|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 23:45:25 GMT -5
Oh that's right .... the gospel accounts were cherry-picked to present a Jesus favorable of the RCC. Except in so many ways it isn't. Explain this. When you get that many hours of credit in what you keep talking about, maybe YOU could "Explain" it for yourself!
You can't expect everyone else to do your research for you!
...Oh that's right. The gospel accounts were cherry-picked to present a Jesus favorable of the RCC. Except in so many ways it isn't. Explain this
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 23:47:16 GMT -5
No the guys I work with believe they are atheists and I guess they're about as real as they get.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 2, 2013 0:31:54 GMT -5
I worked hard for it. To date 49 credit hours of history and 15 credit hours in Christian History/Scriptures. Afraid I'll never catch up with you. Oh that's right .... the gospel accounts were cherry-picked to present a Jesus favorable of the RCC. Except in so many ways it isn't. Explain this. For you?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 2, 2013 1:28:43 GMT -5
No the guys I work with believe they are atheists and I guess they're about as real as they get. Not really, I'm always hearing people say they are atheist, but when you ask them some questions about atheism, they haven't a clue.
They have never really researched anything about atheism, or religion, for that matter.
A bit like you, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2013 1:38:33 GMT -5
I believe that the laws of nature direct reality. When I drop something it is accelerated toward the center of the earth, exactly as predicted. When cells are deprived of oxygen they die. Exactly as predicted. What can you predict that isn't local or short-term in scope? Relatively little with any degree of certainty. In in approximately 5.4 billion years and start to turn into a red giant. Seems long term to me and follows all known laws of nature. Is the sun local? There are several predictions of the formation of black holes that are hundreds of light years away. Are then too close? Nope but then, they are verifiable rather than belief based points of reference. You believe in eternal things. Remember that it is your belief and you cannot present any material or logical support.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2013 10:53:51 GMT -5
[quote author=" Lee" source="/post/559677/thread" timestamp="1385698342" Atheists teach that cause and effect is all that might be known or observed in the way of a formative agency.[/quote]Some atheists I know have demonstrated that there is not always a cause for things that happen. In fact, unless I am mistaken the cosmological argument put forth by theists is all about cause and effect. All about the first cause.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 2, 2013 13:16:18 GMT -5
Yes, which was exactly what Jesus was so upset about with the temple priests. He didn't feel they should charge for their ritual purifications, healings etc. He felt that was very wrong and he wanted them out of there and replaced by priests that were not corrupt. The Sanhedrin were very corrupt and in alliance with the Romans. They charged huge money for their 'services'. Jesus apparently healed for free, unlike many of the Messiahs wandering around the country at the same time as him. But you said he was prosecuted for sedition like the next criminal. Remember? Yes, Rome saw him as threatening because he was gathering many followers that would have possibly become large enough to cause problems for the Romans. They liked to get rid of the ones inciting the others towards revolting against the Roman rule. If you would just read some history other than the bible, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You'd know more about what was happening when Jesus was alive.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 2, 2013 13:17:33 GMT -5
Well then Rome has a lot of dead innocents on their record. Not just in Palestine. They never got to be the huge Empire they were by letting the people they defeated revolt against them. So who's side are you on? Obviously neither Rome nor the innocent man. Why do I need to be on anybody's side? I am only relating what happened, not what I felt about what happened.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 2, 2013 13:20:28 GMT -5
Nothing, just letting people know what the history of that time was. You don't want to read, you've told me that before. I believe I said I'm not widely read and I've joked about being a bigot by preference. So, don't be surprised if there are some things that you don't know. Lots I don't know too, but that's why I continue reading. Learning more is important to me. Publications about history and modernity spin this way and that. Ultimate ideas precede facts and not the other way around. Know that what you hold true for the Bible, *that it was spun around this need and that need or this vice and that*, holds true for everything else you will ever read. I would say that is only partially true. There are authors that just relate history based on historical records etc. They don't have the need to put a spin on it in that situation. I totally understand why the early gospel writers needed to write like they did. It was important to their survival in a roman environment. They were a product of the times.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2013 15:04:35 GMT -5
I believe I said I'm not widely read and I've joked about being a bigot by preference. I didn't see it as a joke.Yes they do and the bible clearly demonstrates that in many places.This is simply false. At times there are ideas and then the facts are found to support the theory but more often there are facts that do not fit into the current theories and, upon investigation, new theories (ideas) are formulated that coincide with the facts. For example there was the Ptolemaic system of the movement of the solar system which preceded the facts but was proved to be incorrect. These facts, reproducible and testable, spelled the end of the Ptolemaic system. There were the data discovered regarding the structure of atoms that preceded the ideas/theories by decades. You can make all of the declarations you wish but so far your backup for these declarations has been glaringly absent.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 3, 2013 2:04:29 GMT -5
I got the book, Zealot, today. Looks interesting. Thanks, snow, for the recommendation.
