More like: The Hazards of agnosticism (Spin-off thread)

Fanny Cradock

No one pretending anything, nor were you accused of ignoring our responses. I wish you didn't feel the need to level these falsehoods at Christians. Despite what you say, we have answered your questions. It's just that we haven't provided any that are acceptable to yourself. This is hardly a surprise.

Pretty pictures aside, it makes perfect sense to countless Christians out there - myself included. Bar attaching some supporting mpg file to back up my case (something Harris seems fond of doing) there is little else that can be said on this matter.

This is a perfect case of being damned if you do answer and damned if you don't.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No one pretending anything, nor were you accused of ignoring our responses. I wish you didn't feel the need to level these falsehoods at Christians.

Umm, can you read your own posts Fanny?

"later answered by Christians and subsequently rejected by atheists one and all."

Christians haven't answered this question, there is nothing for atheists to reject. The question is still open. What atheists reject is the assertion that you have answered it.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Despite what you say, we have answered your questions. It's just that we haven't provided any that are acceptable to yourself. This is hardly a surprise.

Well yes, if someone asks a question and the answer given doesn't actually answer the question it is hardly a surprise that the person asking the question will not accept the answer

Whats 2 x 5?
Spain
What?
That is my answer, if you don't accept it that is your problem.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Pretty pictures aside, it makes perfect sense to countless Christians out there - myself included.

The responses suggest otherwise. No one has ever been able to explain why God's debt, enforced by God himself, would be satisfied by a payment, in the form of Jesus, from God to himself.

Like the triangle optical illusion the response is always to isolate one aspect of the story and argue that this isolated aspect makes sense.

For example, Jesus was human, he wasn't God. Therefore it is possible that Jesus could be offered to God. This ignores that Jesus was sent by God in the first place.

Or God requires a blood sacrifice. Jesus was a blood sacrifice, therefore the debt is paid. This ignores that the blood sacrifice was paid by God in the first place.

And around and around we go. Isolate and explain, ignore the big picture.

You may claim that this makes perfect sense to you but it seems like a hollow claim.

I have far more respect for those Christians who simply put their hands up and say they don't understand it, while still choosing to believe in it.

DenMan

Maybe God was right? We are unworthy of sacrifice, we can't make that journey. Perhaps that's why he chose to represent himself on earth and make that sacrifice because we sure as hell can't. He chose to live here as a mortal man and die as a mortal man. What comes after is all up in the air as speculation and theory. Again this is all open for how you perceive it. That's why I think. (Agnostic)

Dades

DenMan wrote: »

Perhaps that's why he chose to represent himself on earth and make that sacrifice because we sure as hell can't.

That still doesn't alter the fact that he sacrificed himself - to himself.

Does not compute.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

You were arguing that prayer worked, I linked you to a study that clearly showed that prayer doesn't work.

Oh that! Went through that before on Boards, it gets tedious regurgitating these things so allow me to point you to a previous discussion. Read here for a fairly detailed putting forth of opinions about the subject of prayer.

Zillah wrote: »

I reject explanations that don't make sense. If Christian explanations don't make sense thats more your problem than mine. To help you understand, lets use a metaphor. You ask Bob how a certain building was built, he says it was built by magic elves. You point out there's no such thing as magic elves and Bob gets angry saying that you just reject Bob-explanations so why should he bother. You wisely proceed to speak with a sane human being and leave Bob putting food out in the bushes for elves.

The elves are God you see.
I like over explaining metaphors.
You're Bob and I'm you.
Bob believes in elves, aren't you embarrassed for him?

In your scenario I would be a bit embarrassed for him for sure but your analogy breaks down when you put it up against Christianity. Christianity from the outset doesn’t make logical sense when you only view things through the bifocals of your Aristotelian logical frame of reference. Which said frame of reference views the world like so:

‘A’ cannot be ‘A’ and not ’A’ at the same time. It’s either ‘A’ or not ’A’.

