DS Forums

 
 

Getting to Heaven


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 11:10
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
The trouble with these studies is , well we all know what the trouble is. They're the equivilent of mascots wheeled out at soccer games. Who cares.
It would be interesting to see what other human qualities decrease with analytical thinking, especially when it's dependent on the rules that analytical thinking is predicated on.
Why is one interesting and not the other?

By the way, I certainly don't think - necessarily - that a belief in God would conclude a result as the studies suggest. Not at all.

I think being taught an organised religion, filled with a back story full of implausibilities (and impossibilities) as if it is indisputable truth would, however. I think the same result would happen if you taught any child that false-science was true. Teach a kid that the Earth is flat, and that is the absolute truth, and they will believe it. Such beliefs are difficult to shake off without a major change in thinking.

Now, sure, for the adults who go about the business Ken Hamming it, it isn't a big deal. But it is for children who deserve an education. If you are essentially corrupting their future potential by doing this - then, yes, I would argue that is HIGHLY unethical.

If it's someone who has their own beliefs and encourages an 'open mind' to all things spiritual to their offspring - that's different. But unfortunately, when it comes to being devout, this is often not the case.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old Yesterday, 11:12
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
I could, yeah, but as it's already been stated, there was religion before Jesus came along, so what's so special about him?

People have been known to sacrifice their life for others throughout history, even today it no doubt happens. There's no mystery in that though, and there certainly isn't a religion for each individual.

Why suggest I read a gospel when you know I wont, and you presumably have? Wouldn't it save us all a lot of bother if you simply answered the question?

Perhaps he was a self taught doctor that walked on puddles.

Regarding the miracles performed by Jesus; is that any different from any of us going to a magic show, really? Most of us go to a magic show, or witness a magic trick with no idea how it's done; we're in awe. We don't however think it's a miracle. Magicians are simply people that have learnt skills to fool/entertain the public, and presumably similar people existed some 2000 years ago, though they may have had different methods of entertaining. Maybe that's all Jesus was; a street performer.
Except that you have no evidence for your personal opinion that Jesus was a con artist. People who are deceivers have various personality traits that go along with that. Everything we know about Jesus says otherwise.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:18
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
Maybe the C of E has changed but when I was a regular church goer the norm was not to believe that miracles were literal truth. Rather we were encouraged to regard them as allegory and to consider the literal acts of human compassion that underlay the story (e.g. feeding of the five thousand).

I actually felt this went a bit too far - especially since the resurrection itself was not up for debate - belief in it's literal truth was the cornerstone of faith.

Similarly, no-one was taught that the narrative sequence was historically accurate - we were encouraged to understand that it was written that way to demonstrate Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy.

Christians do understand the issues. It's a multi-dimensional affair though.
But if it's metaphorical - fine. Metaphorical can be understood. As I outlined to fastzombie above, it's when it's positioned as truth - and people come up with any old tosh to say how it's possible.

I had a few years of Anglican High Schooling, and to be honest, the Chaplains weren't up to much. I'm not sure they even knew half of what they preached - it was just regurgitated.

I know a few Christians who are take the Bible as being entirely non-literal, even as far as to disregard the Bible entirely and just focus on the theism and their ideas of what Jesus would do (which is usually entirely different to what most mainstream Christian faiths believe - funny that); I guess rendering the Bible on the same level as Aesop's Fables. Quite a nice way to be I think. I feel the same about Winnie the Pooh (seriously!).
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:24
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
People have been known to sacrifice their life for others throughout history, even today it no doubt happens. There's no mystery in that though, and there certainly isn't a religion for each individual.
No doubt? There's a load of silly ***** blowing themselves (and other people) up because they've been hoodwinked into believing it's some kind of liberation for their people!!
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:24
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
I hope we don't have to re-visit those studies about religious belief that we're already cited for their flaws, and misrepresented by others as finding something that wasn't found.
It's AMAZING how you dismiss studies based on their flaws, but not historical accounts. Well and truly amazing.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:26
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
Except that you have no evidence for your personal opinion that Jesus was a con artist. People who are deceivers! have various personality traits that go along with that. Everything we know about Jesus says otherwise.
Things we KNOW about Jesus:

(Nothing)

Things the majority of historians (legitimate ones, not theologians) can agree about Jesus:

- (a) Jesus was born*
- (a) Jesus was crucified*

* Details of which are debated
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:42
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,273
Where did he say that? It seems that early Christians did not think he was born divine, but 'exalted' during his lifetime.

I don't go with the idea that things were 'put into his mouth' as a conscious effort, rather than, teachings get interpreted in different ways. Then Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew words have different translations.

