Cyclical authority of holy books

Talon1977

Or this is a rushed explanation of an unexpected event invented by a group of cult followers panicked by the fact that their leader, who is supposed to be a super powerful, son of God, "messiah", has just been executed by Romans like a common criminal?

Except for the fact that it had been foreshadowed for centuries before, with the yearly slaughter of a spotless passover lamb. And then the "spotless" Christ just happens to be "sacrificed" at the time of the Jewish Passover feast. Explain that one.

Then combine that with all the passages in the Old Testament that point to that very event. All the Old Testament stories foretell the coming of One who would come and make a way for man to be reconciled to God. So it wasn't just a "rushed explanation" as you say. It had been in the making from the start. The disciples themselves admit in their own writings that they did not understand this until after the fact. (a whole other discussion... if this was just a hoax, would they make themselves out to be so dumb in the gospels???)

SubjectSean

Talon1977 wrote: »

Except for the fact that it had been foreshadowed for centuries before, with the yearly slaughter of a spotless passover lamb. And then the "spotless" Christ just happens to be "sacrificed" at the time of the Jewish Passover feast. Explain that one.

Then combine that with all the passages in the Old Testament that point to that very event. All the Old Testament stories foretell the coming of One who would come and make a way for man to be reconciled to God. So it wasn't just a "rushed explanation" as you say. It had been in the making from the start.

Sorry to jump in but the Jews were/are quite clearly waiting for a human messiah, even the term itself "annointed one" refers to somebody annointed by God. Why would God 'annoint' himself? If any of Jesus's first followers in Jerusalem were teaching doctrines in the Temple like the one you suggest they would quite simply have been dragged outside and used as targets for rocks. Yet there they are in Acts in the Temple. The only people treated to the rocks are Stephen and his followers. After they are run out of Jerusalem Paul goes after them and starts on his lifes work of cooking up the doctrine which you are espousing. I trust that wikinight's excellent argument is not lost on you and that you can begin to see that this doctrine makes God out to be deranged and lacking in basic powers of reason.

Talon1977

If any of Jesus's first followers in Jerusalem were teaching doctrines in the Temple like the one you suggest they would quite simply have been dragged outside and used as targets for rocks. Yet there they are in Acts in the Temple. The only people treated to the rocks are Stephen and his followers.

Begging your pardon, but that's incorrect. There were several stonings of the apostles and also several severe beatings and flayings and jailings for this very teaching you're claiming wasn't being taught. They were drug OUT of those temples and run off several times because the Jewish rabbis just couldn't stand it any longer.

And for that matter it was because Jesus claimed He had equality with God that he was crucified in the first place. The implications of what Jesus was saying wasn't lost on the Pharisees. The jewish leaders thought it was blaspheme, punishable by death.

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

The jewish leaders thought it was blaspheme, punishable by death.

And why was all that argument necessary? Surely the fact of Jesus' divinity should have been so manifest (given God's intention to communicate to people in an understandable fashion) that no-one could have objected.

Why all the divine obfustication?

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

Except for the fact that it had been foreshadowed for centuries before, with the yearly slaughter of a spotless passover lamb. And then the "spotless" Christ just happens to be "sacrificed" at the time of the Jewish Passover feast. Explain that one.

Your kidding right?

How many people were executed in that time? Scratch that, how many "messiahs" were executed in that time?

Anyone one of them could have claimed to be the "spotless lamb" of Isaiah by their followers after they were executed.

Heck there are examples of countless cult leaders (and rap stars) prophesying their own deaths even before they are killed (David Koresh being a classic example). That doesn't mean they were supernatural.

Its a pretty safe bet, you either do end up being killed some how (very common in Biblical times) in which case everyone thinks you are amazing, or you aren't in which case you have happy days continuing to lead your cult and say it is "coming in the future"

Talon1977 wrote: »

Then combine that with all the passages in the Old Testament that point to that very event. All the Old Testament stories foretell the coming of One who would come and make a way for man to be reconciled to God.

And all Jesus' followers knew this. So of course to them Jesus must have been that person!

So they rush back to the prophecies of the Old Testament and try and make it fit as much as possible.

Does it fit the actual prophecies? No, of course not.

There was no flood that destroyed Jerusalem after Jesus' death (natural disasters are a little harder to make happen).

God didn't destroy all nations that threatened Israel.

Does that matter? No, because it gives the followers at least some glimmer of plausibility that he is still in fact the messiah, despite being dead.

Most of the "prophecies" used to justify Jesus' death aren't even about the messiah, or in fact prophecies (for example Pslams 22)

Talon1977 wrote: »

if this was just a hoax, would they make themselves out to be so dumb in the gospels???

Who said it was a hoax?

Do you think the David Koresh prophecies that the US government would storm and burn down his compound was a hoax? If not does that mean he actually was the second coming of Jesus?

Talon1977

Schuhart wrote: »

And why was all that argument necessary? Surely the fact of Jesus' divinity should have been so manifest (given God's intention to communicate to people in an understandable fashion) that no-one could have objected.

Why all the divine obfustication?

Because a fireworks display or writing in the stars, as suggested before, would not require faith from the believer. Which apparently (according to Scripture) is something God enjoys from us.

How many people were executed in that time? Scratch that, how many "messiahs" were executed in that time?

Anyone one of them could have claimed to be the "spotless lamb" of Isaiah by their followers after they were executed.

