What if Heaven is another test, and is similar to earth, with Heaven 2 being the next upgrade if you don't have any fun in Heaven 1. Then Heaven 3, 4, etc. with the whole thing being a test as to how sheepishly obedient God can make his followers for the hope of something better.
My problem with that is......... What rules is this "God" making people sheepishly obey?
OK., so Jesus is a meme (sorry SULLA & nethwen) but cut me some slack. Was Jesus a revolutionary? Greece doesn't seem that bad with hindsight, relatively. What have the Romans ever done for us? The meme was progressive at the time.
OK. If we accept Jesus didn't exist, as you assert, then it does not follow that Christianity is undermined,as you imply.
I'm suggesting that the idea of Christianity was progressive and revolutionary at the time of the Roman Empire.
oh i see...
hmmmm.... thats interesting and not something i obviously had considered.
i guess it has worked in some ways, christianity has been used to assist us become more civilised.
so in that respect its not undermined. but of course it does remove the giant carrot, the prize at the end of the rainbow, ie heaven.
OK. If we accept Jesus didn't exist, as you assert, then it does not follow that Christianity is undermined,as you imply.
I'm suggesting that the idea of Christianity was progressive and revolutionary at the time of the Roman Empire.
Indeed I have frequently proffered the view that Christian values should be taken or left on the basis of their intrinsic value. The actual existence of Christ is irrelevant.
Unless one thinks he is the son of a god of course. If what he said (or for that matter what he is claimed to have said) is significant then it is significant regardless. If not then his parenthood makes no difference.
In my view some of his reported saying are very worth consideration some are just nonsense.
theres no written, contemporary account of any such person. surely a revolutionary would have got more attention at the time then revisionary later texts.
Are you expecting copies of the Jerusalem Express?
at the time, yes, theres NO evidence from any contemporary scource that he existed.
There is more written evidence about Jesus than most people of his time.
why is that 'more balanced'?... the link i posted merely highlighted the truth... the truth is that there are no contemporary writing that mention jesus. thats not 'unbalanced', its what the facts are telling us.
I prefer my link which refers to the views of real serious historians.
lol..yes ive read that.... and its all hot air, its a link that shows the theorising about jesus, but its all based on biased pauls later writings, the guy who did quite well out of spreading this story many years after his supposed existance. you call that 'balanced' when it clearly isnt as it doesnt take into account the lack of jesus in contemporary writings.
You forgot to mention that nobody pretended that Jesus didn't exist
if you want balanced, unbiased, look at what the facts say.... but you wont like that, because the unbiased balanced facts are that there is NO mention of jesus from the contemporary writers of the time. these people werent anti jesus, why should they be? they dont argue against jesus/christians, they simply dont mention him.
Most of what we know about Julius Caesar was written by Caesar. THere vis little other contempory accounts.
therefore he was either such a minor character that couldnt have had this massive following.... or he did never exist.
Jesus was a minor character in his lifetime.
The prophet Isaiah said he would not be noticed
53:1 Who would have believed1 what we just heard?
When was the Lord’s power revealed through him?
53:2 He sprouted up like a twig before God,
like a root out of parched soil;7
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention,
no special appearance that we should want to follow him.
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people,
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness;
people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.
youre right, that is fascinating, its fascinating that theres more hard evidence for paul then there is jesus. id suggest thats not a good thing for believers.
id happily accept that jesus (as a person) existed if there are contemporary accounts. of course that doesnt mean he was a supernatural being who performed magic, however id accept even the miracles if there was enough contemporary accounts by eye witnesses.
of course i know believers will bury their heads in the sand, theyll ignore or make some feeble excuses for the missing contemporary testimonies. if they are willing to believe unsubstantiated supernatural events took place, then believing this guy for who theres no evidence, isnt hard to do.
but they cannot accept, no matter what evidence is placed before them, that jesus didnt exist. because that would completely destroy the whole religion, make them out to be deluded fools who cannot imagine for one moment that they might be completely wrong. it would change their lives possibly more then a berivement would. .... and i can understand that. however it doesnt change the facts, the truth.
Indeed I have frequently proffered the view that Christian values should be taken or left on the basis of their intrinsic value. The actual existence of Christ is irrelevant.
