Actually I think I've done myself a diservice. I was just being very glib when I mentioned fairytales. If I so desired I'd be perfectly capable of politely dicussing matters with Christians, I simply lack the inclination these days.

EDIT: I also have a sword. A Katana I picked up in Beijing.

Fallen Seraph

Asiaprod wrote:

What was said to have actually taken place was that at this sermon Jesus through his charisma persuaded the crowd (I think it was 500 in number ) to share what food they had brought with them with the persons sitting on either side of them. He in turn shared the 5 loaves and 5 fishes that his troop had with people sitting around them. There was no miracle, all that happened was people seem to have been so impressed that they forgot their distrust and hostility to one another and shared with their neighbor. This got blown out of proportion (for what ever reason) and hence the miracle of feeding the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 5 fishes.

Uh... wow. Pity you can't find that.. You would't by any chance be able to remember what sources this article had?

jtsuited

slightly worried about how many atheists own swords!!

J.R.HARTLEY

Fallen Seraph wrote:

The second: that Jesus never actually died. But this to me seems to fall down on the basis that he goes completely out of the picture aftwards, i.e. with a few notable exceptions he's functionally dead.
I also feel that a stronger argument against this is how the religion spread. I mean the crucifixion seems to be a pretty vital moment in christianity which was witnessed by a large crowd of people and roman officials. If it had never in fact happened, I don't see the disciples convincing many others that they're on to something religion-wise...
.

ok so you can get your head around the fact that not everything in the bible is true, but you can't come up with the hypothesis that jesus didn't plan being crucified at all, if he ever did, but that his disciples and cult have explained it that way in their books (that it was meant to be as he was the son of god) as to gain more credence for there views and faith. :eek:


and as for stating this fact

Asiaprod wrote:

I studied all this stuff about a year ago, wish I could find the link now,
What was said to have actually taken place was that at this sermon Jesus through his charisma persuaded the crowd (I think it was 500 in number ) to share what food they had brought with them with the persons sitting on either side of them. He in turn shared the 5 loaves and 5 fishes that his troop had with people sitting around them. There was no miracle, all that happened was people seem to have been so impressed that they forgot their distrust and hostility to one another and shared with their neighbor. This got blown out of proportion (for what ever reason) and hence the miracle of feeding the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 5 fishes.

it's as groundless and unsubstantiated as the myth it tries to explain
"What was said to have happened", by who, and how do they know?

Zillah

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

it's as groundless and unsubstantiated as the myth it tries to explain
"What was said to have happened", by who, and how do they know?

It is not as groundless as the myth that attributes super human powers to an individual. Its unsubstantiated, yes, but its not as bad a departure from logic as the traditional story.

Fallen Seraph

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

ok so you can get your head around the fact that not everything in the bible is true, but you can't come up with the hypothesis that jesus didn't plan being crucified at all, if he ever did, but that his disciples and cult have explained it that way in their books (that it was meant to be as he was the son of god) as to gain more credence for there views and faith. :eek:

Ok, supposing he planned and masterminded everything. Then out of the blue he gets crucified in front of a large crowd of people. Given that his treatment wasn't necessarily as bad as the bible tells us, he still probably didn't have the most confortable of deaths; crucifixion being quite the unpleasant way to die.

Now what I kinda find a bit incredible is that IF he had masterminded it all himself, it would have been out of selfish gain. And if he was being killed in a brutal way for something like that, I see him as being quite likely to renounce his claims to being god. Which he probably didn't, given the number of people who became christians.

Asiaprod

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Uh... wow. Pity you can't find that.. You would't by any chance be able to remember what sources this article had?

If I find it I will pass it on.

J.R.HARTLEY

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Ok, supposing he planned and masterminded everything.

but dude you'll be chasing your tail forever if you start supposing, thats what i'm getting at, given that most of the bible is stories rather than facts you can't trust it as a source, maybe he did renounce it, maybe he was indeed crucified for treason but the gospels said the scribes and pharisees were behind it to further their cause, but we'll never know.
the only Fact about the new testament is that it was written decades after jesus was around and that there were over a dozen gospels but the church very quickly decided which ones it liked and which on sit didn't (james,judas) you really have to make your own mind up based on the facts that you can gather, all thats happening here is supposition ans speculation, it'll never help you

Asiaprod

[quote=Fallen Seraph]Ok, supposing he planned and masterminded everything.[/quote]
One of the problems that exists is that the Gospels will always be contradicted, and in my option rightly so, since to believe in them will always come down to a question of faith. It is a widley held view by others that proof positive of their authenticity or accuracy does not exist in this current day. All belief is held on a consensus or personal belief basis, i.e it is mentioned in 3 out of 4 gospels, or despite giving differing facts, two or three people wrote about the same event. This is belief by consensus and not proof positive. A personal belief by anyone is also beyond debate as it is just that.
I myself have read of four possible answers to this issue.