Heck there are examples of countless cult leaders (and rap stars) prophesying their own deaths even before they are killed (David Koresh being a classic example). That doesn't mean they were supernatural.

None of them, however, were reportedly raised from the dead, which would be the validating event of this particular messiah.

Consider the words of one of the leading Jewish teachers of that day, after hearing testimony from Peter and some of the other apostles, about Christ and who they claimed that he was.

Book of Acts, chapter 5 wrote:

When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.

Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

There was no flood that destroyed Jerusalem after Jesus' death (natural disasters are a little harder to make happen).

I don't recall anything about a flood. ?

God didn't destroy all nations that threatened Israel.

And where is this passage? Let's look at it.

SubjectSean

Talon1977 wrote: »

Begging your pardon, but that's incorrect. There were several stonings of the apostles and also several severe beatings and flayings and jailings for this very teaching you're claiming wasn't being taught. They were drug OUT of those temples and run off several times because the Jewish rabbis just couldn't stand it any longer.

Sorry but in Jerusalem this was not the case. The followers in Jerusalem were not persecuted. The reason for this is because they were not apostate blasphemers. So to recap, the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were just hunky dory with the jewish authorities. The followers of Stephen who were run out of Jerusalem were indeed persecuted as you say but this persecution was not endured by the whole movement.

Talon1977 wrote: »

And for that matter it was because Jesus claimed He had equality with God that he was crucified in the first place. The implications of what Jesus was saying wasn't lost on the Pharisees. The jewish leaders thought it was blaspheme, punishable by death.

The only Gospel to see him equating himself with God directly is John and in this it disagrees with the other Gospels and so it is unlikely to be correct. I rather have it that he was stiring up trouble and the Romans wanted him dead The Sanhendrin at the time had ample powers to execute blasphemers and did so on a regular basis by stoning. Annoying the Romans with seditious teachings and stirring trouble in the province is what most likely got Jesus killed. His first followers did not consider him to be divine but merely a man.

"You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know. This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him."

Acts 2:22

Talon1977

The only Gospel to see him equating himself with God directly is John and in this it disagrees with the other Gospels and so it is unlikely to be correct.

The earliest followers of Jesus all seemed pretty convinced that Jesus was fully God in human form. Paul said, "He is the image of the invisible God...in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell."

John said that Jesus created the world.

Peter said, "every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." And as the Jews stated who were trying to have him arrested FOR BLASPHEME, "Who can forgive sins, except God?"

It's a common argument that John's gospel is the only one that supports the deity of Christ and it is a result of the evolution of Christian theology because it was written later than the Synoptics (the other 3 gospel accounts). Now there is no a priori reason to reject John's Gospel, or even to date it as the latest of the present quartet. Indeed, John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament and in The Priority of John, presents a cogent argument for dating John in the same time period as the other Gospels, between 50-65 AD, with proto-gospel material and traditions dating into the two decades previous. A full discussion of it is not really practical here, but... it might be worth the research for you.

And what of the Synoptics? The fact is that there are ample recorded claims of divinity by Jesus in the Synoptics, which operate against the assumption that only John shows Jesus making such claims. The divinity claims in the Synoptics give a quite unambiguous statement of what Jesus meant when He made those claims. We do NOT, of course, find the direct claim: "I AM GOD." That would have been a little too confusing to Jesus' hearers, and at any rate, would not have been precisely correct, only generally correct. The claims, as we shall see, are more precisely fitting to the proclamation: "Jesus is God the Son; the Wisdom and Word of God" - i.e., the second person of the Trinity, which, ontologically, makes Jesus co-equal with God. Even the NT itself, though it refers to Jesus as God (John 1:1, 20:28), shows a preference for expressing Jesus' divinity through titles: Word, Savior, Son of God, Lord - and by using language to describe Jesus that is appropriated from OT attributions to Yahweh.

Furthermore, studies by New Testament scholars such as Martin Hengel of Tubingen University, C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge, and others have proved that within twenty years of the crucifixion a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate existed. How does one explain this worship by monotheistic Jews of one of their countrymen as God incarnate, apart from the claims of Jesus himself?

Furthermore, The oldest liturgical prayer recorded, in 1 Corinthians 16:22, is dated at around 55 A.D. It refers to Jesus as Lord. So does the earliest sermon and the earliest account of martyrdom. The authors of the NT epistles, including and especially Paul, even in his undisputed letters, use the language of divine Wisdom with reference to Jesus. The earliest pagan report of the church's activities indicates that Jesus was worshipped as Lord. Paul's letters, written between 49 and 65 A.D., exhibit the same fully-evolved Christology; logically, he must have gotten it from sometime earlier than 49 A.D. Paul cites creeds, hymns and sayings of Jesus that must have come from earlier (Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 11:23; Col. 1:15-16; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:8); these items translate easily into Aramaic and show features of Hebrew poetry and thought-forms, which allows us to trace their origins to Jesus' first followers in Judea, between 33 and 48 A.D.

All of this leads to the inevitable conclusion that the concept of Jesus as divine quite definitely existed within, at the very least, a decade of the crucifixion, and therefore, was likely to have been asserted before His death by Jesus Himself, as is recorded in the Gospels.