Unless one thinks he is the son of a god of course. If what he said (or for that matter what he is claimed to have said) is significant then it is significant regardless. If not then his parenthood makes no difference.
In my view some of his reported saying are very worth consideration some are just nonsense.
youre right, that is fascinating, its fascinating that theres more hard evidence for paul then there is jesus. id suggest thats not a good thing for believers.
Paul is known to history solely because he became a Christian.
Indeed I have frequently proffered the view that Christian values should be taken or left on the basis of their intrinsic value. The actual existence of Christ is irrelevant.
That's where I was heading.
Is the existence of God relevant if we evaluate a religion based on its intrinsic value?
Some of our hardline atheist chums seem to spend their time on the irrelevant existence aspect rather than the values a religion represents!
Let me know your thoughts once you've had a read around.
So I've just finished Michael Ruse's 'The Gaia Hypothesis - Science on a Pagan Planet'. He's keen to explore why scientists disliked Gaia and the public loved it and sets it into a historic context of both scientific, pseudo-scientific and religious thought. That leads to a certain amount of contrivance (e.g. he knows he's going to suggest a Steiner influence on Lovelock so he makes sure he gives Steiner some prominence in his historical context). He also probably gives Dawkins too much airtime as a main Gaia opponent - but maybe that is justified.
Overall I think I was left with a better understanding of Gaia and the objections to it and I think I probably felt justified in my original, uneducated, opinion that belief in a hypothesis like Gaia is a good thing if that belief leads to a more positive approach to caring for the world we live in. That is not a purely scientific approach, of course, but then I would contend that science, on it's own, does not imply any particular attitude to the world we live in - morality, self-preservation, common sense, whatever you choose to call it, comes from outside the realm of science.
Anyway. A few points that stuck with me for anyone not familiar:
Ruse depicts Gaia as the brain child of Lovelock and Margulis.
He paints Lovelock as an accomplished mechanistic, reductionist scientist who discovered feedback mechanisms in the biosphere, but maybe wouldn't have launched the idea of the world as an organism unless encouraged to do so by his village friend Golding (who was influenced by Steiner). Margulis always preferred the term ecosystem anyway.
The worst criticisms of Gaia came from neo-Darwinists who objected to the world being regarded as an organism, on the grounds that organisms are defined by having evolved via natural selection, and that the homeostasis Lovelock hypothesised implied a teleological factor in nature that could not possibly exist. Lovelock denied he meant that kind of organism and denied any teleology.
Margulis, interestingly, always found neo-Darwnism an incomplete theory anyway - and spent much of her research investigating symbiosis as an alternative explanation for evolution.
Remaining interests for me will be keeping an eye out for any explanation of the apparent homeostasis we see around us (or whether it is really just accidental or illusory). Also symbiosis as an evolutionary mechanism seems interesting.
As an aside, I must mention that the book reveals scientists to have ordinary human failings - peer review can encourage conservative research as can the concentration of funding of 'safe' ideas.
No
Are you expecting copies of the Jerusalem Express?
There is more written evidence about Jesus than most people of his time.
I prefer my link which refers to the views of real serious historians.
You forgot to mention that nobody pretended that Jesus didn't exist
Most of what we know about Julius Caesar was written by Caesar. THere vis little other contempory accounts. Jesus was a minor character in his lifetime.
The prophet Isaiah said he would not be noticed
53:1 Who would have believed1 what we just heard?
When was the Lord’s power revealed through him?
53:2 He sprouted up like a twig before God,
like a root out of parched soil;7
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention,
no special appearance that we should want to follow him.
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people,
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness;
people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.
Tell me about the hard evidence for Paul
Jesus said that he had come to fulfill the OT law.
Let's say Jesus did exist.
Do you agree he was a cult leader?
Most cult leaders of a specific religion claim to be fulfilling some prophecy of that religion (Jesus is to Judaism as Vissarion is to Christianity). Most cult followers believe without any evidence that their cult leader performs miracles, is godly in character.
Is it possible, in your opinion, that Jesus was merely another cult leader, of which we have had many, and there is in fact nothing special about him?
