Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: the president on 31/03/2009 16:05:15
-
I am catholic but i have a hard time believing in Jesus. When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping jesus in his con. either that or the people who wrote the bible just made it all up.(there are many contradictions in the bible)
-
I am catholic but i have a hard time believing in Jesus. When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping jesus in his con. either that or the people who wrote the bible just made it all up.(there are many contradictions in the bible)
I was at a Christening last sunday morning....grrr...had to there at 9am and it was the morning after the clocks had gone forward too !
Anyway, The Christening came at the end of the Sunday services and as I watched the various protocols and action elements that went on during the service I pondered how amazing it was that after 2000 years a mans " magic " has had such a startling effect and set of repercussions...............in MY opinion.
-
When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping jesus in his con.
Actually the argument is whether he existed or not. The things he did and the influence they had on his world and not to mention ours are simply overwhelming. There was no way to trick people with some of the things that he did. So it's either he did exist or he didn't.
But if he didn't exist then how could he become the most influencial man in history?
-
david blane does amazing magic tricks and no one knows how he does it. and 2009 years ago very few people could read or write and the were very simple minded. my good friend went to new guinea and showed some of the natives card tricks they were amazed they thought that he a magician (these tricks would not fool a 5 year old here in the us) and hes no david blane i can tell you
-
There are purported reports by Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor Tiberius (Emperor from AD 14 – AD 37) and Claudius (Emperor from AD 41 – AD 54) on the crucifixion of Jesus. Yet none to Caligula (Emperor from AD 37 – AD 41) who relieved him of his duty and exiled him to Gaul where he is said to have committed suicide.
The Catholic Church believes a report to Tiberius, found in Liverpool (see how long they’ve been a bunch of crooks!) to be a fake, yet they believe it to be a true account of the crucifixion of Jesus!
Pilate was the Roman Prefect of Judea from AD 26 – AD 36. Jesus is thought to have been 33 yrs old when he was crucified (I hazard a guess he was born in AD 0) so the crucifixion took place in, or around, AD 33, during the latter days of the reign of Tiberius. Pilate is said to have reinforced Judea with 2000 Roman soldiers because of this event, yet there is no evidence of any debate or report being made to the Roman Senate.
Another problem with Jesus is that there appears to be no mention of him in Jewish history of the time. The Talmud makes reference to around 20 people who are said to be Jesus by some, but in each case there are problems with the association.
Jesus wrote nothing whatsoever. Would you not think that the son of God, sent to teach us righteousness would have written the odd note or two?
The only reference to his life is in the New Testament of the Bible. There is nothing in Roman or Jewish history to support his existence. As for when the New Testament was written, nobody knows. Some say the first writing was the Epistle of St James, between AD 45 – AD 96. Some say it was written hundreds of years after Jesus, and, of course, some say it was written before Jesus was born.
Since there is no God, he could not have been the son of God.
Did he exist? If he did, then I think he was a good, well intentioned man who, together with his associates, tried to reconcile mans differences. Unfortunately, rather than succeeding in his quest, he simply made matters worse. If he did exist, then his story has been exaggerated to a point which is totally out of proportion to actual events.
Of course, there is a very good chance that he is a fictional character devised by people with good, if misguided, intention.
Did he perform miracles? No. Again these events, if they happened at all, were misunderstood, misinterpreted and much exaggerated. Experiments have shown how a story told to one person and passed on to successive others can end up bearing little resemblance to the original, and police will tell you that an incident observed by a number of people will be differently accounted by each.
‘The tallish man wearing a dark blue coat made off down the street.’ – ‘The tall man in a dark coat ran down the road.’ – ‘The tall person wearing a dark jacket ran up the middle of the road.’ – ‘The 7ft person wearing just a black jacket shot off up the road like a maniac.’
Jesus turned water into wine, or did he just say ‘this water is God’s wine’ or words to that effect? He made a blind man see, but was this a metaphorical blindness?
I do not denounce the Bible, in fact I think the New Testament contains a great deal of good lessons, as does the Old Testament in places, but it is not the work of any God, nor is it a factual account of any son of any God or prophet.
BTW I do not denounce any who choose to believe in God, Jesus, Mohamed, Amun Ra, Ganesha, or whosoever they choose to follow. We are all free to believe or not.
-
nicely said
-
OH man man man
This makes me sick on the stomach really really sick
Jesus was either exactly who he said he was or the most colossal persuasive demonic liar the world has ever seen
It is white or black they is no grey here
You accept him as the divine son of God or take the dangerous road of calling this man of peace, love and truth and beauty a lying deceiving magician
BenV WHAT THE HELL IS THIS DOING ON A SCIENCE FORUM?
Alan
-
OH man man man
This makes me sick on the stomach really really sick
Jesus was either exactly who he said he was or the most colossal persuasive demonic liar the world has ever seen
It is white or black they is no grey here
You accept him as the divine son of God or take the dangerous road of calling this man of peace, love and truth and beauty a lying deceiving magician
Or, you accept the idea that he may have been a man with some good ideas, and stories got around about him that became vastly overblown. Plenty of grey here.
BenV WHAT THE HELL IS THIS DOING ON A SCIENCE FORUM?
Alan
It's in the new theories area, and it is a new theory. This suggestion is quite tame compared to some of the other ideas in this board.
-
Perhaps he was a rubbish magician, and his audience were just rather dumb.
Isn't the greatest magic trick, the one where people believe in him?
-
Alan, I have no wish or desire to offend you, or anyone else who believes in God, Jesus, Mohamed or any other gods or prophets.
You choose to believe and I respect that. You may have noticed that out of respect, I will always refer to (the one) God, Jesus, Mohamed etc with a capital.
On the matter of miracles, even some theologians accept that there may be misunderstandings and mistranslations which may have made these events seem like miracles. Although I accept this is not generally accepted by most theologians.
As to the 'the beautiful mind of Jesus', as I said, 'I think he was a good, well intentioned man. I think there can be a grey area. He need not have been the demonic liar or deceitful impostor, just because he was not the Son of God. He could have been just an ordinary man who, like others, wanted peace for his fellow man. This should not make him anything but a thoroughly good man.
The 'Intelligent Designer' thread was going around in circles and getting nowhere. Doubtless this thread could do the same, since there is no evidence that Jesus did or did not exist and if he did, that he was or was not the Son of God.
I would hope that nobody would post anything deliberately offensive toward God or his followers, whatever faith they choose to follow.
-
who the this person think he is!!!! of course The Messiah was real, He excisted.
-
Did anyone see The Life of Brian?
-
Did anyone see The Life of Brian?
Wasn't it based directly on the bible?
"he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
-
More historians wrote about christ than those mentioned above. You may have heard of Flavius Josephus.
I also admit this is not a science topic. Science is too weak to prove the existence of God or christ. We scientists are yet to learn the structure of our brain, till we know more than 10% of ourselves then we can take on the as for now presumptious role of deciding who exists and doesn't.