If Jesus never claimed to be divine, and never claimed it in the sense that is indicated in the Gospels, it is reasonable to expect that:

• The enemies of Christianity and the early church would have declared that Jesus never made such claims, or was misunderstood. Some did indeed do this, but wrote quite some time after the fact. There is no record contemporary or closely contemporary with Jesus (first century AD) that indicates that He never made any special claims for Himself, or that the church invented the claims. Even after that time, however, the major skeptics of the first several centuries never argued this point. Celsus, for example, said that Jesus called Himself the Son of God, but wrongly. Porphyry, one of the most-feared skeptics in the early church, did not deny Jesus' claims to divinity, but instead tried to 'downgrade' Jesus into a hero-type deity (a third-class deity in the Roman hierarchy!). This adds up to strong evidence that (a) the Jesus-never-claimed-divinity argument had not been advanced by skeptics of the time, and (b) if it was used, perhaps by some skeptic whose works we have totally lost, it was so easily dismissed or so lacked adequate credibility that it could not be used by the best anti-Christian skeptics.
• A parallel movement, that acclaimed Jesus as merely a good teacher, would have emerged alongside Christianity. To be sure, there are those such as Burton L. Mack, author of The Lost Gospel, who would have us believe that a such a movement did exist; but conveniently enough, he tells us, it came and went too quickly to leave behind any concrete physical evidence for us to know what happened to them!

As it is, there are no extant texts from the first century, or even from the century thereafter, that represent Jesus as claiming to be only human or only a prophet--He is ALWAYS portrayed as making exalted claims to a super-human status. Later heresies of the church, such as Gnosticism, involved paganistic and/or mystical additions upon what Jesus meant in the Gospels when He claimed to be God; they never denied that He made any special claims about Himself. As we noted previously, the earliest known pagan critic of Christianity to address the issue, Celsus, argued that Jesus did apply the title "Son of God" to Himself, but wrongly; only much later did those critics deny that Jesus made such claims. The argument that Jesus never claimed to be divine is in fact nothing more than an unsupportable conjecture, an argument from silence competing against the scream of the available data. Each of the above claims, and every known document of the church, even the heretical ones, acknowledge that Jesus claimed divinity. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary that can be cited. Saying that there is no evidence that Jesus claimed divinity can only be managed by ignoring reams of evidence, or by facile dismissal.

Sorry for the length of the post.

pH

Talon1977 wrote: »

Sorry for the length of the post.

Good start, next we'd like an apology for copy and pasting a large block of text from another site and passing it off as your own.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Emails/divinity.htm

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

Because a fireworks display or writing in the stars, as suggested before, would not require faith from the believer. Which apparently (according to Scripture) is something God enjoys from us.

Why, other than naked self interest, should I give a damn about what God enjoys from me?

What I'm trying to explore here is the depiction of God as good and loving. I can utterly understand that if God is this all-powerful sadistic being who will torture us for eternity unless we bow and scrape before him, then we have little choice but to do that (unless we've far more courage than I have). However, why do we bother with this illusion that creating lesser beings so that you can mess with their heads for amusement is evidence of goodness or love?

Or are you trying to furiously signal too us behind God's back? "Quick, down on your knees and start praising him or he'll make mince of you."

Let me say, in practical terms I doubt if there's any creator who particularly gives a damn about what we do all day. I'll post again a link to a Hillaire Belloc story that I find apt and funny on this point.

SubjectSean

Talon1977 wrote: »

The earliest followers of Jesus all seemed pretty convinced that Jesus was fully God in human form. Paul said, "He is the image of the invisible God...in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell."

Paul was not one of the earliest followers. He never even met Jesus but strangely he had the most to say.

Talon1977 wrote: »

John said that Jesus created the world.

Peter said, "every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." And as the Jews stated who were trying to have him arrested FOR BLASPHEME, "Who can forgive sins, except God?"

It's a common argument that John's gospel is the only one that supports the deity of Christ and it is a result of the evolution of Christian theology because it was written later than the Synoptics (the other 3 gospel accounts). Now there is no a priori reason to reject John's Gospel, or even to date it as the latest of the present quartet. Indeed, John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament and in The Priority of John, presents a cogent argument for dating John in the same time period as the other Gospels, between 50-65 AD, with proto-gospel material and traditions dating into the two decades previous. A full discussion of it is not really practical here, but... it might be worth the research for you.

It was and to my mind John clearly seems to be a Greek influenced countermeasure to the teachings of Cerinthus and other early followers who were at odds with the followers of the Pauline (Gentile) church. I'm afraid Mr John A. T. Robinson has an opinion that is unique, he is a lone voice amongst serious scholars. Talon my assertion is that the early followers of Jesus were not one homogenous group. Acts would seem to bear witness to this and indeed even without the secondary evidence of Acts we are students of human behaviour and have seen time and again the way in which social movements splinter and fracture. A history of heresies in the Church amply shows this effect at work. Passages like Acts 2:22 show that at least some section of the early followers believed Jesus to be a man. It is down in black and white and unequivocal. Some groups that followed Jesus were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites and the church leaders in Jerusalem, collectively called 'Jewish Christians'. Saul of Tarsus on the other hand had better success proselytizing among the Gentiles, and persuaded the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to allow Gentile converts not to follow all the Jewish law. Jews who did not convert to Pauline Christianity and the growing Christian community gradually became more hostile toward each other. Not only that but the Pauline community embellished the story of Jesus. I know this because the Jewish Christians lacked any belief in the doctrines you are espousing which is precisely why the early Gentile Church dismissed them as heretics. You say there is no evidence of a paralell movement that did not think Jesus was divine but yes there most definitely was. There is even evidence of it in Acts and what is more all the friends and family of Jesus belonged to this 'paralell' movement. As I have said these followers were later to be dismissed as heretics by Pauls Church. As anyone can see from the history of the thing it was the group doing the dismissing who were the true heretics. The only scripture we are left with is theirs.