BTW, I just put Dawkin's book The God Delusion for sell on Amazon today.
Also one by Marcus J. Borg, Jesus a New Vision.
I don't know much about Borg or the book, -just ran across it at a sale & got it to put on my book store.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2013 8:10:12 GMT -5
I believe I said I'm not widely read and I've joked about being a bigot by preference. I didn't see it as a joke.Yes they do and the bible clearly demonstrates that in many places.This is simply false. At times there are ideas and then the facts are found to support the theory but more often there are facts that do not fit into the current theories and, upon investigation, new theories (ideas) are formulated that coincide with the facts. Like you say, reality doesn't change. The way things worked or the way things are were always so in spite of perception. ... Your reality however is static, whereas mine proceeds by third-party agency. In the theater of mankind, reality becomes manifest through the vigorous use of the mind. For example there was the Ptolemaic system of the movement of the solar system which preceded the facts but was proved to be incorrect. These facts, reproducible and testable, spelled the end of the Ptolemaic system. There were the data discovered regarding the structure of atoms that preceded the ideas/theories by decades. You can make all of the declarations you wish but so far your backup for these declarations has been glaringly absent.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2013 8:33:30 GMT -5
I believe I said I'm not widely read and I've joked about being a bigot by preference. Publications about history and modernity spin this way and that. Ultimate ideas precede facts and not the other way around. Know that what you hold true for the Bible, *that it was spun around this need and that need or this vice and that*, holds true for everything else you will ever read. I would say that is only partially true. There are authors that just relate history based on historical records etc. They don't have the need to put a spin on it in that situation. I totally understand why the early gospel writers needed to write like they did. It was important to their survival in a roman environment. They were a product of the times. But a collection of historical records will spin by default. They only tell of what they do, not what they don't and you need both to construct a complete picture.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2013 8:36:32 GMT -5
So who's side are you on? Obviously neither Rome nor the innocent man. Why do I need to be on anybody's side? I am only relating what happened, not what I felt about what happened. Play it safe then. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2013 8:50:31 GMT -5
Atheists teach that cause and effect is all that might be known or observed in the way of a formative agency. Some atheists I know have demonstrated that there is not always a cause for things that happen. They're crazy aren't they. An astute atheist will argue that there is not always an apparent cause for things that happen. In fact, unless I am mistaken the cosmological argument put forth by theists is all about cause and effect. All about the first cause. Atheists and theists have common ground after all. Atheists usually contract the consideration of all causes to a box of empirical perception.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2013 9:04:45 GMT -5
But you said he was prosecuted for sedition like the next criminal. Remember? Yes, Rome saw him as threatening because he was gathering many followers that would have possibly become large enough to cause problems for the Romans. They liked to get rid of the ones inciting the others towards revolting against the Roman rule. If you would just read some history other than the bible, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You'd know more about what was happening when Jesus was alive. According to the narrative Jesus represents every man and every woman. In effect you're arguing that Jesus deserved to die. Obliterating a narrative doesn't excuse you from considering the ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2013 9:12:44 GMT -5
What can you predict that isn't local or short-term in scope? Relatively little with any degree of certainty. In in approximately 5.4 billion years and start to turn into a red giant. Seems long term to me and follows all known laws of nature. Is the sun local? There are several predictions of the formation of black holes that are hundreds of light years away. Are then too close? Can you predict that mankind will be around after 100 years to witness anything thereafter? Not unless you assume some mechanism or agent of preservation. Nothing with eternal significance. Nope but then, they are verifiable rather than belief based points of reference. You believe in eternal things. Remember that it is your belief and you cannot present any material or logical support. Some of the best things in life cannot be supported with material or logical support, such as just why your heart will be warmed this winter by the setting sun.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 3, 2013 9:14:02 GMT -5
Oh that's right .... the gospel accounts were cherry-picked to present a Jesus favorable of the RCC. Except in so many ways it isn't. Explain this. For you? No, for you.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2013 10:33:04 GMT -5
Like you say, reality doesn't change. The way things worked or the way things are were always so in spite of perception. ... Your reality however is static, whereas mine proceeds by third-party agency. You are correct - the arrow of time only moves forward, leaving reality in its wake. Is 'third-party agency' another word for god?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 3, 2013 12:09:17 GMT -5
I got the book, Zealot, today. Looks interesting. Thanks, snow, for the recommendation.