-
OH man man man
This makes me sick on the stomach really really sick
Jesus was either exactly who he said he was or the most colossal persuasive demonic liar the world has ever seen
It is white or black they is no grey here
You accept him as the divine son of God or take the dangerous road of calling this man of peace, love and truth and beauty a lying deceiving magician
BenV WHAT THE HELL IS THIS DOING ON A SCIENCE FORUM?
Alan
Have you ever studied the history of the Christian church? have you read the the early fathers - the ones who's ideas didn't make it through the first 500 years of the history of Christian POLITICS and power struggles? Have you considered that present day literalism, which you seem to hold dear, was a response to modern scientific enquirery and only has a history of a few hundred years? The Church - all Church's except perhaps one obscure branch of the Church at Antioch - are the product of political struggles and unfaithful to the original teachings. millions of people have died as a result of the fights and wars within the Christian community. Just look at the wars after the inception of the protestant reformation. I am certain that what is taught today bears little resemblance of the teaching of a Jewish man 2000 years ago. I have studied this as a result of wishing to better understand what I once discarded.
As one theologian puts it:
"Ironically, biblical literalism misunderstands the biblical faith in the very course of struggle to understand and defend it in a changing cultural context. Biblical literalism commits a seductive form of idolatry. The literalist misleads Christians by asserting the idolatrous [sic] notion that the words of inspired Scripture adequately and sufficiently bind the God revealed in Scripture to the narrow limitations of a "common sense" interpretation.
"The requisite balancing principle is forgotten: that Scripture produced under "inspiration" by mere mortals simultaneously conceals as it reveals the Word-requiring an act of faith and careful, "inspired" personal interpretation to grasp the Word spoken to the self. Literalism errs fatally when in implicit arrogance it denies the mystery of the revealed but sovereign, never-fullyknowable God. " [the underlining is mine]
Your ideas destroy the Mystery in which God reveals Itself to me. You destroy MY Christianity. And you certainly do not speak for me or the majority of Christians. And by far, you do not speak for anyone who has studied the history of the church, or the of the ideas of the church from its inception. Most theologians who have ever been on this earth would tell you what I am telling you. The Bible teaches in parables, just as Jesus did - both the Old and the New testament.
You speak heresy - that is prophetic.
Read http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2005/11/the_heresy_of_l.html - the history of literalism in a succinct form by Anglican priest.
-
People want to believe in something as a means of explaining their world, and the "god made it like that" sentence is alot easier to swallow than learning science and how to think critically, especially for children. And indoctrination into a belief is hard to break, and a person will fly into the face of all kinds of logic to uphold their belief.
Whether it's Jesus, Allah, Zues, Thor, whatever alternative of religion is present in the culture at the time is what people will generally take up and believe, if they feel the need to believe in a deity. Do you honestly think you would still believe in Jesus if you were born in India or Afghanistan?
The myth of Jesus isn't perpetuated so strongly because he was real, but because belief in him happened to fill the "god gap" in alot of peoples minds at the time. It just so happens that those people weren't wiped out by any other cultures, so the myth and culture still exists.
-
The "God gap" is part of the human condition. Experience - individual experience of their reality - will determine what each individual believes. All religions are a myth of some type, but actually represent an experiential reality that cannot be put into words or analized or described by science. Psychologist, such a Jung, Maslow, etc., have attempted to explain the "peak experience" but fall quite short to the experiences they try to explain. It is a reality, just not a common one. Purely religious people never experience it. Spiritual people do. And don't ask me to explain. I can't. I think I have had the experience, though.
It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not. What he represents is real.
I believe Jesus was a historical figure. Josephus write of him specifically. It is the only surviving account of the man made during his time.
-
It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not. What he represents is real.
Good frame of mind.
More historians wrote about christ than those mentioned above. You may have heard of Flavius Josephus.
Indeed there were many who wrote after the alleged event. But during the event, there appears to be no written articles to support his existence. Flavius Josephus was one of them, but he was born in AD 37, four years after the crucifixion, so he can have no first hand knowledge of the event. I could write a factual account of the life of King George XI, since I would have verifiable documents written at the time, Flavius Josephus could only rely on hearsay, not very reliable at all and often 'coloured' by those who recount such hearsay.
As JB has suggested, the question of the existence of the man and/or his provenance are not as important as what he represents, his teaching and his love for ALL his fellow man.
Incidentally, as I stated above, I always use a capital when referring to God etc, out of respect for those who believe, so it should be Christ, not christ.
-
life of King George XI
Is this deliberate or do you mean George VI (father of the present Queen Elizabeth)? ;)
-
Erm, no it wasn't deliberate, it was a cock-up, thanks for pointing out & correcting my error. I consider myself well and truly FOGGED.
-
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
you probably will now waste your time clicking on links ( I know i dont)
but here is a sample of the list of bible contradictions
War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen
--------------------------------------------------------
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more
-
Another site that proves that jesus never excisted
http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html
and a sample...
History. It's inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet we have nothing. Even the earliest Bible reference to Jesus dates to at least A.D. 64, and the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, dates to at least A.D. 70 (and probably to A.D. 170).
-
I am catholic ......
Are you sure? Your posts so far seem to suggest that you are not. If you are genuinely a christian, whatever denomination, questioning the existence or provenance of Jesus, I would suggest you speak to your priest and continue your research. You might also join a Jewish forum and seek opinion there, or speak to a Rabbi. If you are questioning the very existence of God, I would offer the same advice. You might also wish to consider Islam.
Whichever road you finally choose to follow, it must be your own decision. You cannot allow others to decide for you.
You have found biblical contradictions, we all know they exist. Again I advise you speak to a priest.
If you are agnostic and looking to come down on one side of the fence or the other, I can only offer the same advice as above.
If you have come here looking for confirmation of your suspicions, you have come to the wrong place. As has been said on other threads of similar topics, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, Jesus or anyone else of biblical fame. Neither can history.
I apologise in advance, if the following does not apply to you.
If you are an atheist seeking to denounce God, Jesus and other biblical matters, then you should openly declare yourself as such. Do not pretend to be a converting believer. Science neither needs nor should utilise any such methods to convert believers. Indeed atheists should not seek to convert or denounce anyone. Just in case it is not abundantly clear to you, I am an atheist.
-
when i first posted this i said i have a hard time beliving in jesus. if you can convince me that he is real.
i would be glad to hear what you have to say
-
Whether he existed or not is not an issue with me, if he existed, then I do not believe he was the 'Son of God', since I do not believe in God.
But that is my opinion. It may be the opinion of others also. You must reach a decision with which you are happy and comfortable. Look at it this way, come your 'day of reckoning', do you think you cry out the name of God and Jesus? If the answer to this is yes, then you should continue your belief unchanged. I would not wish to be party to your rejection of your beliefs.
After all, I could be wrong, I very much doubt it, but I could be; It wouldn't be the first time!!!
-
According to Muslims, Jesus did not killed. He was taken to the sky.
Some of Muslims saying, his soul is taken to sky and he is dead.
But the others saying that he was taken while living,
and he will come back at the same age (between 30 and 40)
The estimated time corresponding to this century. :)
So if/when he came back, you ask directly to him, who really is.