That’s the Aristotelian frame of reference that we are all brought up in, even our language frame is governed by it, and that is why a logician like yourself cannot accept or understand Christianity because Christianity comes on the scene and claims that Jesus was God (A) and Man (not A) at the same time. He was never only man or only God, He was both God and man at the same time all the time, that is the Christian claim, which turns Aristotelian logic on its head if that claim is true. Now what we are left with is this question: Was Jesus merely human or who He claimed to be? And that is a question that has been debated ad infinitum both here and on the Christianity forum. Now you tell me that Jesus was not who He claimed Himself and why and I’ll tell you why He must have been who He claimed to be or else He was a fraud or a lunatic.

You will probably come back with such statements as ‘Jesus couldn’t have been God because God doesn’t exist.’ Or ‘He never claimed such things.’ Or ‘Jesus never lived, He was just man made myth.’ Or a mixture of all, but don’t make the mistake that a non supernatural Jesus is what was ever put forth in the very texts from which the world in general gets its limited conclusions about the Jesus described therein. It is also the source that makes people call Him ‘good and wise’ but also and always the source that has Him making ridiculous claims about Himself. Ridiculous in the sense that no mere mortal man can make such claims and still be viewed as ’good and wise’ at the same time if those claims are not true. There is no separate source for both opinions.

If Jesus was who He claimed then logic as we define it should not be the plumb-line by which all things are considered straight. You fail to see that you are governed by the Aristotelian frame of reference and that all your conclusions about the world around you have to either fit in with that logic or they are rejected. Pretty primitive wouldn’t you agree? Unless of course Christianity really is wrong. But even if it was wrong, it is not wrong because it doesn't make sense, its wrong because its wrong.

Zombrex

DenMan wrote: »

Maybe God was right? We are unworthy of sacrifice, we can't make that journey. Perhaps that's why he chose to represent himself on earth and make that sacrifice because we sure as hell can't.

That makes perfect sense when viewed in isolation.

The issue comes when you look at the big picture, which is why I used the picture of the optical illusion. Each corner makes sense if you ignore how they are all supposed to fit together, as most Christian posters here seem to do.

As Dades said a sacrafice is only required to pay retribution for Adam's (mankinds) insult to God.

By sending Jesus to Earth to suffer instead of us, to pay our debt for us, God is essentially paying himself off, which is ridiculous.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

He was never only man or only God, He was both God and man at the same time all the time, that is the Christian claim, which turns Aristotelian logic on its head if that claim is true.

That claim makes the problem worse, not better, and when brought up (by atheists) on the Christian forum it was rejected with most of the Christians discussing this saying that when Jesus died he was just a man, thus getting around the illogical nature of the idea that God essentially sacrificed himself to himself.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

By sending Jesus to Earth to suffer instead of us, to pay our debt for us, God is essentially paying himself off, which is ridiculous.

It is only ridiculous to you because of how you view things, but if God exists then all that matters is whether or not it’s ridiculous to Him. And if God was in Christ then it obviously wasn’t. Saying something is ridiculous doesn’t make it ridiculous, it just appears that way from your limited viewpoint. A mountain range from the distance looks like one big mountain but as you fly over it you see that there are many previously unseen valleys in between each slope.

Same with us when it comes to eternal things. Paul says that in our present state we see through a glass darkly but then face to face, and that is better to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. We cannot make sense out of that which is impossible for us to understand in our present limited state so of course on the surface it sounds ridiculous. The reason Christ came into the world was not only to provide a way to eternal life for mankind but to shut up the accuser of the brethren to God in heaven. Which said accuser from Adam onwards was always there to accuse mankind before God. God said that for sin comes death and Adam and Eve did not die in the day that they sinned. So the accuser can quite rightly tell God that He is not faithful to His own word, and if He is not faithful to His own word then there is no basis for faith in him. So God who doesn’t want all of mankind to be ultimately cast down forever has a problem.