There are other religions in which we are all born from spirit and return to spirit. Or the divine is in us.
This is the way it seems to me:

Universal mind = god = Father
Our whole mind = Son
Agency (communication) between the two = Holy Spirit
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:59
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
This is the way it seems to me:

Universal mind = god = Father
Our whole mind = Son
Agency (communication) between the two = Holy Spirit
Thanks.

If Jesus taught that the realm of God was within, then surely it's in all of us, or we are in it.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:38
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
I wasn't referring to organized religion, but to what Jesus said.

And was explaining that the Trinity was an effort by the church to reconcile Jesus as human and spirit. Or to reconcile what was beyond their understanding.

It doesn't mean Jesus preached the Trinity (as he did not). I pointed out he said that his disciples would do greater things than he did. So you don't have to be God to do those things.

There is a lot of evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Doesn't dim belief for me to think of him as that.

Edit: Your linked quote about the father, the son and the Holy Spirit does not say that Jesus was the 'same as' God. He says other places in the Bible that only God knows, not he.
I'm quite keen on the historical Jesus - what he is likely to have actually said for real.

But, when you dive into it you may lose more than you bargained for (the sermon on the mount starts looking a bit shaky for instance). At some point I think we all have to accept that we are choosing to accept some myth as the focus of faith.

It's a bit similar to the Hinayana Mahayana division in Buddhism - the striving for historical authenticity is a noble cause - but you do risk losing the baby with the bathwater.

But if it's metaphorical - fine. Metaphorical can be understood. As I outlined to fastzombie above, it's when it's positioned as truth - and people come up with any old tosh to say how it's possible.

I had a few years of Anglican High Schooling, and to be honest, the Chaplains weren't up to much. I'm not sure they even knew half of what they preached - it was just regurgitated.

I know a few Christians who are take the Bible as being entirely non-literal, even as far as to disregard the Bible entirely and just focus on the theism and their ideas of what Jesus would do (which is usually entirely different to what most mainstream Christian faiths believe - funny that); I guess rendering the Bible on the same level as Aesop's Fables. Quite a nice way to be I think. I feel the same about Winnie the Pooh (seriously!).
So you should! I'm all for inspiration where we do find it, not limited to predefined ideas about where we should find it.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:51
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
Except that you have no evidence for your personal opinion that Jesus was a con artist. People who are deceivers have various personality traits that go along with that. Everything we know about Jesus says otherwise.
I was going to write a more thorough reply to this, but I think noodkleopatra has pretty much nailed it with his post.

Your personal opinion has no more evidence behind it than mine. The Bible is not proof that Jesus did all the things he was claimed to have done. Anything that did take place back then was quite likely passed around by word of mouth, and we all know how chinese whispers work; by the end, you've got a completely different story.

No doubt? There's a load of silly ***** blowing themselves (and other people) up because they've been hoodwinked into believing it's some kind of liberation for their people!!
I was more refering to the parents that would put themselves in harms way for their children, or other people that would shield their friends (or strangers) from an attack. Not the idiots blowing themselves up!

Things we KNOW about Jesus:

(Nothing)

Things the majority of historians (legitimate ones, not theologians) can agree about Jesus:

- (a) Jesus was born*
- (a) Jesus was crucified*

* Details of which are debated
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:58
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
I'm quite keen on the historical Jesus - what he is likely to have actually said for real.

But, when you dive into it you may lose more than you bargained for (the sermon on the mount starts looking a bit shaky for instance). At some point I think we all have to accept that we are choosing to accept some myth as the focus of faith.

It's a bit similar to the Hinayana Mahayana division in Buddhism - the striving for historical authenticity is a noble cause - but you do risk losing the baby with the bathwater.



So you should! I'm all for inspiration where we do find it, not limited to predefined ideas about where we should find it.
You need to say what you mean by the sermon on the mount looking shaky, for me to understand it. Or even the some myth.

I think Buddhism analogy doesn't fit here as Buddhism just doesn't concern itself with why or how of a lot of things. But for most Christians they aren't going to be okay with Jesus as a myth.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:02
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
I was going to write a more thorough reply to this, but I think noodkleopatra has pretty much nailed it with his post.

Your personal opinion has no more evidence behind it than mine. The Bible is not proof that Jesus did all the things he was claimed to have done. Anything that did take place back then was quite likely passed around by word of mouth, and we all know how chinese whispers work; by the end, you've got a completely different story.

D
Except that I never said the Bible is proof that Jesus did all those things.

What I said was that your implying Jesus was a con artist is internally inconsistent with anything we know about his personality or anything recorded.