-
Maybe the question "Was Jesus real or was he a great magician?" has caused problems here. I guess what was meant was did Jesus perform real miracles or did he trick people. And some people have taken the question to ask was Jesus real, meaning did he exist; was he a historical person or a character in a work of fiction.
Personally I see no scientific evidence for either the material existence of "God" or "Jesus" although I have thought about (as my user name would indicate). Both exist in the same sense the Sherlock Homes and Superman exists, most people known of these characters, but for me they are fictitious. What interests me is their origions and how the related religions developed. I guess this would really be another topic for for instance if there were Hebrews in ancient Egypt before the new Kingdom did they have a monotheistic religion or did Ikhnaton indeed formulate the first monotheistic religion?
-
War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen
--------------------------------------------------------
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more
1) War and peace: Is the United nations a body for causing war or trying to gain peace? God brings war to those who oppose him. No contradiction here. He has the right to make the world the way he wants he being the creator
2)Joseph was the son of Jacob. But in fact Mary was the daughter of Heli. The passage in Luke chapter 3 traces the ancestral line of Mary who was a descendant of king David. God made a promise to David that the messiah would be born to him. Since Joseph didn't father Jesus, that would be an incomplete fulfillment to that promise. Thus he had David's genes.
3)God is greater than Jesus. Even people can be one with God and Jesus, one with each other. This means in union. Same line of thought. John 17:11, 21.
4) The extra 5 animals were not really regarded as they were used for sacrifice, the other 2 were more significant as they would continue procreation. Simple huh?
As you see, no contradiction. In fact all these facts lay a good basis to learn more about the bible. It is worth learning. As me for any more clarifications if needed.
-
Demadone, you say
Joseph was the son of Jacob. But in fact Mary was the daughter of Heli. The passage in Luke chapter 3 traces the ancestral line of Mary who was a descendant of king David. God made a promise to David that the messiah would be born to him. Since Joseph didn't father Jesus, that would be an incomplete fulfillment to that promise. Thus he had David's genes.
The anomaly of Jesus parentage is explained that when the Bible (LUK 3:23) quotes: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." it actually means 'which was the son-in-law of Heli.' Yet I am unaware of any other such references to son or daughter-in-law in this manner anywhere else in the Bible. Strange eh! Smacks a little of somebody changing the rules to fit their purpose.
More importantly, the question 'who was Jesus?' needs to be addressed before you can determine his parentage. There are no reference to Jesus in Roman or Jewish history. A man who the New Testament alledges to have been of great concern to both parties. Was Jesus actually Ben Stada, Yehoshua Ben Perachiah or one of his 5 disciples. Why does the Talmud refer to these minor thorns in the side of Judaism yet not to Jesus.
akhenaten
The Hebrews were probably descended from the ancient Egyptian tribe known as the Hebra & may well have been lead out of Egypt by Moses, or forced out by the Pharaoh Thutmose III.
-
I am catholic but i have a hard time believing in Jesus. When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping jesus in his con. either that or the people who wrote the bible just made it all up.(there are many contradictions in the bible)
Miracles did not started with Jesus. Unless you say both Mary and Jesus magicians, your theory could not be true.
From Kuran;
3. The Family Of Imran
33. Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Ìmrán above all people,-
34. Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
35. Behold! a wife of Ìmrán said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate into Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things."
36. When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and Allah knew best what she brought forth- "And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the Rejected."
37. Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariya was she assigned. Every time that he entered (her) chamber to see her, He found her supplied with sustenance. He said: "O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?" She said: "From Allah. for Allah provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure."
38. There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: "O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!"
39. While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: "Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahyá, (John)witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a prophet,- of the (goodly) company of the righteous."
40. He said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son, seeing I am very old, and my wife is barren?" "Thus," was the answer, "Doth Allah accomplish what He willeth."
41. He said: "O my Lord! Give me a Sign!" "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three days but with signals. Then celebrate the praises of thy Lord again and again, and glorify Him in the evening and in the morning."
42. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.
43. "O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down."
44. This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger.) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with pens (or arrows), as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).
45. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah."
46. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
47. She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so; Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!"
48. "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel,"
49. "And (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
50. " '(I have come to you), to attest the Torah which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
51. " 'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"
52. When Jesus found unbelief on their part he said: "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims."
53. "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger. then write us down among those who bear witness."
54. And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
55. Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
56. "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with severe agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
57. "As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong."
58. "This is what we rehearse unto thee of the Signs and the Message of Wisdom."
59. The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
60. The Truth (comes) from thy Lord alone; so be not of those who doubt.
-
In my opinion, the bible was written long ago, and we have no way of telling whether it is true or not. So the real question here is whether you as the reader believes it and thats all that really counts.Because no-one in the world will be able to show you the truth or hide it from you.
-
The anomaly of Jesus parentage is explained that when the Bible (LUK 3:23) quotes: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." it actually means 'which was the son-in-law of Heli.' Yet I am unaware of any other such references to son or daughter-in-law in this manner anywhere else in the Bible. Strange eh! Smacks a little of somebody changing the rules to fit their purpose.
It's good you do much research. It's great when questions have a good background research and not just sarcastic as is too often on religious questions on this board.
Actually there is another case. Certain texts indicate that Jeconiah (King Jehoiachin) was the fleshly father of Shealtiel. (1 Chronicles 3:16-18; Matthew 1:12) But the Gospel writer Luke called Shealtiel the ?son of Neri.? (Luke 3:27) Neri apparently gave his daughter to Shealtiel as a wife. Since the Hebrews commonly referred to a son-in-law as a son, especially in genealogical listings, Luke could properly call Shealtiel the son of Neri. Interesting hhhmm?
As you may conclude yourself, Luke seems to have a definitive tendency to call parents-in-laws parents. Other bible writters refer to actual parents. You have to understand one things though. The lineage from Adam to christ is very important in the bible. So sometimes where a person is linked to that lineage through a woman, then reference is given to the father-in-law, perhaps to cut the long story short. I call my mother-in-law my mother. So if someone were to read my letters after many years, they would probably think I married my sister if they didn't know the background of the matter well enough.
thanks.
-
More importantly, the question 'who was Jesus?' needs to be addressed before you can determine his parentage. There are no reference to Jesus in Roman or Jewish history. A man who the New Testament alledges to have been of great concern to both parties. Was Jesus actually Ben Stada, Yehoshua Ben Perachiah or one of his 5 disciples. Why does the Talmud refer to these minor thorns in the side of Judaism yet not to Jesus.
There are references:
For instance, consider the testimony of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who was a Pharisee. He referred to Jesus Christ in the book Jewish Antiquities. Although some doubt the authenticity of the first reference where Josephus mentioned Jesus as the Messiah, Professor Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University says that few have doubted the genuineness of the second reference. There Josephus said: ?[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.? (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200) Yes, a Pharisee, a member of the sect many of whose adherents were avowed enemies of Jesus, acknowledged the existence of ?James, the brother of Jesus.?
The influence of Jesus? existence was felt through the activities of his followers. When the apostle Paul was imprisoned in Rome about 59 C.E., the principal men of the Jews told him: ?As regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.? (Acts 28:17-22) They called Jesus? disciples ?this sect.? If they were everywhere spoken against, secular historians would likely report about them, would they not?
Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world?s greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero?s blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: ?Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.? The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible.
Another writer who commented on Jesus? followers was Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia. In about the year 111 C.E., Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking how to handle Christians. People who were falsely accused of being Christians, wrote Pliny, would repeat an invocation to the gods and worship the statue of Trajan, just to prove that they were not Christians. Pliny continued: ?There is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into any of these compliances.? That testifies to the reality of the existence of the Christ, whose followers were prepared to give their lives for their belief in him.
-
Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration.
Shaye Cohen
DID JESUS OF NAZARETH EXIST? (The Talmud) The thirty-second and thirty-third issues of BE discussed a group of non-Christian writers whom biblicists allege referred to Jesus in their writings. Both issues clearly showed that ancient writers such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger are not referring to Jesus of Nazareth in their most commonly quoted passages, and only by twisting and quoting out of context can their extrabiblical writings be employed in this manner. Another extrabiblical source occasionally cited as well is the Talmud. It is the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law, and consists of two parts--the Mishnah (text) and the Gemara (commentary). In Judaism, the Torah, i.e., the law, is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, and the Mishnah is the oral Torah supplementing it. For several centuries after the codification of the Mishnah, rabbis and scholars wrote commentaries on it, known as the Gemara, i.e. completion. The Talmudic comments most often relied upon by biblicists were not cited earlier because their strength ranges from poor to pathetic. But to forestall any possibility of their being used to deceive the unwary, an exposure of the most prominent references and their deficiencies is well advised.
Dennis McKinsey – Whole text at http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id4.html (http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id4.html)
As I pointed out in an earlier post, there are no references in Roman or Jewish history during the supposed life of Jesus. The people you refer to, were all POST Jesus, NOT pre, or during.
Does it not strike you as inconceivable that nobody, not even his alleged disciples, wrote anything whatsoever on or about a man of, supposedly, the ultimate standing and importance during his lifetime?
Christianity appears to have arisen shortly after the alleged life of Jesus, therefore, it must be concluded that something happened at around that time. But what happened, why, how and who instigated it is open to question.
How do you account for the fact that, according to Judaism, the Saviour has yet to come? This man, Jesus, did not exist. How do you account for the fact that, according to Islam, Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God? Remember that Islam did not arise until more than 500 yrs after these events; therefore, its account of Jesus must be viewed with the same scepticisms, as its reference to Jesus the prophet can only be based on the same hearsay as the New Testament.
-
All these contradictions quotes have old explanations.
The historicity of Jesus has more evidence to support it than the Battle of Waterloo.
You can't prove he was god, or that he did miracles. It is not science. It is relational and revelatory. The idea is God's spirit reveals himself to people. Sometimes dualists with a guilty conscience fear judgment in old fashioned preachings, and come to Christ, and then have an inner knowing of Jesus spirit's presence. As criticized by Dawkins, a highly public, fringe Christian, George W Bush, who said god told him to send the huge power of the US military to Iraq. Which looks like a mistake.
Our reasons and emotions for believing are varied, but relational. Very few would have faith for Creation Science writings...
Also people see modern miracles, healings, deliverance from demons, they speak Latin... secret thoughts are revealed, there is glossolalia, NDE's, and the wisdom of the Bible in where we come from, what we are for, where we go, how and why, and the great hope set before them. It fits with some.
-
All these contradictions quotes have old explanations.
None of which are satisfactory.
The historicity of Jesus has more evidence to support it than the Battle of Waterloo.
I seriously doubt the most devout Christians or even The Pope himself would agree with that.
Very few would have faith for Creation Science writings...
There is no science in creation and no creation in science.
Also people see modern miracles, healings, deliverance from demons, they speak Latin... secret thoughts are revealed, there is glossolalia
I have never witnessed nor heard of a modern day miracle. I have never seen nor heard of any Latin speaking demon, save those in The Exorcist and such like fiction. I think you have been watching too many films.
Religion is based on faith, not evidence, which is convenient, since there is none. Science is based on evidence; scientific theory is just that until evidence proves it to be fact.
Why believe in this one God when there have been, and still are, so many other gods? What puts this one God above the others? Nothing, they are all the same.
-
In the ancestry question, for example, I can accept, one ancestry is that of Joseph and the other of Mary.
And with regard to equality, that Jesus was emptied of use of godly powers, Phil 2:6-9 and on return was re-glorified.
About war and peace, god saved Israel for the peace of our race by then giving us the prophets and Jesus. And the Egyptian Copts accepted that and still do. Most people accept the explanations for apparent contradictions. The god of peace means first, that he has the power to heal and enliven, to make a person whole, and give them the hope of perfect peace in all aspects of life.
Archeology has studied Jesus a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
"In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders used Alexander the Great as a paradigm—the available sources tell us much about Alexander’s deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. "The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought."[83] Thus, Sanders considers the quest for the Historical Jesus to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to those historical figures with adequate documentation."
"Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians. James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'."
A Google search will show the credibility of the historicity of Jesus.
Creation science is a work of Christians who bring the Bible and science for the classroom together. I don't snap at them or support them. I also believe the Bible over sciences views, because I don't think god created man through evolution.
Faith is partly based on evidence, for a verdict rather than a test for a fact.
I know someone who was exorcised and spoke Latin, and I saw people exorcised who began to scream together, and who fell silent when commanded in Jesus name. I don't believe the films.
Jesus is different to other gods, because of his sacrifice and answers to the religious questions and problems of old.
Don_1 you seem to make up and hold to new myths.
-
We can't deny the fact that Jesus was the most influencial and still remains the most influencial man to ever walk this earth. His teachings, much more than his miracles have left a big mark on the earth. You may doubt his miracles but his influence is undeniable. And if all 'christians' and not would apply these, the world be a different place.
Roman and greek historians spoke of the things that mattered to them. Remember Jesus was in Jerusalem. A very small colony, how would these historians know if to write about them.
About Josephus, he is one of the major sources of Roman activities such as the great fire. So why do we know the great fire happened from him and yet when he mentions christians we say he is a liar. He depicted the distraction of Jerusalem so well, yet when we see Jesus prophesying this event we doubt it.
I sense bias.
-
About war and peace, god saved Israel for the peace of our race by then giving us the prophets and Jesus.
Israel....... Peace...... Who are you kidding???
A Google search will show the credibility of the historicity of Jesus.
None of this gives any credibility to Jesus whatsoever. All of this 'evidence' is based on hearsay and opinion. You will find there is an equal amount of 'evidence' in support of the Jewish view that he did not exist.
There is no concrete evidence to support the existence or non-existence of Jesus.