How does He save them and be faithful to His Word as well? Simple. Just take the death on Himself. Would this suffice though? Only if He became kinned with the ones who should have died in the first place and then to die like one of them once He lived a prefect life up until the point of His death, as a non perfect life would not be adequate by His own standards set out in the Law. These self constraining limits are also set out in God’s Word in various places which make the culmination of them in Christ even more difficult.

He not only had to become like sinning man and know no sin, He also had to fulfill the Old Testament types of the ‘Kinsman Redeemer ‘as outlined in the book of Ruth and the ‘Perfect Servant’ outlined in Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15. The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was the Eternal Word that was always facing God was also the speaking agent by and through which the universe was created. He also says that this Eternal Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us? I know, ridiculous!

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Christianity from the outset doesn’t make logical sense when you only view things through the bifocals of your Aristotelian logical frame of reference.

A few questions suggest themselves:

• How do you understand the nature of something that's simultaneously itself and not-itself?
• Why do you think a would a deity choose this fairly unusual means of manifesting himself/himselves? And what might that say about the deity?
• Is there anything else that has this property of mutual self-exclusion?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That claim makes the problem worse, not better, and when brought up (by atheists) on the Christian forum it was rejected with most of the Christians discussing this saying that when Jesus died he was just a man, thus getting around the illogical nature of the idea that God essentially sacrificed himself to himself.

Jesus emptied Himself of what He was. This emptying process started when He stepped forth from heaven's glory to become kinned with mankind in flesh and blood. The next phase of this emptying was that He could not do what He wanted to do in the flesh, e.g 'My meat is to do the will of the Him who sent me'. So He was constrained to go on a certain path and could not deviate from it or else whatever life was given over at the end (if any) would not be sufficient to pay the price because to deviate from His path would in essence make Him a sinner, and sinners cannot die and save sinners, only the sinless can stand in adequately for the sinful. This path in His life narrowed and narrowed until it culminated on the cross.

He could have deviated from it any time in His life but He knew that He would not be able to save anyone if He did. He told Peter to put up his sword when Peter tried to defend Him in the garden against the soldiers. “Don’t you know that I could call legions of angels”, any one of which could destroy the guards who came for Him, if stories of angels in the Old Testament are to be believed. So how people came to the conclusion that Jesus wasn’t still God on the cross is puzzling, plus it’s not scripture. His cry of: “Why hast thou forsaken me” had to come. He was forsaken.

God was pouring out His wrath on Him for me and you, it wasn’t a picnic. God forsook Him as He bore the penalty for our sinful condition, in order that He might raise Him again and forgive us our sins. Jesus acted on the slender promise that if He did this that God the Father of whom He was one with but separate would then raise Him up again. When He gave up the Ghost (as it says) this finished the final phase of the emptying process. Which is why He said "It is finished" before that, that what He came to do was now finished. Price paid, work done, time to go home.

Flamed Diving

Soul Winner.

Paragraphs.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

A few questions suggest themselves:

• How do you understand the nature of something that's simultaneously itself and not-itself?

I never said I understood it. But it is what is ascribed to Christ in the New Testament. Its like the Trinitarian doctrine. Three separate and distinct entities but one. I don't believe the full revelation of it can be absorbed by our brains without killing us. That's why God laid it down in simple terms, terms we can relate to. Father and Son type relationship. When we get to the other side and become one with all understanding then there will no more questions. We will truly know as we are known. For now though we must contend with life down here and trust that God knows what He's doing

robindch wrote: »

[*]Why do you think a would a deity choose this fairly unusual means of manifesting himself/himselves?

• Unusual compared to what?

robindch wrote: »

And what might that say about the deity?

• It says what it says and you either accept that or you don't. And sure if He truly is the creator of all things then He can't be that bad considering He made you! :pac:

robindch wrote: »

[*]Is there anything else that has this property of mutual self-exclusion?

• I don’t know. If there is then it has yet to reveal itself to us.

Soul Winner

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Soul Winner.

Paragraphs.

They are paragraphs! I know what you mean though, sorry, it won't happen again sir...