BTW, I just put Dawkin's book The God Delusion for sell on Amazon today.
Also one by Marcus J. Borg, Jesus a New Vision.
I don't know much about Borg or the book, -just ran across it at a sale & got it to put on my book store.
Your welcome. I really enjoyed it. He confirmed some of what I'd already read, put new insight into some other stuff and also opened up stuff I never read before. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 3, 2013 12:12:10 GMT -5
I would say that is only partially true. There are authors that just relate history based on historical records etc. They don't have the need to put a spin on it in that situation. I totally understand why the early gospel writers needed to write like they did. It was important to their survival in a roman environment. They were a product of the times. But a collection of historical records will spin by default. They only tell of what they do, not what they don't and you need both to construct a complete picture. Not sure I understand what you mean about not telling what they don't do. There is plenty of that too.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 3, 2013 12:14:52 GMT -5
Why do I need to be on anybody's side? I am only relating what happened, not what I felt about what happened. Play it safe then. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin Lee, we're talking about the history of 2000 years ago. Why would I need to be on anyone's 'side'? I don't see how relating history without taking sides is somehow 'playing it safe'. Belief in a God seems to be just that 'playing it safe' imo. However, that's not what I was referring to when talking about the actual history of the times that Jesus lived in.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 3, 2013 12:17:42 GMT -5
Yes, Rome saw him as threatening because he was gathering many followers that would have possibly become large enough to cause problems for the Romans. They liked to get rid of the ones inciting the others towards revolting against the Roman rule. If you would just read some history other than the bible, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You'd know more about what was happening when Jesus was alive. According to the narrative Jesus represents every man and every woman. In effect you're arguing that Jesus deserved to die. Obliterating a narrative doesn't excuse you from considering the ideas. I never once said Jesus deserved to die. I said the Romans thought that he should die because he was a possible threat to them. No one can say for sure what he had in mind and whether he deserved to die or not. God obviously decided he should die.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2013 13:27:31 GMT -5
God obviously decided he should die. Actually, according to the text, it was the leaders of the Jews that felt Jesus and his actions could possibly cause problems that would lead to the Romans crushing the Jews. But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,… It was a three-for-nothing from the view of Caiaphas - remove Jesus as a potential leader, make his prophesy come true and potentially save the nation from Roman destruction should Jesus cause enough of a stir. And to top it off, he got the Romans to execute the plan.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 3, 2013 14:21:44 GMT -5
God obviously decided he should die. Actually, according to the text, it was the leaders of the Jews that felt Jesus and his actions could possibly cause problems that would lead to the Romans crushing the Jews. But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,… It was a three-for-nothing from the view of Caiaphas - remove Jesus as a potential leader, make his prophesy come true and potentially save the nation from Roman destruction should Jesus cause enough of a stir. And to top it off, he got the Romans to execute the plan. That's how I see it, but I'm trying to refer to it as the bible states it. God sacrificed his only son for the sins of the world. So therefore God obviously decided he should die.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2013 14:42:29 GMT -5
That's how I see it, but I'm trying to refer to it as the bible states it. God sacrificed his only son for the sins of the world. So therefore God obviously decided he should die. So god and Caiaphas were running the same game. I sometimes wonder if it was not more of a PR measure that went wrong.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 3, 2013 14:58:47 GMT -5
That's how I see it, but I'm trying to refer to it as the bible states it. God sacrificed his only son for the sins of the world. So therefore God obviously decided he should die. So god and Caiaphas were running the same game. I sometimes wonder if it was not more of a PR measure that went wrong. No I don't think so. Caiaphas and Pilate were close according to the Zealot and if someone upset Caiaphas, Pilate would get rid of him for him. The Jews weren't allowed to do the death penalty so if Caiaphas wanted someone dead he had to enlist the Roman Governor. When Jesus came into the temple and overturned the tables and attacked the integrity of the priests there, he signed his death warrant.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2013 15:43:54 GMT -5
So god and Caiaphas were running the same game. I sometimes wonder if it was not more of a PR measure that went wrong. No I don't think so. Caiaphas and Pilate were close according to the Zealot and if someone upset Caiaphas, Pilate would get rid of him for him. The Jews weren't allowed to do the death penalty so if Caiaphas wanted someone dead he had to enlist the Roman Governor. When Jesus came into the temple and overturned the tables and attacked the integrity of the priests there, he signed his death warrant. No, god and Caiaphas both felt it was expedient for one person to die for the good of many.
|
|