1. It is all true and happened exactly as written.
2 It was an act by a leader of a sect to gain martyrdom and thereby add impetus to the cause.
3. It was planned and rehearsed, the person named Jesus never ever planned to die, and in fact did not.
4. It was not Jesus that dies, but some one who took his place.

It is only with the advent of the internet that we have become able access to data sources that are outside impossed controls. There is oodles of information out there on the internet if one take the time to research it. Some interesting pointers to bear in mind are

1. Crucifixion was not a death sentence per say. Crucifixion was a punishment designed to humiliate and punish the offender. According to much research it could take up to three days to die. Bit the whole point was that humiliation was a major part of the punishment. It was used as a visible deterrent and not just a means to execute someone. Pilate expressed great surprise to learn that Jesus had expired after only 3 hours. Way to short an expected time for the event to happen.
2. There is considerable speculation as to what exactly was on that sponge that was offered to him.
2. There are at least 2 recorded cases of people being removed from a cross and surviving the ordeal.
3.Their is only one set of bones ever discovered that bear the nail marks of crucifixion. The reason for this was that bodies were never returned. It was part of the punishment to throw the corpse on the trash pile outside the city gates to be devoured by wild animals.

Again, all these scenarios are speculative, as is any scenario that is postulated fact. As listed above. Only no 1 requires the person to be the Son of God for the act to have made sense. This is the accepted way it went down. Until some book is discovered that can authenticate any of this, it will always be down to speculation. For me, the true answer always comes down to one simple fact,.....does the system of belief and all that goes with it you have chosen to follow work for you?

the real ramon

Scofflaw wrote:

People apparently don't notice if someone they're giving directions to is suddenly replaced by a different person!

Especially in Ireland I'd imagine, we're always miles away!

Fascinating though. I think I wouldn't notice.

As for the gospels, I'd agree with Wicknight in that he didn't want to die and his followers made up a pretty good reason for the credulous times as to why he never saved the world.

As for his character, there's not much to go on and it was all written some decades later so all we can do is speculate. I often do wonder though did he think he was the 'first coming' in much the same way as some people these days believe they are the 'second coming'

I think Siddharta Gautama and Jesus both had an excellent understanding of psychology, and think both meant well, I'd just ignore the ressurection stuff.

People are more fascinated with the figure of Jesus though than with his philosophy (with the exception of Quakers), which makes most sects ofChristianity a bit of a personality cult.

J.R.HARTLEY

Asiaprod wrote:

Pilate expressed great surprise to learn that Jesus had expired after only 3 hours. Way to short an expected time for the event to happen.

Only no 1 requires the person to be the Son of God for the act to have made sense. This is the accepted way it went down. Until some book is discovered that can authenticate any of this, it will always be down to speculation. For me, the true answer always comes down to one simple fact,.....does the system of belief and all that goes with it you have chosen to follow work for you?

the only thing about that fact is that as the story goes, he had been flogged to within an inch of his life and could barely walk the road to the place of execution, now, the main and important point behind this is that weak legs and a tired body cannot bear the persons weight on a cross and therefore they'd suffocate much earlier than normal (that is how you die on a cross). a lot of the "academics" i have seen on TV that argue this point seem ignorant of it or else conveniently forgot. either way it does help explain it, now thats only johns gosple that gives 3 hours as the death time, matthew and luke i think give it as six hours.
anyway your other points are all sound ,

the true answer always comes down to one simple fact,.....does the system of belief and all that goes with it you have chosen to follow work for you?

that is, for me, the most spot on part of any post in this thread. well said.

Excelsior

I know I am on borrowed territory here and can't do my usual job of flaming people, crucifying people or insulting them but just a couple of points-

We have references to over a hundred Messiah movements between about 100BC and 100AD in Palestine. This gives us a pretty clear idea of what tended to happen. There is only one Messiah movement that began to grow after the typical and expected Roman punishment for claiming to be King.

Generally accepted thought on the matter would estimate the Romans crucified as many as 100,000 in Palestine during their occupation. It is unlikely enough to discount that they somehow got the Jesus' death wrong, especially when you consider the political fervency amongst the Jewish population that caused his trial.

I won't deal with the myriad other permutations raised here lest my efforts to debate your views could be misconstrued as Bible bashing, brainwashing or moralising.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

that is, for me, the most spot on part of any post in this thread. well said.

so you can believe whatever you want, just so long as it makes you feel good?

ye gods.

(edit)

also, am I the first person to bring up the point that he may have been a mushroom?

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/Allegro/Allegro-SundayMirror.htm

I'm reading his book atm, and it's pretty good.

Asiaprod

Mordeth wrote:

also, am I the first person to bring up the point that he may have been a mushroom?

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/Allegro/Allegro-SundayMirror.htm

That was a surprise to me! Does this mean we can no longer use the term Magic Mushroom but must now say Spiritual Mushroom.

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

I know I am on borrowed territory here and can't do my usual job of flaming people, crucifying people or insulting them but just a couple of points

Happy to see you're still dropping by.