Yes you can make allegations about anyone. Doesn't mean they're true. Can just be mischief.

I'm basing my opinion on the research. I think that's the right thing to do.

Noodkle didn't nail it at all as he missed a number of things schokars can reasonably conclude about Jesus.

To add noodkle hasn't given sources for the claim of just 2 things. I don't know any credible scholar who would limit it to 2.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:13
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
Noodkle hasn't got it wrong - it's simply fact. There are only two things that the majority of historian's agree on.

Bollywood may THINK they've concluded more, and theologians may BELIEVE they have, but that's simply not true.

Just because Bolly subscribes to a couple of theologians who shares her viewpoint, does not mean that "history" has made those conclusions.

It's really that simple, and not hard to understand.

Perhaps things are taught differently at the seminary.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:14
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
Except that I never said the Bible is proof that Jesus did all those things.
True, though it seemed as thought you were implying.

What I said was that your implying Jesus was a con artist is internally inconsistent with anything we know about his personality or anything recorded.
But we don't actually know much, do we? We can assume, or choose to believe, but we don't know, not for certain.

I'm basing my opinion on the research.
I don't personally believe religious articles to be research; more the work of fiction. I'd be curious to know what sources you're using; if historical, then fair enough, but if religious, there's no decisive truth in that.

Noodkle didn't nail it at all as he missed a number of things we can reasonably conclude about Jesus.
Do feel free to list all of those that he missed. Lets take a look at the cold hard facts, shall we? Or at least the credible facts; they're a good place to start.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:18
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
True, though it seemed as thought you were implying.

But we don't actually know much, do we? We can assume, or choose to believe, but we don't know, not for certain.

I don't personally believe religious articles to be research; more the work of fiction. I'd be curious to know what sources you're using; if historical, then fair enough, but if religious, there's no decisive truth in that.

Do feel free to list all of those that he missed. Lets take a look at the cold hard facts, shall we? Or at least the credible facts; they're a good place to start.
What do you mean by religious articles? Scholars, even atheists, do research not write religious articles.

There are no facts, There's just where the preponderance of evidence leads us.

You should read over the posts that mention the scholars.

Did you ask Noodkle to link to his evidence? I don't know any credible scholar who would say we only know that Jesus was born and died.

How about facts that show Jesus liked to fool people?

Ann Levine:

"Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE). "
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:29
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
You need to say what you mean by the sermon on the mount looking shaky, for me to understand it. Or even the some myth.

I think Buddhism analogy doesn't fit here as Buddhism just doesn't concern itself with why or how of a lot of things. But for most Christians they aren't going to be okay with Jesus as a myth.
I don't think I'm saying anything particularly strange. If you look at the historical authenticity of the sermon on the mount, it is unlikely that Jesus actually said it all. It is clear that some of the sermon, even if said by Jesus, did not originate with him, and it is also unlikely to have been delivered as a single sermon. (Have a look at Vermes as the first link I found from a straightforward google search.)

The point being that most Christians will happily read the sermon on the mount and imagine it to have been delivered as a single, powerful, speech, when, historically, they know this is not the case. It's more inspiring to imagine Jesus delivering it all in one speech than to dissect each bit for authenticity.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:40
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
I don't think I'm saying anything particularly strange. If you look at the historical authenticity of the sermon on the mount, it is unlikely that Jesus actually said it all. It is clear that some of the sermon, even if said by Jesus, did not originate with him, and it is also unlikely to have been delivered as a single sermon. (Have a look at Vermes as the first link I found from a straightforward google search.)

The point being that most Christians will happily read the sermon on the mount and imagine it to have been delivered as a single, powerful, speech, when, historically, they know this is not the case. It's more inspiring to imagine Jesus delivering it all in one speech than to dissect each bit for authenticity.
Isn't Geza Vermes the scholar who said Jesus should be regarded as a 1st Century Jew. I've no argument with that. Ehrman says the same.

You may think I'm saying something I'm not.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:34
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
"jesus the Essene'' is tired old yawn inducing stuff. He probably wasn't. This is one reason that ''q'' is important .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:22
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,031

Why suggest I read a gospel when you know I wont, and you presumably have? Wouldn't it save us all a lot of bother if you simply answered the question?
Wouldn't it help you if you knew what you were ignoring ?
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:54
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
What do you mean by religious articles? Scholars, even atheists, do research not write religious articles.
Religious Articles are anything that was (supposedly) written during, or after Jesus, about anything to do with Jesus or religion.

There are no facts, There's just where the preponderance of evidence leads us.
You're right, no facts. I guess if there were we'd all have the same view.