Would you agree that this is a perfectly logical conclusion?
Well when he is reported to have claimed to have existed before Abraham and to be God. Does not stop me recognising the interesting and wise things he is reported to have said however.
e.g.
‘A new command I give you: love one another'.
No knocking that; neither would I, whoever said it.
I suspect that most of our religious chums will insist that God is the most important bit.
Exactly. I covered this point earlier when I offered the view that when a religious person says 'I believe' they are not, primarily, addressing the question of ontological existence, but rather the question of religious practices leading to personal change.
But neither Nettie nor IOT supported that view.
And when I have asked, in the past, how much historicity is actually necessary to underpin belief, I think mainstream Christians feel I am not asking a question, but attacking their basic faith.
Most of the values religion represents have been completely outdone by secularism.
That's why I was very careful to say it was progressive at the time of the Roman Empire. Secularism is part of a historical process, for example the reformation opened the doors to seeing science as other than heresy, so in that respect it too was progressive at the time, to the extent that without it would we have secularism today?
Well when he is reported to have claimed to have existed before Abraham and to be God. Does not stop me recognising the interesting and wise things he is reported to have said however.
e.g.
‘A new command I give you: love one another'.
No knocking that; neither would I, whoever said it.
Based on the definition of a cult, no I wouldn't. It was not a cult during his time on earth. The only procedure he initiated was the communion and this was supposed to be a simple thing.
Most cult leaders of a specific religion claim to be fulfilling some prophecy of that religion (Jesus is to Judaism as Vissarion is to Christianity). Most cult followers believe without any evidence that their cult leader performs miracles, is godly in character.
I may be wrong but according to what is written in the gospels, Jesus never actually claimed to be fulfilling any prophecies.
Is it possible, in your opinion, that Jesus was merely another cult leader, of which we have had many, and there is in fact nothing special about him?
Obviously not
Would you agree that this is a perfectly logical conclusion?
What will God do after The Heat Death of the Universe in around 10 to the power of 1000 to the power of 76 years?
For 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (and far, far, far more) % of Time before then He will have absolutely nothing to do.
Comments
My problem with that is......... What rules is this "God" making people sheepishly obey?
sorry, but i still dont understand your question.
OK. If we accept Jesus didn't exist, as you assert, then it does not follow that Christianity is undermined,as you imply.
I'm suggesting that the idea of Christianity was progressive and revolutionary at the time of the Roman Empire.
9,000+ posts and it's simply amazing that to say so hasn't occurred to anyone yet.
Welcome to the thread. ;-)
A mind parasite.
oh i see...
hmmmm.... thats interesting and not something i obviously had considered.
i guess it has worked in some ways, christianity has been used to assist us become more civilised.
so in that respect its not undermined. but of course it does remove the giant carrot, the prize at the end of the rainbow, ie heaven.
Indeed I have frequently proffered the view that Christian values should be taken or left on the basis of their intrinsic value. The actual existence of Christ is irrelevant.
Unless one thinks he is the son of a god of course. If what he said (or for that matter what he is claimed to have said) is significant then it is significant regardless. If not then his parenthood makes no difference.
In my view some of his reported saying are very worth consideration some are just nonsense.
No Are you expecting copies of the Jerusalem Express? There is more written evidence about Jesus than most people of his time. I prefer my link which refers to the views of real serious historians. You forgot to mention that nobody pretended that Jesus didn't exist Most of what we know about Julius Caesar was written by Caesar. THere vis little other contempory accounts. Jesus was a minor character in his lifetime.
The prophet Isaiah said he would not be noticed
53:1 Who would have believed1 what we just heard?
When was the Lord’s power revealed through him?
53:2 He sprouted up like a twig before God,
like a root out of parched soil;7
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention,
no special appearance that we should want to follow him.
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people,
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness;
people hid their faces from him;
he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.
Tell me about the hard evidence for Paul
Jesus said that he had come to fulfill the OT law.
Such as what?
Paul is known to history solely because he became a Christian.
That's where I was heading.
Is the existence of God relevant if we evaluate a religion based on its intrinsic value?