And I'm thinking a bit of flaming and crucifixion might liven things up!

Zombrex

the real ramon wrote:

People are more fascinated with the figure of Jesus though than with his philosophy (with the exception of Quakers), which makes most sects ofChristianity
a bit of a personality cult.

True, and they also see the resurrection of Jesus as "proof" that God exists. Which is why you get into big flame wars if you try and suggest that Jesus might not have been resurrected, or at the very least that the authors of the Bible cannot know for sure that he was.

An interesting question to pose to Christians is if they would still believe in God (not Jesus, but God) if it was proven for sure that Jesus was not resurrected. I have already had people on the Christianity forum tell me that if the New Testement is wrong then there is no God. To me that isn't faith, that is seeking proof and reassurance for your beliefs.

I personally believe this need for proof of God, from the Bible, is causing a lot of the religious fundamentalism problems we see in places like the US. Really the faith of these fundamenatalists is actually quite insecure. They need proof and they need reassurance that what they believe is correct, and will always be correct. Which, in my opinion, goes some way to explain the attacks on things like evolution that have been taking place.

hairyheretic

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

If you have faith, do you really need proof?

Louisiana

blind faith is no good to anyone, you need to have an understanding in what you believe in. Jesus was reknown as a phophet to more than the christians. you can believe in him and what he stood for without getting bogged down by mysticisim and other worldly forces.

the word god derived from the word goodness. jesus could have stood for what was good and worked hard in the community. the simplest sollution is usually correct. id be more impressed with the do unto others idea than with stories of raising the dead.

Dades

hairyheretic wrote:

If you have faith, do you really need proof?

I think you can still have faith and look for proof.

Of course if you find real* proof, it wouldn't be faith anymore.

* can of worms

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

I think you can still have faith and look for proof.

True. But to me a more interesting question is can you still have faith if your established proof turns out to be false.

Thats a question the western religions have had to constantly ask themselves since the 17th century as the scientific method has continued to errode the previously established biblical theories of the Earth.

I think its funny that Christians constantly go on about how science can never disprove God. That is true, and probably gives them some security that no one can ever tell them that they have been wrong all along.

But at the same time can Christians (and others) accept their faith if by the same token science can never prove God does exist.

Can a religious person be religious if it turns out no one can ever find real evidence for their faith? You can see that the need for evidence, for proof, is very strong by looking at how fundamentalist religions gravitate around books like the Bible or Quar'an. To me it seems head-hurtingly illogical that someone would take the Bible literally, but at the same time I can understand that doing so gives the person a sense of security that their beliefs are correct. If the natural world matches the Bible that proves the Bible is correct, and therefore proves God exist.

Maybe the atheist forum isn't the best forum to ask these questions

hairyheretic

I'd call myself spiritual rather than religious (spirituality being your connection with whatever you believe in, and religion the man made trappings that grow up around that). I doubt I could ever produce independently verifiable proof for my beliefs, but to be honest, I don't see the need to. I'm not going to try and force anyone else to believe as I do. My beliefs are my own. I believe that they are valid. Thats really all I need.

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Maybe the atheist forum isn't the best forum to ask these questions

I think that it is a very good place to ask these questions. Some of the ideas that have come up are real food for thought.

J.R.HARTLEY

Mordeth wrote:

so you can believe whatever you want, just so long as it makes you feel good?

ye gods.

(edit)

also, am I the first person to bring up the point that he may have been a mushroom?

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/Allegro/Allegro-SundayMirror.htm

I'm reading his book atm, and it's pretty good.

no, you obvoiously picked it up wrong, where i'm coming from is that you shouldn't follow a faith that you can't personally believe.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Can a religious person be religious if it turns out no one can ever find real evidence for their faith? You can see that the need for evidence, for proof, is very strong by looking at how fundamentalist religions gravitate around books like the Bible or Quar'an. To me it seems head-hurtingly illogical that someone would take the Bible literally, but at the same time I can understand that doing so gives the person a sense of security that their beliefs are correct. If the natural world matches the Bible that proves the Bible is correct, and therefore proves God exist.

Science may not be able to prove/disprove God, but it's relatively trivial to prove/disprove a literal reading of the Bible, as we know...

I don't think fundamentalist Christians gravitate to the Bible because of a search for proof. Most sects are already committed to the Bible as the only reference point, because this distinguishes them from the Catholic Church, which did not allow its laity to read the Bible. They are committed to a literal interpretation because any other allows so much leeway that it would be difficult to assemble more than a couple of fundamentalists who agreed. This commits them, in turn, to the contortions of creationism or ID.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

True. But to me a more interesting question is can you still have faith if your established proof turns out to be false.

Thats a question the western religions have had to constantly ask themselves since the 17th century as the scientific method has continued to errode the previously established biblical theories of the Earth.

I think the key word here is "erode". Many biblical claims have been shown to be false (or at best, analogous) as science advanced over time. That time-span has allowed the slow "re-interpretation" of what was once firm belief.