Talon1977

Why, other than naked self interest, should I give a damn about what God enjoys from me?

If you believed that he existed, I think the answer to that question would be self-evident. But you don't, so I wouldn't expect you to care in the least.

What I'm trying to explore here is the depiction of God as good and loving. I can utterly understand that if God is this all-powerful sadistic being who will torture us for eternity unless we bow and scrape before him, then we have little choice but to do that (unless we've far more courage than I have). However, why do we bother with this illusion that creating lesser beings so that you can mess with their heads for amusement is evidence of goodness or love?

This is probably a whole thread unto itself, but as briefly as possible...

Is a judge "sadistic" for sentencing a murder to the fullest extent of the law? I doubt you would say so. So why would you say that God is sadistic IF he does indeed exist, and IF we are indeed his creation, and IF indeed we are in the wrong as far as not fulfilling the purpose he created us for?

The "evidence of goodness" as you say is in that we believe (as the Scriptures say) that he abandoned the glory of heaven, and became a mere mortal, to take our place. It would be as if a judge sentenced a man to death for murder (or what have you) and then took his judge's robes off, got down off the bench where he presides and took the man's place in dying for the crime. Not only did Christ simply take the physical punishment, but the almost bigger thing is that he became human and dwelt among us to begin with. Not only this, but died in one of the most humiliating ways possible. Think of it, God the creator, taking the form of the creation, submitting to the creation, dying upon the creation, FOR the creation, so that they might have life. Again, this is not me preaching or dogmatically waving my opinions in your face or wagging my finger at you. This is simply part of the explanations for the discussions you're bringing up, that Scripture provides answers for. I'm simply doing the best I can to humbly pass those answers on. Likely I'm not doing a real great job at it, but oh well.

And yes, my apologies for not citing sources and copying and pasting and all that. But the amount of time to give a sufficient answer for that topic would have been astronomical.

Paul was not one of the earliest followers. He never even met Jesus but strangely he had the most to say.

"one of the earliest" is a relative term. Compared to me, he WAS one of the earliest. Of course I'm being facetious. Paul apparently had his "Damascus Road" experience (where he claimed he DID meet Jesus) within a few years of Christ's death. So I'd say that was fairly early.

to my mind John clearly seems to be a Greek influenced countermeasure to the teachings of Cerinthus

How do you figure, since John was a fairly uneducated Jewish fisherman and it's evident from his writings?

and other early followers who were at odds with the followers of the Pauline (Gentile) church.

Paul was a Jewish Rabbi. And I don't think you could say they were "att odds" with him. They disagreed for a brief period of time with his point on including Gentiles. But it doesn't take much to go back and look at some of the things said from a very early point in the Old Testament, right up through the things Christ himself said, that indicate that the Kingdom of God was to include all the nations, not just the Jews.

Talon my assertion is that the early followers of Jesus were not one homogenous group.

I agree. Much the same as in today's world of Christendom, there are many traditions and differences in opinions and practices. If it were not this way, there would have been no need for all the early church councils and discussions on what should be accepted practice. We don't disagree on this point about the early church. But there WAS an ongoing effort to get everyone on the same page.

Passages like Acts 2:22 show that at least some section of the early followers believed Jesus to be a man. It is down in black and white and unequivocal.

Not so, that sermon of Peters in Acts 2 was to the unbelieving Jews, not to any of the followers. In fact, one of the earliest councils was to deal with a problem of people not believing Jesus was at all human. The fact that he was God did not seemed to be disputed much at all by the early Church. It was that he was human that was giving them problems.

Saul of Tarsus on the other hand had better success proselytizing among the Gentiles, and persuaded the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to allow Gentile converts not to follow all the Jewish law. Jews who did not convert to Pauline Christianity and the growing Christian community gradually became more hostile toward each other. Not only that but the Pauline community embellished the story of Jesus. I know this because the Jewish Christians lacked any belief in the doctrines you are espousing which is precisely why the early Gentile Church dismissed them as heretics.

I assume you would include Peter and James both in this category? Both of which uphold the same doctrine as Paul. As does John in his letters and in Revelation. You're making more out of the minor disagreement that Peter and Paul had concerning the continuing practice of Jewish custom.

You seem to be forgetting that we have the gospel of Matthew and Mark, aside from John's, the writings of Peter and James, and also the most Jewish book of them all - HEBREWS! They all proclaim the exact same gospel as Paul does.

Dades

Talon1977 wrote: »

Not only did Christ simply take the physical punishment, but the almost bigger thing is that he became human and dwelt among us to begin with. Not only this, but died in one of the most humiliating ways possible. Think of it, God the creator, taking the form of the creation, submitting to the creation, dying upon the creation, FOR the creation, so that they might have life.

Has that never stuck you as the most bizarre way for an entity more powerful than anything that has ever existed to communicate a message to humans?