Jesus is different to other gods,
Jesus is God? The Holy Ghost is God? It is not until the 2nd century AD that the Catholic Church manages to deal with the problem of Jesus. Hardly surprising when you consider their answer to this dilemma. By their own admission Jesus cannot be a God, since there is only one God. So they invent The Trinity, God the Father, the Son & the Holy Ghost. But the Father is not the Son, or the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son! (This concept does not appear in the Bible.) Confused? The youngest Abrahamic religion, Islam, considers reference to Jesus or the Holy Ghost as God or of a Holy Trinity to be the ultimate blasphemy. Perhaps they should also consider it to be the ultimate Chinese puzzle.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fbc%2FShield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png%2F180px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png&hash=b3aa134787c9ba303cb61fe462dd674c)
The "Shield of the Trinity" or "Scutum Fidei" diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
Archeology has studied Jesus a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Did you bother to read this bit?
Attempts to use historical rather than religious methods to construct a verifiable biography of Jesus began in the 18th century with Hermann Samuel Reimarus, up to William Wrede and Albert Schweitzer in the 19th century Reimarus pioneered "the search for the historical Jesus", applying the Rationalism of the Enlightenment Era to claims about Jesus. Although Schweitzer was among the greatest contributors to this quest, he also ended it by noting how each scholar's version of Jesus seemed little more than an idealized autobiography of the scholar himself.
We can't deny the fact that Jesus was the most influencial and still remains the most influencial man to ever walk this earth. His teachings, much more than his miracles have left a big mark on the earth. You may doubt his miracles but his influence is undeniable. And if all 'christians' and not would apply these, the world be a different place.
I would not entirely disagree with that.
About Josephus............. when he mentions christians we say he is a liar.
No one said he was a liar, just given to inaccuracy and exaggeration; therefore, he cannot be taken at face value.
Don_1 you seem to make up and hold to new myths.
The whole point is, I do not believe myths.
Do you believe in Robin Hood? He is attributed as being Robert of Loxley aka Robert Hode aka Robert Dore. Another myth blown out of all proportion to the real man or men. He may have been a conglomerate of several people. Perhaps Jesus was a similar conglomerate of several people, with the resulting story blown out of all proportion to actual events.
Since you cannot accept that there is neither concrete evidence nor substantiated eyewitness accounts to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus, I think it best to leave this debate here, lest we continue to go around in ever decreasing circles, only to disappear up our own jacksies. We must agree to disagree.
-
May it be appropriate to ask what some of these exaggeration were that Josephus made?
I know for sure he used to try to scare his countrymen from revolting against the Romans, but I don't know what the above comments have been referring to.
-
I don't believe the trinity. It obviously was coined outside the bible.
Many will refer to John 1:1 but in Greek it reads:
'In the beginning was [the] word and that [the] word was with [the] God, and that [the] word was God'
The presence of a definite article [the] always means the actual subject and the absence of the definite article means something like.
So the verse literary reads: 'In the beginning was the word and that word was with God, and that word was Godlike'
-
The Bible is a relational book, not theological, there is no, "demi-god", "Trinity", "Modes"...
I have read and can pass on a Brilliant 11 page essay by Alan Morrison on the Trinity as revealed in the scriptures. Particularly for modalists. The Blessed Three In One.
The idea is there is one god, in three persons, each is god.
-
Interesting to read.... I like it?
-
So Titan, are you saying there is a trinity?
-
I am not familiar with trinity. Could someone explain it shortly for me?
What is Holly Spirit? what does he do specially to be a God?
Why Jesus must be a God?
Holly Spirit and Jesus are independent from God? Or they are peoples that is given extra properties from God?
Which God spoke with Moses?
Which one do not need any others to be exsist?
In jugment day, if three of them were disagree about something, what will be the last decission? Who is the boss?
-
Allien. There is no evidence in the holy scriptures to support the trinity. I'm sure if it exists, then God would make sure to tell us. More importantly, Jesus was created. So which means that God does not need a trinity in order for him to exist. Only God is the boss.
-
It always amazes me how people seem to want such concrete explanations for something which is, clearly, (if it exists at all) far beyond the comprehension of any human.
I am not a believer but, if it is all true, it's going to be way harder than QM, even. The notion that we could put it in a box is the height of arrogance.
-
Did anyone see The Life of Brian?
Wasn't it based directly on the bible?
"he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
'Life of Brian' was not directly related to the bible at all, Jesus you remember was in the story. Really 'Life of Brian' was a black comedy which looked at the different cults and groups that existed in Israel at the time of Jesus.
I am catholic but i have a hard time believing in Jesus. When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping Jesus in his con. either that or the people who wrote the bible just made it all up.(there are many contradictions in the bible)
In terms of magic and Jesus, surely as a Catholic, you should know that it's an issue of faith, not magic. I think you should reread the catechise.
-
Moving to something more tangable.
I would like to look at Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
It is claimed by the Church and his followers that through these acts Jesus defeated Evil and won victory for good, by destroying the root of evil.
Now what is the root of evil? The root stems all the way back to the garden of Eden and the Original sin. Which was to eat the apple, but really was that the sin? I would argue that actually the sin was to doubt Gods love, and with that doubt to look for safety, the snake inspired this doubt, as no doubt the snake also felt it- that god might not love me or maybe it was a jealousy that 'God might love you more than me'. Either way all three fall, Adam and Eve doubt Gods love even in Eden, so you can how easy it must be for people on earth to do so.
This is the root of all evil, the doubt of gods love, for god is love.
Jesus defeats this evil by coming and showing us, continually in his life, on the cross and even after his resurrection, that God does love us, all of us.
1 John 4 "not that we loved god, but that god loves us"
Some argue that Jesus defeated death this day, but how could he have, the after life was already there, Jesus meets Moses if you remember, on the mountain with Elijah, long after they have both passed away or risen. Although he does show the afterlife with his resurrection, I say his victory is one of proving Gods love.
-
I like the president, good news that a catholic has questioned a branch of religion like a good racist.
in God you trust is the issue here or we all die fighting!
-
MOVING ON.....
Have you all seen it yet?
God says "If you eat the fruit you shall die"
and the serpent says "if you eat the fruit you will not die"
And Adam and Eve eat the fruit and don't die. So does that mean god was wrong? NO.
When the serpent says you won't die he means- you will not stop existing. When God says you will die he means, death to true life, a death to the kingdom of heaven.
And there, Adam and Eve did die to the kingdom of heaven.
So Jesus came to bring us back, for he is the way the truth and the life. The true life, the gate to the sheepfold. And in that sense the Church is correct, he does destroy death in spiritual terms, and brings us life in spiritual terms.
And I say that death is not the root of all evil, the root is the doubt of Gods love.
-
I would just like to add something else I have learnt over the past few years
Humility,
Humility really calls us to raise others, not to lower ourselves, for a worm shows no thanks to God for being made a man, and this is expressed most profoundly when Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, for he denies nothing of what he is when he does so.
to finish
Our father who art in heaven
holy be your name
your kingdom come
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven....
God bless you and keep you all, your friend as always,
Jolly
-
Would it be raising you to explain the difference between a scienctific forum and a religious one?
-
Would it be raising you to explain the difference between a scientific forum and a religious one?
I always thought science was about the search for truth. Originally, all science belonged to realm of philosophy, or have we forgoten? Scientists (tut), your always reductionist.