Some of our hardline atheist chums
So I've just finished Michael Ruse's 'The Gaia Hypothesis - Science on a Pagan Planet'. He's keen to explore why scientists disliked Gaia and the public loved it and sets it into a historic context of both scientific, pseudo-scientific and religious thought. That leads to a certain amount of contrivance (e.g. he knows he's going to suggest a Steiner influence on Lovelock so he makes sure he gives Steiner some prominence in his historical context). He also probably gives Dawkins too much airtime as a main Gaia opponent - but maybe that is justified.
Overall I think I was left with a better understanding of Gaia and the objections to it and I think I probably felt justified in my original, uneducated, opinion that belief in a hypothesis like Gaia is a good thing if that belief leads to a more positive approach to caring for the world we live in. That is not a purely scientific approach, of course, but then I would contend that science, on it's own, does not imply any particular attitude to the world we live in - morality, self-preservation, common sense, whatever you choose to call it, comes from outside the realm of science.
Anyway. A few points that stuck with me for anyone not familiar:
Ruse depicts Gaia as the brain child of Lovelock and Margulis.
He paints Lovelock as an accomplished mechanistic, reductionist scientist who discovered feedback mechanisms in the biosphere, but maybe wouldn't have launched the idea of the world as an organism unless encouraged to do so by his village friend Golding (who was influenced by Steiner). Margulis always preferred the term ecosystem anyway.
The worst criticisms of Gaia came from neo-Darwinists who objected to the world being regarded as an organism, on the grounds that organisms are defined by having evolved via natural selection, and that the homeostasis Lovelock hypothesised implied a teleological factor in nature that could not possibly exist. Lovelock denied he meant that kind of organism and denied any teleology.
Margulis, interestingly, always found neo-Darwnism an incomplete theory anyway - and spent much of her research investigating symbiosis as an alternative explanation for evolution.
Remaining interests for me will be keeping an eye out for any explanation of the apparent homeostasis we see around us (or whether it is really just accidental or illusory). Also symbiosis as an evolutionary mechanism seems interesting.
As an aside, I must mention that the book reveals scientists to have ordinary human failings - peer review can encourage conservative research as can the concentration of funding of 'safe' ideas.
Let's say Jesus did exist.
Do you agree he was a cult leader?
Most cult leaders of a specific religion claim to be fulfilling some prophecy of that religion (Jesus is to Judaism as Vissarion is to Christianity). Most cult followers believe without any evidence that their cult leader performs miracles, is godly in character.
Is it possible, in your opinion, that Jesus was merely another cult leader, of which we have had many, and there is in fact nothing special about him?
Would you agree that this is a perfectly logical conclusion?
Most of the values religion represents have been completely outdone by secularism.
Religion gave us the crusades, witch hunts, etc. Religion still preaches sex outside marriage is a sin, homosexuality is a sin, etc.
Well when he is reported to have claimed to have existed before Abraham and to be God. Does not stop me recognising the interesting and wise things he is reported to have said however.
e.g.
‘A new command I give you: love one another'.
No knocking that; neither would I, whoever said it.
I suspect that most of our religious chums will insist that God is the most important bit.
Exactly. I covered this point earlier when I offered the view that when a religious person says 'I believe' they are not, primarily, addressing the question of ontological existence, but rather the question of religious practices leading to personal change.
But neither Nettie nor IOT supported that view.
And when I have asked, in the past, how much historicity is actually necessary to underpin belief, I think mainstream Christians feel I am not asking a question, but attacking their basic faith.
Not to mention endorsing child marriage.
That's why I was very careful to say it was progressive at the time of the Roman Empire. Secularism is part of a historical process, for example the reformation opened the doors to seeing science as other than heresy, so in that respect it too was progressive at the time, to the extent that without it would we have secularism today?
I don't think he ever claimed to be God.
I have been doing so for years Based on the definition of a cult, no I wouldn't. It was not a cult during his time on earth. The only procedure he initiated was the communion and this was supposed to be a simple thing. I may be wrong but according to what is written in the gospels, Jesus never actually claimed to be fulfilling any prophecies. Obviously not I wouldn't agree.
For 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (and far, far, far more) % of Time before then He will have absolutely nothing to do.