I mean, we're talking about the creator of matter, physics, maths, chemistry etc, - billions of years old - and yet when he wants to enlighten his favoured human creations he sends his 'son' down to be tortured to death by them? That's just odd.

Incredulously,
Dades

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Has that never stuck you as the most bizarre way for an entity more powerful than anything that has ever existed to communicate a message to humans?

I mean, we're talking about the creator of matter, physics, maths, chemistry etc, - billions of years old - and yet when he wants to enlighten his favoured human creations he sends his 'son' down to be tortured to death by them? That's just odd.

Incredulously,
Dades

I imagine that much of what I do looks odd to a lower life form, such as my dog. Why would a being that has the freedom to run out and pee against every tree in the neighbourhood and sniff other beings' backsides waste his time tapping away on a computer keyboard? Of course my dog doesn't realise that there is a direct connection between my tapping away on the keyboard and my ability to buy food to put in his bowl every day.
Why should everything that God does make sense to finite dull creatures like you and me?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I imagine that much of what I do looks odd to a lower life form, such as my dog.

Indeed, God moves in mysterious ways. Sigh!

The thing is, those ways only seem mysterious if you envisage that God is behind them. They do make sense if you consider they might have been devised by mortals in the first century, rather than something outside of time itself.

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

If you believed that he existed, I think the answer to that question would be self-evident. But you don't, so I wouldn't expect you to care in the least.

That may well be true, but from my perspective it doesn’t seem self-evident that we would want to conform to the intention of a God creator. Call me a republican, but I suppose I find myself wondering where God gets his mandate from.

Talon1977 wrote: »

So why would you say that God is sadistic IF he does indeed exist, and IF we are indeed his creation, and IF indeed we are in the wrong as far as not fulfilling the purpose he created us for?

Because he may be acting in an arbitrary fashion, exacting a cruel and unusual punishment (torture for eternity) out of proportion to the offence (a finite lifetime of sin). Now, if this is his creation, and he is all powerful, clearly we simply have no choice in the matter. But that, to my mind, doesn’t make it right. I suppose what I’m proposing is that we need to see that God’s notion of a good purpose doesn’t look like something arbitrarily lumped on us for his amusement.

Talon1977 wrote: »

Think of it, God the creator, taking the form of the creation, submitting to the creation, dying upon the creation, FOR the creation, so that they might have life.

There are undoubtedly positive features in the Christian concept of God. I do find that idea of God coming down in person as if to say ‘look, I know I gave you the ****ty end of the stick but just to show its not personal I’m here to try to illustrate in person how best to get through all this’ interesting. But when it gets into all this stuff about repaying a debt resulting from original sin, it just seems to lose all kinds of sense.

PDN wrote:

Why should everything that God does make sense to finite dull creatures like you and me?

I wouldn’t expect everything that God does to make sense – just the bits where he’s purportedly trying to communicate with me. Seeing as how I’m his creation, and he’s omnipotent, I’d expect he’d know exactly how to convince me of his existence and of the circumstances and importance of his son’s sacrifice.

Dades wrote:

The thing is, those ways only seem mysterious if you envisage that God is behind them. They do make sense if you consider they might have been devised by mortals in the first century, rather than something outside of time itself.

I have to admit, that seems to explain it quite convincingly.

robindch

PDN wrote:

I imagine that much of what I do looks odd to a lower life form, such as my dog.

Your use of the word 'lower' here is interesting, but we'll leave that to a later post.

Even still, from the dog's perspective, if you'd had yourself nailed to a tree, and disappeared for two thousand years (and growing every day), I'd imagine that all but the most irrationally faithful mutts would lose interest at some point and wander off to some place where the master might show up from time to time.

the_new_mr

Got linked over from another thread to post #18 (by PDN).

Excellent post. Pure genius

Zombrex

the_new_mr wrote: »

Got linked over from another thread to post #18 (by PDN).

Excellent post. Pure genius

Well there are a number of flaws in the analogy.

Firstly in PDN's analogy, is the actual Bike supposed to be God or his life?

What he is doing is saying that the reliability of the manual can be easily tested by how closely it's advice matches successful maintenance on the bike itself. I would agree 100% with that, and use another analogy of putting an unsupported PC hardware in my computer. If my computer works afterwards that would demonstrate that those who made the hardware knew what they were doing.

The issue becomes though what is PDN testing the Bible against to reach the conclusion that those who wrote it knew what they were talking about?

If he is testing it against God one is forced to wonder how PDN actually went about this. If PDN possess the ability to judge that the Bible does accurately describe God then surely he is in possession of enough independent information about God that the Bible itself is largely irrelevant. I mean you don't need the Haynes manual to tell you that you have a machine in your garage and that the machine is a Honda motorcycle.

If he is testing it against his life, saying that he followed the advice in the Bible and his life turned around as the Bible said he would, then he is simply demonstrating that the Bible's advice turns around people's lives. The unfounded jump comes from the conclusion that because that is true then the supernatural explanation given in the Bible must also be true. It is hard to see this as anything other than people simply making that jump because they want it to be true, in the same way that people conclude things about "self-help" claims.

Using the Haynes analogy, it would be like the author of the manual claiming that he invented the 1976 Honda 400/4 bike, a claim unsupported any where except in the manual itself. Now would someone conclude that because the manual is accurate in Honda maintenance, that this supports the assertion that the author invented the bike in the first place. It might, it is certainly possible, but equally it isn't a requirement that the author invented the bike to be able to say that the manual is accurate. There is a perfectly easy explanation of how someone could produce a book like this without having invented the bike, and as far as I know the Haynes manual makes no such claim in reality.