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh that! Went through that before on Boards, it gets tedious regurgitating these things so allow me to point you to a previous discussion. Read here for a fairly detailed putting forth of opinions about the subject of prayer.

I have no intention of reading a gigantic thread on prayer. I've already linked a study that proves prayer doesn't work, certainly not in the way you claim it does.

You fail to see that you are governed by the Aristotelian frame of reference and that all your conclusions about the world around you have to either fit in with that logic or they are rejected. Pretty primitive wouldn’t you agree?

What an obtuse argument. You seem to be proposing that logic is merely one of two (or more) different but equal ways of reasoning. Its not. Its the way to successfully reason. This has been shown time and time again. Anyone that indulges in your absurd nonsense is always wrong in every case that can be answered. (no, Jesus wasn't a quantum particle in case anyone is leaning that direction)

Unless of course Christianity really is wrong. But even if it was wrong, it is not wrong because it doesn't make sense, its wrong because its wrong.

The fact that it doesn't make sense is a strong indicator that it is wrong.

Zillah

Did I really just respond to someone who is claiming something is both correct and nonsensical?

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

Did I really just respond to someone who is claiming something is both correct and nonsensical?

It's only nonsensical from your limited viewpoint, Zillah.

Get with the program.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is only ridiculous to you because of how you view things
...
Saying something is ridiculous doesn’t make it ridiculous, it just appears that way from your limited viewpoint.

Ah this old argument again.

Its funny who Christians have a viewpoint that isn't limited so that they can determine that all this is wonderful and true, where as those who go "Hold on this isn't true, it is nonsense" do so because they are limited in how they can view this.

Why am I limited but you aren't?

Soul Winner wrote: »

We cannot make sense out of that which is impossible for us to understand in our present limited state so of course on the surface it sounds ridiculous.

Well if that is true it means that neither you nor Paul have the ability to determine if any of this is actually real. Yet some how you do to the point of staking your lives on it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How does He save them and be faithful to His Word as well?

See that itself doesn't make any sense. God is omniscient, he doesn't have to find a way to stay faithful to is Word, he knew at the time when he made his Word what problems down the line it would cause. He doesn't have to fix anything.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Only if He became kinned with the ones who should have died in the first place and then to die like one of them once He lived a prefect life up until the point of His death, as a non perfect life would not be adequate by His own standards set out in the Law.

God sacrificing himself to himself to satisfy his own standards doesn't make sense, because such an act doesn't satisfy his own standards. It is a fudge.

Its like me giving myself 100 euro because you owe me a 100 euro and then me saying "Its ok, the debt has been paid". The debt hasn't been paid, I've just given myself money I already own. You still owe me 100 euro.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

I have no intention of reading a gigantic thread on prayer. I've already linked a study that proves prayer doesn't work, certainly not in the way you claim it does.

And there's me thinking that you wanted to know my views on the power of prayer. Silly me. If you had bothered to read that not so gigantic thread then you would have gotten from it that the research you are talking about is very shaky. We hear all the time how God is not scientifically testable and yet we are supposed to accept that prayer to Him is. You must know what prayer is before you can test it. Merely saying words is not praying. To test prayer it must first actually be prayer. When testing the composition of a piece of iron. You don’t go out and find a piece of coal and test that and then say that that is not iron. “We’ve tested it and the results are that it is not iron”. Yeah we know it’s not iron, you didn’t test iron you tested coal. Only God can test prayer. He knows if it’s from the heart or not. And even if it is from the heart He can still either choose to grant what is being prayed for or not and just because He chooses not to grant the requests in prayers that does not mean that He does not hear them. Sorry for wrecking your head about prayer but you did bring it up.

Zillah wrote: »

What an obtuse argument. You seem to be proposing that logic is merely one of two (or more) different but equal ways of reasoning.