But as another question, what would Adam and Eve have done if God had allowed them to stay in the garden of Eden, with their new found ignorance?
Well what have the sons of Adam done here on earth? How many forms of life have gone extinct because we were scared of them, or hunted them for sport? Not even considering the mass destruction we cause in the pursuit of wealth.
I think it was an Incan that said "when all the land is desert and all the rivers are poisoned man will realise, you can't eat money"
Give the most stupid a park to look after for a week, and it'll be a desert by Wednesday.
Doesn't have to happen. Gandhi- Commerce without morality, a deadly sin.
the rest of Gandhi' seven deadly sins are as follows:
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Religion without sacrifice
Knowledge without character
Politics without principle
And the one probably most important for this forum
Science without humanity
-
Science is most certainly the search for truth.
Religion, however, requires faith by its very nature. To prove or disprove the existence of God would make faith irrelevant.
-
Science is most certainly the search for truth.
Religion, however, requires faith by its very nature. To prove or disprove the existence of God would make faith irrelevant.
Not necessarily for the opposite of faith is fear, and there are many faithful that hold that.
Want some maths?
0 + 0 = 0
-
Science is most certainly the search for truth.
Religion, however, requires faith by its very nature. To prove or disprove the existence of God would make faith irrelevant.
Not necessarily for the opposite of faith is fear, and there are many faithful that hold that.
Want some maths?
0 + 0 = 0
The opposite of faith is not fear - unless you have a strange definition of either faith or fear.
-
Perhaps the faithful indeed fear the implications of a universe without their god, hence why they remain faithful in the face of reason.
-
Perhaps we are at a watershed in the development of humans. We have got this far. Society has regulated itself fairly successfully on the basis of religions - inventions of the subconscious which arrived by evolution. With the exceptions of an 'elite' few thinkers, humans are governed, ultimately, by some form of faith.
Along comes Science and starts to point this out, dispassionately. The rug is being drawn smartly out from under our feet. People are trying to hang on to the rug but Pandora's box can't be shut again, once opened (to mix a couple of metaphors). I can only hope that rationality will be as successful as faith for our future. I have my doubts.
-
Since people actually pick and choose which parts of their religion to believe and/or uphold, it's clear that morality is a function of culture and innate processes rather than of religion.
-
I think it's more fundamental than that. I fear that you can't rely on peoples' actions to be rational and for the best of society. I guess that what I am suggesting is that the 'altruistic' gene expresses itself sub consciously in the form of faith / belief. Why else should we really give a stuff about the rest or the world or the distant future?
Many humanists still talk in terms of 'rights' but that can only be a shorthand for 'best for the future of the species in the long run'. There's yer actual faith but under a different name.
It worries me that, once we acknowledge this, we may disregard the need for altruism entirely. Back to total savagery.
-
Can you name a feature of religion that is both necessary for altruism and absent from any non-religious altruistic endeavors?
Further, as we are social organisms, can you honestly believe that there's no rational reason to be altruistic?
-
If you believe that acting in a certain way while alive will bring you an eternity in heaven, is it really altruistic to behave that way or is it just self-interest?
As I see it, religion kills altruism.
-
The reason that Religions work in an overall altruistic way and tend to be of (overall) social benefit is that they provide a simple set of rules. Not everyone is smart enough or reasonable enough to figure out what's 'best'. I doubt that anyone reading this can honestly say that they would have independently arrived at the code of conduct they use. We all learn our codes and adapt them to fit. If we choose to call our particular approach humanitarian and fully logical then I think we delude ourselves. It is an instinct just like that of ants, only more complex and based on learned socialisation - resulting from the actions of certain genes.
If you are an anti-religionist then you will always be able to find failed aspects of any religion. But are there any systems (proven to work in a large population for a long time) which serve better?
I, personally have no 'religion'. I have no belief in an after-life or a God but I know that I feel better for doing 'the right thing' - taught by my society and largely based on the Christian ethic.
Religion achieves altruism because it offers the individual immediate gratification for behaving in an altruistic way. Why should anyone be altruistic without some immediate reward / payment? The reward for putting up with your own kids and squandering most of your livelihood on them is the occasional "I love you Dad" and a rosy glow - plus an unashamed pride of 'ownership'. Why else do childless couples crave to have a family?
This is just extended to tribe, village, nation in some inverse law. The genes work well for close relations but less for strangers. The parable of the Good Samaritan endeavors to extend our natural localised altruism; my 'neighbour' is also someone alien to me.
I do not know how a system can be built which will instill altruism and which doesn't actually match many of the definitions of religion. I only know that revolution against religion does not seem to work in the long term. Does anyone have an alternative (for the masses, of course - not for us thinkers, who have sussed it all out)?
Perhaps it's all based on Game theory, in the end.
-
You don't need to be a genius to be ethical.
As far as reward goes, perhaps just getting to survive is not gratifying enough for social organisms to be altruistic?
Religion may be a manifestation of altuism, but it's not the source.
You say that your morality is based on the Christian ethic. Where did the Christian ethic come from? It's a product of evolution. Also, I'm sure you don't think rape and slavery and genocide is OK, nor that humans [are supposed to] have dominion over nature. So you're clearly cherrypicking which parts of the Christian ethic to base your morality on, just as most moderate people do (few of whom are highly intelligent). I wonder what criteria they could possibly be using to pick and choose?
There are manifestations of all of the human altuistic traits in non-religious behaviours. Morality is hardwired, and reinforced by society. Religion does not have a monopoly.
-
You don't need to be a genius to be ethical.
Very true - but ethics are not arrived at independently; we need to be taught some values and rules and we don't figure out what to do 'for the best' from scratch every time.
As far as reward goes, perhaps just getting to survive is not gratifying enough for social organisms to be altruistic?
I don't think you mean "getting to survive" - in the short term, personal survival in a sticky spot may require total lack of altruism. You mean survival of the species, I think.
Religion may be a manifestation of altuism, but it's not the source.
Again, I agree. Religions are Social structures, like Governments. My view is that humans can't exist in large groups without both.
You say that your morality is based on the Christian ethic. Where did the Christian ethic come from? It's a product of evolution.
Agreed. There are too many different religions to conclude otherwise. If religion has evolved, as you say, then we must take care before 'amputating' it. Who can predict the knock-ons?
Also, I'm sure you don't think rape and slavery and genocide is OK, nor that humans [are supposed to] have dominion over nature. So you're clearly cherrypicking which parts of the Christian ethic to base your morality on, just as most moderate people do (few of whom are highly intelligent). I wonder what criteria they could possibly be using to pick and choose?
Humans are complex and we do "cherrypick" and bend the rules. I guess my selection was based on examples of certain role models. Despite what antireligionists says, if you look at established religious texts there is very little to encourage what 'we' would call wrong behaviour. So called fundamentalists pick up a religion and interpret it in their own interests and use it as an excuse for the antisocial behaviours you quote. Is that the fault of 'the religion'? Don't you think that they would be just as objectionable without the religious connection?
On a topical note, would you say that we should do away with government because MPs have been dipping their snouts in the trough?