Going back to the Bible, the conclusion is that it is a requirement that the supernatural elements of the Bible story be accurate for the advice in the Bible to have any positive effect on a person. Therefore if the Bible's advice demonstrates a positive change in lifestyle this supports it's claims about the supernatural.

This is obviously not the case, just as it isn't the case with countless other religions where the followers claim their lives have been improved by being members of the religion. Religious books can and do offer good advice without coming from a supernatural source.

So really the biggest flaw with PDN's post is not necessary the conclusion he has reached, but the starting defines that he set up before this conclusion.

Basically it is -
Can the Bible alter my life unless it was inspired by God? No.
Was my life altered positively by the Bible? Yes.

The Bible is an accurate, inspired by God, book.

the_new_mr

Don't know what made me read that last post... but I did. I suppose I was curious to see what others thought of PDN's post.

I'll answer your post Wicknight but I don't think I'll be back for your reply. The arguments on this forum tend to be a bit cyclic (ironic isn't it? ).

It seems clear to me that the bike is supposed to be PDN's life. Perhaps PDN can correct me I'm wrong there.

As for the analogy. I think it stands up very well.

The problem for you seems to be very straightforward.

First of all, I would imagine that lots of believers take their respective holy books to be considered authoritative for different reasons. But I would say that most believers have a common one and that's a feeling that only the words in their holy scripture seem to show any true understanding of the human condition. I can't really speak for all religions but that's one of the things for me (just one mind).

That's where PDN's analogy is so strong I think. His analogy is not perfect of course (since any believer believes that only God can produce something perfect) but the point of "e) I took a step of faith and trusted the book even in a case where it contradicted my gut instinct. The book was right and my gut instinct was wrong" and "h) I discovered other arguments for the reliability of the book. These, while not cyclical, supported the book's own claims and reinforced my opinion of the book as authoritative" are the best ideas put forward.

So, I think your problem lies where you said:

Wicknight wrote:

Can the Bible alter my life unless it was inspired by God? No.
Was my life altered positively by the Bible? Yes.

I would say that these definitions should more accurately be defined as follows (once again, I can't speak for other religions so am defining these definitions with my experience with the Quran):

Can the Bible/Quran/whatever alter my life in such a profound way clearly demonstrating its knowledge of the human soul (replace soul with condition if you don't believe in a soul) and show itself to have a resonating a truth inside impossible to obtain from other texts unless it was inspired by God? (or in the case of the Quran, dictated by God) No.

Was my life altered positively by the Bible/Quran/whatever and proved to me to be faultless unlike other books? Yes.

Zombrex

the_new_mr wrote: »

Don't know what made me read that last post... but I did.

The deep longing far down in your heart for the truth...? :pac:

the_new_mr wrote: »

I suppose I was curious to see what others thought of PDN's post.

Not very much I'm afraid.

But in fairness to PDN I don't think he posted his original post for deep discussion, more to simply explain how he views the Bible, given that was the question original asked (by myself). I very much doubt he is that bothered that his answer was viewed as some what flawed as a piece of justification (in fact I imagine he expected such a response)

the_new_mr wrote: »

I'll answer your post Wicknight but I don't think I'll be back for your reply. The arguments on this forum tend to be a bit cyclic (ironic isn't it? ).

Not sure what you mean by cyclical.

Sceptical perhaps, but we try and avoid cyclical arguments round these parts.

the_new_mr wrote: »

As for the analogy. I think it stands up very well.

Only if one holds the original assumption as being correct.

Which I see very little reason to, and plenty of reason not to (in fact every non-Christian religion with a holy book providing the same thing is a reason not to).

One wonders why someone would hold the original assumption correct in the first place, and I think the answer to this question is at the root of why humans create religion in the first place.

the_new_mr wrote: »

But I would say that most believers have a common one and that's a feeling that only the words in their holy scripture seem to show any true understanding of the human condition. I can't really speak for all religions but that's one of the things for me (just one mind).

And that, as they say, is the fatal flaw in the argument. It is where all the claims that the person is being reasonable or logical or rational break down, because (to put it bluntly) these holy books don't display another worldly understand of the human condition. Quite the opposite in many cases.

the_new_mr wrote: »

That's where PDN's analogy is so strong I think.

I suppose we will have to disagree. I think it is precisely what makes the argument so weak.

The whole thing reminds me of a Darren Brown episode.

We are truly peculiar creatures, so easy to play

the_new_mr wrote: »

Can the Bible/Quran/whatever alter my life

The very fact that you have "whatever" in there is the case in point.

So many of these divine books appear to be able to produce pretty much the same awe in their collective believers. The idea that they are all divinely inspired clear isn't a front runner (particularly because books like "Dianetics", central to the Scientology religion, don't even claim divine inspiration)

Therefore it is quite reasonable to conclude, in my view, that they are all doing a simpler form of basic human manipulation, providing a basic need humans have to seek religious type explanations.

Religious people seem some what at a loss to explain this, often simply shrugging and say that to each their own, or what ever makes sense to me is fine.

Others attempt to explain this as simply being all of humanity searching in different ways for the same divine creature (often assumed to be their own), though this doesn't quite explain religions like Scientology.