If that's what you got out of what I said then there is not much I can do about that. I merely pointed out our logical frame of reference and how we view things. Everybody knows that 'A' cannot be 'A' and not 'A' at the same time, but if Christianity (which contradicts this frame) is true then Christianity is ultimate reality and our logical frame is not equipped to deal with it. Now you can call that a ridiculous thing to say but you still fail to see that you are only seeing things within the confines of your own understanding an understanding which is carved out by a life of being governed by this frame of reference. No point getting angry with me about it.

Zillah wrote: »

Its not. Its the way to successfully reason.

That depends on how you define ‘successfully’.

Zillah wrote: »

This has been shown time and time again.

Where?

Zillah wrote: »

Anyone that indulges in your absurd nonsense is always wrong in every case that can be answered. (no, Jesus wasn't a quantum particle in case anyone is leaning that direction)

Well if you say so but I think you are missing the whole point of what I’m saying, but I don’t put it down to you not be able to, I just think that from your point of view you would be lowering yourself to have an open and amicable discussion with me about it.

Zillah wrote: »

The fact that it doesn't make sense is a strong indicator that it is wrong.

There are plenty of things that don't make sense and yet they are true. The events of 9/11 do not make sense yet they happened. Governments that do not allow food aid to their starving people does not make sense yet it happens. People making pacts on the Internet to commit suicide doesn't make sense yet that also happens. So your assumption that if things do not make sense is a strong indicator that it is wrong is actually wrong itself. Christianity doesn't make logical sense because the logic we are governed by cannot contain or explain it by and through itself, because if Christianity is true then that logic is not a suitable frame of reference by which to adjudge it, so 'A' can be 'A' and not 'A' at the same time when you start thinking outside the box.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are plenty of things that don't make sense and yet they are true. The events of 9/11 do not make sense yet they happened. Governments that do not allow food aid to their starving people does not make sense yet it happens. People making pacts on the Internet to commit suicide doesn't make sense yet that also happens.

ALL of those things make sense if we accept that people do stupid things due to brainwashing, greed, fear, cowardice etc. Each and every one of those actions can be put down to the flawed actions of human beings. There is no mystery there!

Soul Winner wrote: »

So your assumption that if things do not make sense is a strong indicator that it is wrong is actually wrong itself. Christianity doesn't make logical sense because the logic we are governed by cannot contain or explain it by and through itself, because if Christianity is true then that logic is not a suitable frame of reference by which to adjudge it, so 'A' can be 'A' and not 'A' at the same time when you start thinking outside the box.

This explanation is just circular reasoning. Christianity appears flawed to us, because we don't have the correct powers to reason it to be true. How do we know this? Because the bible is true.

Or more fittingly - you want it to be true. Hence you are compelled to make embarrassing leaps like this one to protect the flawed setup from enquiry.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Christianity doesn't make logical sense

Have you ever considered the possibility that christianity makes no sense for the very simple reason that it's nonsense?

Dades

Is that "robindch's razor"?

Soul Winner

To Dades and Rob:

My belief in it is not relevant to whether it is nonsense or not. Me wanting it to be true is not what makes it nonsense. If it is nonsense then it was so long before I ever believed in it. I am merely pointing out that if it is true (which you don’t believe and that is fine) then our frame of reference is not adequately equipped to embrace it, hence the major reason it is not accepted by those who remain governed by this frame of reference. Which would mean that there is something wrong with our frame of reference, which said frame of reference takes for granted that 'A' cannot be 'A' and not 'A' at the same time. Jesus as He is presented to us in the earliest records turns this way of viewing the world on its head because it goes against the core of what we take for granted. He is presented as God 'A' and Man not 'A' at the same time. I am not using this to try and prove that it is true, but it is understandable why we cannot make sense of it, whether its true or not true. If we are going to talk about Christianity then we must actually talk about what it is and this is what it is, not because I want it to be. Dismissing it as nonsense (even if you are right) is still only revealing the way you view the world from within your own governing Aristotelian logical frame of reference, which can only be right if there actually is no other way of viewing things out there and because you don't know any other way in which to view things.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dismissing it as nonsense (even if you are right) is still only revealing the way you view the world from within your own governing Aristotelian logical frame of reference, which can only be right if there actually is no other way of viewing things out there and because you don't know any other way in which to view things.