There are manifestations of all of the human altuistic traits in non-religious behaviours. Morality is hardwired, and reinforced by society. Religion does not have a monopoly.
I wish someone could show me a list of these examples. I don't need to quote the examples of Moslem, Christian, Hindu (etc.) groups who are extremely well socially adjusted and who do practice what they preach. They may not have a 'monopoly' but the non religious groups seem to be well hidden. I am not referring to what goes on in family and tribal groups. That, as I said in an earlier post, is explicable in terms of innate family self-interest.
If you want to do away with Religion, then you must replace it with something which is 'better'. Are you confident that you can?
But this is my problem. Once we become aware of the way we regulate ourselves and recognise that religion (and whatever else you care to replace it with) is merely a ruse, gives everyone an excuse to behave just as they please.
What are ethics and 'rights', when viewed that way?
-
You don't need to be a genius to be ethical.
Very true - but ethics are not arrived at independently; we need to be taught some values and rules and we don't figure out what to do 'for the best' from scratch every time.
That's true, the details must be learned and even the basics need reinforcing. Are you aware of research into child moral development?
As far as reward goes, perhaps just getting to survive is not gratifying enough for social organisms to be altruistic?
I don't think you mean "getting to survive" - in the short term, personal survival in a sticky spot may require total lack of altruism. You mean survival of the species, I think.
What I meant was that being ethical directly benefits the individual. When members of a social group behave negatively towards others, they are excluded and punished in various other ways. In ancient times this can mean death. Cooperating and forming close positive relationships with others has definite advantages to individuals as well as the group.
Religion may be a manifestation of altuism, but it's not the source.
Again, I agree. Religions are Social structures, like Governments. My view is that humans can't exist in large groups without both.
You say that your morality is based on the Christian ethic. Where did the Christian ethic come from? It's a product of evolution.
Agreed. There are too many different religions to conclude otherwise. If religion has evolved, as you say, then we must take care before 'amputating' it. Who can predict the knock-ons?
Since we agree that people don't actually get morality from religion, what use is the outdated, superstitious and morally despicable content of religions?
Also, I'm sure you don't think rape and slavery and genocide is OK, nor that humans [are supposed to] have dominion over nature. So you're clearly cherrypicking which parts of the Christian ethic to base your morality on, just as most moderate people do (few of whom are highly intelligent). I wonder what criteria they could possibly be using to pick and choose?
Humans are complex and we do "cherrypick" and bend the rules. I guess my selection was based on examples of certain role models. Despite what antireligionists says, if you look at established religious texts there is very little to encourage what 'we' would call wrong behaviour. So called fundamentalists pick up a religion and interpret it in their own interests and use it as an excuse for the antisocial behaviours you quote. Is that the fault of 'the religion'? Don't you think that they would be just as objectionable without the religious connection?
On a topical note, would you say that we should do away with government because MPs have been dipping their snouts in the trough?
There is very little room for interpretation of the nasty content of the Bible and Koran. The "extremists" simply choose to subscribe to the parts that the rest of us no longer consider to be ethical.
Of course corruption in government is bad, but the solution would be to remove the corruption and keep the laws up to scratch, not abandon them altogether. If something like that were done to religion, where the actual religious content was removed, I'd have no more argument.
There are manifestations of all of the human altuistic traits in non-religious behaviours. Morality is hardwired, and reinforced by society. Religion does not have a monopoly.
I wish someone could show me a list of these examples. I don't need to quote the examples of Moslem, Christian, Hindu (etc.) groups who are extremely well socially adjusted and who do practice what they preach. They may not have a 'monopoly' but the non religious groups seem to be well hidden. I am not referring to what goes on in family and tribal groups. That, as I said in an earlier post, is explicable in terms of innate family self-interest.
If you want to do away with Religion, then you must replace it with something which is 'better'. Are you confident that you can?
This innate, family/tribal self-interest/ethical behaviour is something that can easily account for ethical behaviour in much larger groups. Humans have not evolved to live in groups so large that most other people around them are strangers. Ancestrally, everyone you met was someone who it would benefit you if you were nice to them. This tendency to be nice has simply been expanded to include everyone else we encounter.
The ethical behaviours/traits that religions have made claim to are things like:
love
empathy and sympathy
in-group out-group behaviour
reciprocity, the Golden Rule
generocity, charity etc
laws and rules.
Which of these does religion have a monopoly on, and are there any others that I've missed?
But this is my problem. Once we become aware of the way we regulate ourselves and recognise that religion (and whatever else you care to replace it with) is merely a ruse, gives everyone an excuse to behave just as they please.
What are ethics and 'rights', when viewed that way?
I can't believe someone with your intelligence could think that once people realise that religion is a ruse, they would become immoral. The fact is that morality is part of human ethology. Getting rid of religion is not going to change that.
Besides that, if it were true that anarchy would ensue from the death of religion, that would mean people weren't truly moral in the first place, and we know this to be false.
-
I'm sure early humans would have prescribed their own rules and regulations such as:
She is my woman, nobody else can have her.
This is my cave, only my family & those I invite may come in.
Do not harm my children or I will harm you.
Only those who share in the kill may share in the meat.
Do not pick the fruit of another man's bush.
Some of these laws would have been difficult to uphold at times. e.g. someone could steal fruit from your bush while you're out hunting. So I wonder if a 'Watcher' was invented, who could see all. The 'Watcher' or 'God' not only protects the property and rights of the individual, but also the ethics of the tribe.
In other words, could gods and religion have been born out of a need for ethics/morality?
-
That's plausible. There are some psychological theories being formulated that suggest that god belief arose in similar ways, i.e. as an extension of normal mental and physical processes like personifying non-self objects and beings.
-
Don_1
You seem to be suggesting that Religions are a construct which helps us behave properly (i.e. advantageously for the future of H. Sapiens). They are a vehicle for morality and ethics. That's what I've been trying to say.
Stefan
I do actually believe that there are a significant number of people who would, but for the innate fear of some mystical consequences, behave very antisocially. That is not a lapse in intelligence, on my part, it is based on observation and reading. Let people off the hook and they get up to all sorts of unsuitable behaviour. Any alternative 'ism' will only work if it makes people believe that there is a Jimminy Cricket on their shoulder, checking up on them, even when they think they're on their own. That's a major feature of a religion.
I agree that most religious organisations have been riddled with corruption and self interest but, when you are quite happy to talk of improving a government, why do you not subscribe to the same treatment for the bad in religious organisations? You seem a bit too 'angry' about religions to give them fair consideration.
(remember you are talking to someone who does not actually subscribe to a religion so I am trying to see both sides of the coin)
I think you are falling into the trap of assuming that everyone lives their life at the intellectual level of people who contribute to Science Fora and the like. What I have read of Educational Developmental Theory would suggest that the vast majority of people tend to stick at the Concrete Operational Stage and seldom stray into Formal Operational processes. Religious beliefs developed before the 'intellectual' approach to life came along. They are very low level, sub-conscious, and very simple, basically.
It worries me that to get rid of religion is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Have you any examples, yet, of where it has happened successfully?