You should read over the posts that mention the scholars.
Why?

Did you ask Noodkle to link to his evidence? I don't know any credible scholar who would say we only know that Jesus was born and died.
I didn't need to ask him, as I don't need evidence for that. The likelihood of a man, named Jesus, being born, living, and being crucified some 2000 years ago very much seems plausible to me. It's the alleged miracles that I'm calling bullshit on.

Wouldn't it help you if you knew what you were ignoring ?
Your sentence doesn't quite read right. Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, I'm ignoring fiction. Doesn't mean to say I don't take some interest in it though if others wish to discuss it; that's what I'm doing here.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 16:07
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
Isn't Geza Vermes the scholar who said Jesus should be regarded as a 1st Century Jew. I've no argument with that. Ehrman says the same.

You may think I'm saying something I'm not.
Yes - maybe. I was happy to pick Vermes because I suspected he was closer to your position anyway.

I guess I've never really bottomed out your particular beliefs and faith. Do you, for instance, believe that the historical Jesus taught that he was to die to save the sins of all mankind?

Or, less contentiously perhaps, do you believe the historical Jesus actively and knowingly inaugurated the sacrament?
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 16:22
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
True, though it seemed as thought you were implying.

But we don't actually know much, do we? We can assume, or choose to believe, but we don't know, not for certain.

I don't personally believe religious articles to be research; more the work of fiction. I'd be curious to know what sources you're using; if historical, then fair enough, but if religious, there's no decisive truth in that.

Do feel free to list all of those that he missed. Lets take a look at the cold hard facts, shall we? Or at least the credible facts; they're a good place to start.
We've had this debate before and, while I am personally convinced that Jesus existed and that there are many things we can conclude about his life and works, it does us no service to dismiss out of hand claims that Jesus did not exist at all.

Bolly seems to be a fan of Bart Ehrman - who is fairly dismissive of claims that Jesus did not exist. To be even handed, I would offer someone like Philip Davies (professor at Sheffield) who takes the view that some recognition that Jesus' existence is not entirely certain would give Jesus scholarship more academic respectability.

But ... and it's a big but.... to seize on that 'not entirely certain' simply as an excuse to dismiss the Christian faith has no academic merit either. All kinds of heads can be in all kinds of sands - and sand is not the medium of choice for communication.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:09
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
We've had this debate before and, while I am personally convinced that Jesus existed and that there are many things we can conclude about his life and works, it does us no service to dismiss out of hand claims that Jesus did not exist at all.

Bolly seems to be a fan of Bart Ehrman - who is fairly dismissive of claims that Jesus did not exist. To be even handed, I would offer someone like Philip Davies (professor at Sheffield) who takes the view that some recognition that Jesus' existence is not entirely certain would give Jesus scholarship more academic respectability.

But ... and it's a big but.... to seize on that 'not entirely certain' simply as an excuse to dismiss the Christian faith has no academic merit either. All kinds of heads can be in all kinds of sands - and sand is not the medium of choice for communication.
Davies admits there is a lot of secondary evidence for Jesus, but he hasn't trawled through it. There are writings within a year or two of his life.

Paul knew Peter, Jesus' closet disciple. We'd have to conclude that Paul was lying about that or about what he knew from him.

I don't think it's a 50/50 thing that he did or didn't exist. Rather much more probable he did, than not.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:16
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
Yes - maybe. I was happy to pick Vermes because I suspected he was closer to your position anyway.

I guess I've never really bottomed out your particular beliefs and faith. Do you, for instance, believe that the historical Jesus taught that he was to die to save the sins of all mankind?

Or, less contentiously perhaps, do you believe the historical Jesus actively and knowingly inaugurated the sacrament?

I don't think of Jesus as dying 'for' human sins (doesn't seem like a plan God would have) but 'because of' their sins. I can relate to the apocalyptic, 'end times are coming' Jesus that Ehrman writes about.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:17
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
I didn't need to ask him, as I don't need evidence for that. The likelihood of a man, named Jesus, being born, living, and being crucified some 2000 years ago very much seems plausible to me. It's the alleged miracles that I'm calling bullshit on.
We've had this debate before and, while I am personally convinced that Jesus existed and that there are many things we can conclude about his life and works, it does us no service to dismiss out of hand claims that Jesus did not exist at all.

But ... and it's a big but.... to seize on that 'not entirely certain' simply as an excuse to dismiss the Christian faith has no academic merit either. All kinds of heads can be in all kinds of sands - and sand is not the medium of choice for communication.
As you missed it.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:34.