Hmmm.

So in order for it to be true, there would need to be another 'non-Aristotelian' frame of reference. But there is nothing to suggest there is another frame of reference. The fact that the Christian story only makes sense within a separate, hypothetical, frame of reference in no way supports the existence of said reference. Therefore we have to conclude that the Christian story simply doesn't make sense at all.

The world view we do have is applied to everything in everyday life. It is why planes fly, the internet works, doctors cure people etc. To suggest another view exists just to explain the plot holes in one of thousands of religions reeks of desperation.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm.

So in order for it to be true, there would need to be another 'non-Aristotelian' frame of reference. But there is nothing to suggest there is another frame of reference. The fact that the Christian story only makes sense within a separate, hypothetical, frame of reference in no way supports the existence of said reference. Therefore we have to conclude that the Christian story simply doesn't make sense at all.

The world view we do have is applied to everything in everyday life. It is why planes fly, the internet works, doctors cure people etc. To suggest another view exists just to explain the plot holes in one of thousands of religions reeks of desperation.

How do you explain the effect of such a nonsensical message to take hold as it has done in a world who's viewpoint is dominated by (if you’re right) the only frame of reference available to it? It requires power for that to happen. From whence came this power nonsensical and all that it may or may not be? The only way that someone can wriggle out of explaining it is to describe it as something akin to a viral infection on the body of humanity. Only those who do not accept it for what it is will run quickly to jump on that idea, and they normally hold fast to it too. But even our own common sense will tell us that we cannot simply dismiss it in that way. Christ came preaching love one another and even to love each other's enemies, to share each others burdens, to be charitable, to be kind one to another and don't judge others and all these good things, those traits are not attributable to disease or viral infections. Plus it is not a sectarian message, its offered to the whole body of humanity no matter what race you happen to born into. So how do you explain the power of such a message?

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

How do you explain the effect of such a nonsensical message to take hold as it has done in a world who's viewpoint is dominated by (if you’re right) the only frame of reference available to it? It requires power for that to happen. From whence came this power nonsensical and all that it may or may not be? The only way that someone can wriggle out of explaining it is to describe it as something akin to a viral infection on the body of humanity. Only those who do not accept it for what it is will run quickly to jump on that idea, and they normally hold fast to it too. But even our own common sense will tell us that we cannot simply dismiss it in that way. Christ came preaching love one another and even to love each other's enemies, to share each others burdens, to be charitable, to be kind one to another and don't judge others and all these good things, those traits are not attributable to disease or viral infections. Plus it is not a sectarian message, its offered to the whole body of humanity no matter what race you happen to born into. So how do you explain the power of such a message?

If you're talking about the memetic hypothesis the analogy of comparing memes to virus only applies to how they are spread. Memes can have both a good and a bad affect on society. If memes makes a society stronger which many attributes of Christianity do so, then the meme will survive and grow. This is all extremely hypothetical as no way to test the verifiability of the hypothesis has been yet proposed. It almost more philosophy than science.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

How do you explain the effect of such a nonsensical message to take hold as it has done in a world who's viewpoint is dominated by (if you’re right) the only frame of reference available to it?

Because people are willing to ignore inconsistencies in the Christian story because they like the nicely packaged Jesus message. They will also ignore the vain despot of the Old Testement who fathered Jesus. They don't bother themselves with logical flaws because they have what they need.

Let's face it the vast majority of Christians have never really given the whole original sin sacrifice thing a logical workout. And if they have - they've done something like you were doing a couple of posts ago!

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

If you're talking about the memetic hypothesis the analogy of comparing memes to virus only applies to how they are spread.

I wasn’t actually talking about that but anyway…

sink wrote: »

Memes can have both a good and a bad affect on society. If memes makes a society stronger which many attributes of Christianity do so, then the meme will survive and grow. This is all extremely hypothetical as no way to test the verifiability of the hypothesis has been yet proposed. It almost more philosophy than science.