-
Don_1
You seem to be suggesting that Religions are a construct which helps us behave properly (i.e. advantageously for the future of H. Sapiens). They are a vehicle for morality and ethics. That's what I've been trying to say.
I am suggesting that this is a possibility among others for the creation of gods. But I do not think religion is an essential for good moral behavior. Indeed, religion has sparked more than its fair share of extremely bad moral behavior. However, religion can also be a great comfort to some in their darkest moments, thus the removal of religion would be a great lose to very many people.
-
Yes. ReligionS all have their bad points. I am differentiating between Religion and Religions, though. There are no perfect religions. Some of the more gentle ones, like Buddhism and the Bahai Faith are less prone to nastinesses. A strict religious code can be a good way through life because it answers many questions for you and you don't need to think too hard about what you should do in a new situation. You are, however, in the hands of the 'priesthood' (the Politicians of the business - some of whom are not even 'believers') and you can be badly advised. But are secular Social Workers and Counselors any more reliable? This is my point, though. Most people would rather be advised about what to do than to think it out for themselves. They are bad enough in that respect about Income Tax. Without some form of religion, what are they supposed to do? They will go out and find a substitute; one with no track record or accreditation at all.
You also brought up the idea of 'comfort'. That is a whole new can of worms which will make hackles rise for the anti religionists. Perhaps it's just better for people to believe in a mythical afterlife even if it does offend 'thinking people'.
This form of analysis (self analysis of our culture) is, surely, the least reliable of all. The problem is even worse than the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.
-
I do actually believe that there are a significant number of people who would, but for the innate fear of some mystical consequences, behave very antisocially. That is not a lapse in intelligence, on my part, it is based on observation and reading. Let people off the hook and they get up to all sorts of unsuitable behaviour. Any alternative 'ism' will only work if it makes people believe that there is a Jimminy Cricket on their shoulder, checking up on them, even when they think they're on their own. That's a major feature of a religion.
Isn't this kind of why we have laws? For the minority with no real conscience?
I agree that most religious organisations have been riddled with corruption and self interest but, when you are quite happy to talk of improving a government, why do you not subscribe to the same treatment for the bad in religious organisations? You seem a bit too 'angry' about religions to give them fair consideration.
(remember you are talking to someone who does not actually subscribe to a religion so I am trying to see both sides of the coin)
Did you miss where I wrote "If something like that were done to religion, where the actual religious content was removed, I'd have no more argument."? When the nonsense is gone, I'll be happy. I don't actually see a baby in the bathwater to be lost.
I think you are falling into the trap of assuming that everyone lives their life at the intellectual level of people who contribute to Science Fora and the like.
Not so.
What I have read of Educational Developmental Theory would suggest that the vast majority of people tend to stick at the Concrete Operational Stage and seldom stray into Formal Operational processes. Religious beliefs developed before the 'intellectual' approach to life came along. They are very low level, sub-conscious, and very simple, basically.
It worries me that to get rid of religion is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As I said, genius is not necessary. Have you read about childhood moral development?
Have you any examples, yet, of where it has happened successfully?
I've shown you the statistics. Those populations were massive. The trends are clear. Nations with lower rates of belief have higher social health. This is worldwide. At the very least this means non-belief does not make people less ethical. If what you are saying was true, you would expect the opposite pattern.
-
Briefly; I have to out.
What are the indicators of 'social health'?
A correlation does not mean a causal relationship and, in this case, does not tell the 'direction' of that relationship.
(btw, which statistics?)
-
I was referring to the last discussion we had about this:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20293.0
http://www.ffrf.org/timely/Religion&Society.pdf
[:)]
By "social health" I mean indicators such as education, rates of homicide & suicide, life expectancy of adults and children/infants, STD/Is, and teen pregnancy.
I was not claiming that there was causation. I was careful not to do that. What I am pointing out is that there is a clear positive correlation between high rates of non-belief and better social health.
Further, the religiously unaffiliated/agnostics/atheists is the fastest growing segment of the population. Why isn't societal dysfunction generally increasing over time for those stats?
That is not what you would expect if your hypothesis was true. At the very least you would expect a negative correlation.
-
I hope that you are correct that there is a workable alternative to religions, in the long run. It may be that religions will not be needed in the future. But, as with all things, revolution is a risky business. Can we be sure that the feedback mechanisms will cope?
-
It's possible that a real revolution could have scary consequences (if it were ever possible, which I doubt). What we would need is for the nonreligious population to continue to grow as it is now or reasonably faster, so that the species eventually abandons organised superstition on its own terms. Along with this, perhaps vigorous moral education could take its place if necessary, and there's nothing to stop religions evolving towards that pure role.
-
So called fundamentalists pick up a religion and interpret it in their own interests and use it as an excuse for the antisocial behaviours you quote. Is that the fault of 'the religion'? Don't you think that they would be just as objectionable without the religious connection?
but without the religious connection, they no longer have that excuse for their actions, and would have alot more trouble convincing others to help them fly planes into buildings, or to justify their view that homosexuals are evil.
-
It is interesting how many times antirligionists quote the bad aspects of religions yet neglect the vast numbers of good works carried out in the name of religion. There is little thought given, either, to speculating where we might have been without the development of religion. It would be unfair not to mention the non religious states and organizations which go around doing harm left right and centre.
I have yet to read an unbiased comparison of the two philosophies and their effect on the World as a whole. When you get down to it, it becomes clear that arguments for and against are just as subjective as each other. Two 'faiths', in fact, at work.
-
Throughout history, the majority of people have been religious. It therefore is inevitable that the majority of people who do good charity work etc have also been religious.
And are you aware of this? It suggests faith is obsolete when it comes to being a good citizen.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/05/14/do-religious-people-make-better-citizens/
There is also no logical pathway from nonbelief to evil, yet there is one from belief - it's right in the holy books in print. If you believe that you will be rewarded for terrorism and that God's will is always good, why wouldn't you do what he wants?
-
There can be no doubt that religions have played a great part in man's moral evolution. Whether we would have arrived at the same moral codes without religion is open to question, but the answer can never be known.
Have we, in fact, retained the same moral codes as our animal cousins? Some animals are gregarious, some are loners, so are we. Some stake out their territory, so do we we. Some share territory, oddly, so do we. Some fight, even to the death, over Territorial possesion, so do we. Some kill other animals for food, so do we. Some kill other animals for fun, so do we.
Are we really so fundamentally different from the rest of the animal kingdom? I don't think we are. Would we have been fundamentally different without religion? That's the $64,000 question, to which the answer is - YES ............. or NO!
-
It seems to have been a while since anyone actually looked at the original question. This seems to me to be one of theose "Religion; Yes or No?" threads that rambles on, never convinces anyone, never prooves anything and, in the end, just risks upsetting people.
Ought we to close it?
-
You have a point there, BC.
(I'm still right, though!)
-
Both sides of the debate are "right" from their own point of view. That's why it's not science.
-
Ought we to close it?
Agreed. There is no right or wrong.
-
Both sides of the debate are "right" from their own point of view. That's why it's not science.
BC, you are SUCH a sport sport!
But, as you say, we'll all have to agree to differ.