Others still attempt to explain this with the help of an evil and manipulative entity, such as the devil, so creates other such religions to confuse and divert people from the true path.

Its curious how few simply conclude that humans are just creating this ourselves, and that we are in fact, very very good at doing just that.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote: »

So really the biggest flaw with PDN's post is not necessary the conclusion he has reached, but the starting defines that he set up before this conclusion.

Basically it is -
Can the Bible alter my life unless it was inspired by God? No.
Was my life altered positively by the Bible? Yes.

The Bible is an accurate, inspired by God, book.

I don't disagree fundementally with what you've said - I just think a little tweak is in order. I think PDN's post is a good exposition of a theist perspective, particularly as it seems to resonate with a few others (including someone of a different faith, which I feel is a little evidence that he caught an idea here.)

As I understood it, PDN's point was that if he found the book reliable as a positive influence on his life where he could validate it, and then found it to be reliable in areas which he could not validate in advance, he moved to trusting the parts that he could not validate by experience. I think his analogy to, say, wikipedia is valid (although not be laboured). If you've found that wikipedia is a reliable source for material you can verify, then you likely will trust it (or at least be far more likely to trust it) if you read something there that you have no other source for.

Hence, I would take it that his argument is that his support for the Bible is not cyclical. Its inductive. And, given that pretty much the whole gamut of human knowledge is inductive, that ends up as a sustainable position.

I know that our response in this situation is that we feel the positive influence he feels is just in this own head, and that any religious book could replace the Bible and be just as good a trigger for that influence.

We might even say that we can leave the religious books out of the picture, and just keep the positive influence. However, in fairness, atheism does tend to stay quite silent on how exactly that works. Which means (apologies on repeating my one thought yet again) that it may very well be the case that most humans operate best when deluded.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote: »

I think his analogy to, say, wikipedia is valid (although not be laboured). If you've found that wikipedia is a reliable source for material you can verify, then you likely will trust it (or at least be far more likely to trust it) if you read something there that you have no other source for.

I think it goes a little further than that. The position of a theist takes more of a jump than simply saying well it was right about everything else.

My point was that he is moved to trust the parts that he could not validate because of the deductive reasoning I outlined above.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote: »

My point was that he is moved to trust the parts that he could not validate because of the deductive reasoning I outlined above.

Indeed, but consider the two meanings in the question Can the Bible alter my life unless it was inspired by God? .

Taken one way, we might read it as a search for physical evidence. That requires us to say that people cannot be deluded. If that is true, then the fact their life is altered would be a form of evidence for divine authorship.

Taken another way, its a recognition that the book will only have its beneficial qualities if we accept its divine origins. We might say to a theist 'take God out of the equation, and its still the same book saying the same stuff so it should have the same effect'. But their response (putting words into their mouths) would presumably be that its only the divine origin that makes the book worth reading.

Why does that matter? Well, pick an individual theist. He says (as many have) 'my religion is what makes my life worth living'. In that situation, accepting the falseness of the book is accepting that his life is not worth living. Given the premise, that strikes me as a quite legitimate reason to hold to a faith. I don't see that even as cyclical reasoning. Its simply an assertion of a right to be content with existence.

The more I reflect on it, the more I see it as pointless to talk to theists about what we see as the foundations of their faith - the historical validity of their holy books, or whatever. There simply is no short cut away from discussion of whats really on their minds - which is questions like ethics and the value of human life. And, with god out of the picture, those questions do look very different indeed and many of the features they would express unease about like euthanasia do indeed become moral possibilities.

Memnoch

Schuhart wrote: »

I don't disagree fundementally with what you've said - I just think a little tweak is in order. I think PDN's post is a good exposition of a theist perspective, particularly as it seems to resonate with a few others (including someone of a different faith, which I feel is a little evidence that he caught an idea here.)

As I understood it, PDN's point was that if he found the book reliable as a positive influence on his life where he could validate it, and then found it to be reliable in areas which he could not validate in advance, he moved to trusting the parts that he could not validate by experience. I think his analogy to, say, wikipedia is valid (although not be laboured). If you've found that wikipedia is a reliable source for material you can verify, then you likely will trust it (or at least be far more likely to trust it) if you read something there that you have no other source for.

Hence, I would take it that his argument is that his support for the Bible is not cyclical. Its inductive. And, given that pretty much the whole gamut of human knowledge is inductive, that ends up as a sustainable position.

I know that our response in this situation is that we feel the positive influence he feels is just in this own head, and that any religious book could replace the Bible and be just as good a trigger for that influence.

We might even say that we can leave the religious books out of the picture, and just keep the positive influence. However, in fairness, atheism does tend to stay quite silent on how exactly that works. Which means (apologies on repeating my one thought yet again) that it may very well be the case that most humans operate best when deluded.

The analogy to Wikipedia of the Bible is not a valid one.

To begin with, Wiki is not the definitive source of information on ANY topic. It's a general source of information, but not The Authority on it. Rather, it is derivative. It draws on its information from more established verifiable sources and more often than not links to said references of information. This is different to the bible, in that the bible is considered by those who believe in it, to be the FINAL authority on the topics it purports to cover.