Just like Christianity is more like Philosophy than a Science. But even if the effect of Jesus on the world can be explained by memetics then even memeticist will argue that it doesn't necessarily have to be beneficial to the host in question, which in this case would be mankind. I've yet to meet anyone atheist or otherwise who will say that what Jesus essentially told us to do (love your enemies, bare each other’s burden etc) will make the world a worse place to live in. Now some might argue that many evils have been done in the name of Christianity but that does not mean what Jesus tells us to do is evil, and as He is the founder of Christianity then those who do evil in His name will stand to account for their evil deeds (all be it in His name) when they come before Him in judgment. But it is actually Jesus who we are talking about here not His distant followers or the effect He might have on them. And even if memetics can be proven then how do we explain Jesus? We might be copiers of Him but who did He copy from?

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Because people are willing to ignore inconsistencies in the Christian story because they like the nicely packaged Jesus message.

But we were not talking about inconsistencies in the Christian story. We where talking about the general view of Jesus as he is presented to us in the story. There might be perceived inconsistencies on the surface in some of the stories within the larger story, but all accounts agree that Jesus was no ordinary man, so for this discussion at least it would be better to stick with what we are actually talking about instead dragging irrelevancies in that have nothing to do with it. But if you can find an inconsistency that bares any relevance to what we are discussing then I'd like to know it.

Dades wrote: »

They will also ignore the vain despot of the Old Testement who fathered Jesus. They don't bother themselves with logical flaws because they have what they need.

I'm not sure what you mean. How was He vain and how was He a despot? Surely being an all powerful being and not wanting any evil to be done He would have used all His power to make people adhere to His commands instead of letting them do whatever they wanted and then punishing them for it. That's what a despot would do if He had actually had all the power to do it.

Dades wrote: »

Let's face it the vast majority of Christians have never really given the whole original sin sacrifice thing a logical workout. And if they have - they've done something like you were doing a couple of posts ago!

I think we just might be going around in circles here.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just like Christianity is more like Philosophy than a Science. But even if the effect of Jesus on the world can be explained by memetics then even memeticist will argue that it doesn't necessarily have to be beneficial to the host in question, which in this case would be mankind. I've yet to meet anyone atheist or otherwise who will say that what Jesus essentially told us to do (love your enemies, bare each other’s burden etc) will make the world a worse place to live in. Now some might argue that many evils have been done in the name of Christianity but that does not mean what Jesus tells us to do is evil, and as He is the founder of Christianity then those who do evil in His name will stand to account for their evil deeds (all be it in His name) when they come before Him in judgment. But it is actually Jesus who we are talking about here not His distant followers or the effect He might have on them. And even if memetics can be proven then how do we explain Jesus? We might be copiers of Him but who did He copy from?

Christianity is no doubt a mythology not philosophy. I would agree that Christian and Islamic story of Jesus/Isa promotes ethical behaviour. There is also some inconclusive evidence that he really did exist however in my view he was definitely not divine and there is absolutely nothing beyond the bible to suggest that he was. Memetics does not argue against people having original thought, Jesus could well have being the originator of the Christian faith.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

But we were not talking about inconsistencies in the Christian story.

Really? That's what I assumed we had been talking about for the last page. That and this "alternative frame of reference" that is required to make sense of perceived bible inconsistencies.

Soul Winner wrote: »

We where talking about the general view of Jesus as he is presented to us in the story.

As far as I can see you only mentioned this in your last post (to me), and my response in fact alluded to my perceptions of the "general view of Jesus".

Soul Winner wrote: »

so for this discussion at least it would be better to stick with what we are actually talking about instead dragging irrelevancies in that have nothing to do with it. But if you can find an inconsistency that bares any relevance to what we are discussing then I'd like to know it.

Perhaps you'd better tell me what we are discussing as it appears to have changed unbeknownst to me.