Secondly, the bible, as far as we can tangibly prove is the construct/maintainence of highly partial groups, be it the catholic church or any other religious organisation with its own variations on the theme. There is no peer review, no place for correction. Changes can only be made or accepted by those with severely vested interests. Whereas in the Wiki, any piece of information can be challenged, provided the evidence is available and false information can even be removed. This adds greatly to its accuracy as a reference/encylopedia.

To summarise...

Wiki : A source for general information that is accepted as being fallible and not the final source for information on any given topic.

Bible : Considered to be the final word on any topic it coveres.

Wiki : Can be changed, updated, verified, debated and is constantly under review by thousands if not more people.

Bible : Controlled by severely vested interests and derives its so called authority from the existence of an unproven supernatural entity.

This whole trust some parts so trust all parts is a ludicrious arguement, designed to draw attention away from the more pertinent details that I believe render the analogy invalid.

I do agree though that it is pointless arguing with theists. They believe because they believe, and will say/conjure anything to support their belief because without it their existence and the way they've lived their entire life comes into serious question. Questions they are unable to face without the crutch of religion.

Schuhart

Memnoch wrote: »

The analogy to Wikipedia of the Bible is not a valid one.

In fairness, its not an analogy to be laboured. I think the point PDN was making - which is simply that you'll trust a source with increasing confidence if your experience is that it is reliable - is what is at issue. For the sake of argument, someone could say they had every important question in life settled by reading Plato. If that's his experience, then that's his experience and his experience will mean more to him that whatever rationalisation we might offer about whether a philosopher, no matter how respected or talented, could answer every question that could be asked a couple of thousand years ago. I feel that's the point at issue - that faith is rooted in individual experience - rather than how a particular text is constructed.

Memnoch wrote: »

I do agree though that it is pointless arguing with theists. They believe because they believe, and will say/conjure anything to support their belief because without it their existence and the way they've lived their entire life comes into serious question. Questions they are unable to face without the crutch of religion.

Indeed, with the key point being that, if they are unable to face those questions without the crutch of religion, they would be simply insane to give it up. Put another way, the only valid way of approaching such a person is to say 'here's something that works just as well as religion' and not simply a statement of 'your religion is rubbish, welcome to the void'.

PDN

Memnoch wrote: »

I do agree though that it is pointless arguing with theists. They believe because they believe, and will say/conjure anything to support their belief because without it their existence and the way they've lived their entire life comes into serious question. Questions they are unable to face without the crutch of religion.

Sometimes I feel like I'm happily moving through life with a smile on my face. Then I pass some poor cripple who's scrabbling about the floor on their hands and knees and obviously struggling to get anywhere. Then they look up at me and snarl, "You Christians are weak people who need a crutch to get through life."

In a world where everyone is crippled in some way then those who use a crutch are smart, not weak.

Memnoch, you might be the most fulfilled person who has ever lived. There's no way we can judge each other on an internet discussion board. But in my personal experience I have got close to a few people who use the "crutch of religion" argument. I've never met one with whom I would consider swapping places.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I've never met one with whom I would consider swapping places.

That isn't really the point.

A miserable atheist has nothing to lose. A happy Christian has (or believes they have) everything to lose

Memnoch

PDN wrote: »

Memnoch, you might be the most fulfilled person who has ever lived. There's no way we can judge each other on an internet discussion board. But in my personal experience I have got close to a few people who use the "crutch of religion" argument. I've never met one with whom I would consider swapping places.

Of course you wouldn't. And therein lies the beauty of it.

If one takes humanity's purpose (if there is one) to be simply to reproduce and die and move forward into the future as a species (the apparently driving force of evolution), then such mechanisms make perfect sense to enable us to do exactly that, because our purpose isn't to question or understand, but to simply be.

Your happiness seems to lie within this blind acceptance, or maybe it's better to call it as limited sight, since you only look for things to concur with something you've already accepted.

Others might want to search for answers or truths, in so far as our limited capabilities allow us to do so, and not simply accept things because that is the most convenient way to live.

Which is better?

The problem with your justifciation, is that it mirrors and replicates the same processes that have allowed all of the great atrocities of Human history. Why question? Why stand up against wrong, when it's easier to believe in ignorance and be blissful in that belief.

While you are happy in your belief, I'm happy in the knowledge that if everyone thought like you and was bound by the shackles of religion then we would still be burning heretics at the stake, the Earth would be the centre of the universe and the sun would be revolving around it.

The irony is, that from an individual's point of view it's easier, and maybe even more productive to accept. Yet progess only comes from questioning and change, though the individual agents of that progress have to sacrifice the bliss of ignorance to to contribute to it.

ShoulderChip

Splendour wrote: »

And pray (:rolleyes:)tell, why can't he communicate with us now..? Living in the States should not be a barrier.

Anyway, my viewpoint is this: The bible is justified in it's own authority as it makes sense to the world and mankind.

If I were to read a biography of Thomas Edison, I would expect to learn about his background, his first attempts at designing the lightbulb, explaining how and why he did what he did etc.As I read through this book it would become clear to me exactly what Edison was about-Edison would make sense to me-as would his invention. It would be a book of authority which I would have no good reason not to believe.

But (there's always a but...), the bible if not read with an open heart will just be a bunch of nonsense which just won't make sense at all.

huh?
but Edison didn't invent the lightbulb,
he worked in the patent office and recieved an application to patend it,
he then made it before the other guy who could not afford to,
the other guy then was in the process of suing him when he died.