When You Think About It In Layman's Terms

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by micmerci
That depends on what you hold as genuine.

Not forgery, interpolation, or religious text. Contemporary writer would be good, thanks.

Fair enough...got any contemporary documentation for the existence of Nero?

I can argue the same preconceived notions that you did.

You have no choice but to argue this way, because of what you cannot do (ie. find any genuine historical sources for christ).

Once again genuine historical sources is a loaded phrase

Why are Greek and Roman historical writings taken as valid while Jewish records are considered myth?

Which ones? The ones about Zeus, Romulus etc? They are obviously as mythical as Jesus.

The Jewish birth records were extremely accurate.

Good. Got one for Jesus?

Yes. Matthew 1:1-16. This wasn't a religious text until it was chosen to be included in the canon. It was merely Jewish birth records. Luke 3:23-38 same.

So, can I prove Jesus or a disciple existed? No Can you prove Nero did?

Robin Hood might have been a better comparison. Perhaps even John Frum (although Frum is almost certainly based on a real person). Yet of all of the people you could have picked and possibly had a point.....you pick a Roman Emperor? Are you serious.....Nero?

Still haven't proven the existence of Nero, only deflected. I picked a Roman Emperor because I was trying to keep it easy as a courtesy.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by micmerci

 

I certainly wouldn't die for someone I had never seen...

That is the test of true selflessness, isn't it though? Like the Good Samaritan. Helping a total stranger at your own risk. Whit out concern for the consequences.

I want that guy on my team. I can trust him.

Context and framing arguments seem to be foreign to you. Quoting "I certainly wouldn't die for someone I had never seen" and then responding as you did is not a rebuttal of my argument but is an attempted attack of my character.

Allow me to reframe the question in simpler terms.

Would you give up your life for Santa Claus?

Assuming your logical response would be no. It would be idiotic, no? So, apply that logic to the disciples and 1st century martyrs- see where I was going with that now?

Try to stick with the debate instead of calling into question the selflessness of others in a public forum.

Originally posted by qualm91
"Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day.

Noooo. This is not true. the LORD himself says...

My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and
twenty years.

-- Genesis 6:3

He isn't always there watching you. Sometimes, he just doesn't bother. He gives up, takes a rest, watches TV, etc..

The last thing you want is for HIM to start to pay attention to you. For then, the judgments come, his spirit starts striving with you, to set you back on the right path. And maybe you were having fun, just fine, doing whatever it was you were doing. Nobody wants DAD to keep telling them what to do all the time. HE understands. So, sometimes he just turns his back, and ignores you for awhile. At least, that's what he says, in Genesis, that's what he wants us to think.

reply to post by qualm91


Amost EVERY religous text have been manipulated by man for the use of control and power over others.

You have to take them with a grain of salt.

They were meant to teach us spirituality not so we could WORSHIP anyone and anything.

Just because some stupid books have skewed thoughts and words does not mean there is not a creator.

The creator never wanted anyone to woship it just to appreciate what has been created.

reply to post by knowledgedesired


In the Bible, God clearly calls for worship. Again, this is just a book, and it HAS been manipulated by man, but still, that's what it says. But, I don't discount that there is a creator. In fact, I know there has to have been something at one point that helped move us along our evolutionary path. But I don't believe that this creator made everything we know (such as the entire universe), I just think that he made US, the things that live on this specific planet. If you want my honest opinion, I think it's most likely that what we see around us on this Earth was genetically engineered by an extraterrestrial race. And that this is what people think of as "God". Don't call me crazy, this is just what I think is the most likely explanation.

Very interesting thread so far. I am enjoying reading all of the different points of view here. I have asked all the same questions and heard all of the same answers as are being presented here. I have also tied to find God in other religions and holy texts. I have found tat God is not trapped by our understanding. While the concept is beyond our capabilitiy, it is not impossible for there to be a creator. I think that alot of what is in many of the holy texts is simply man trying to make sense of it. Since the concept is beyond full comprehension, some of it comes off sounding pretty strange as the writer struggles to break it down into terms his prospective reader will understand. That would explain many of the ridiculous quotes that can be found throughout the Bible. Is there a hell? Yes, most certainly. Look around you. You live in a place where innocent chidren are gunned down for fun, familes executed as part of medical experiments, the only means to sustain life is through death. Even vegetarians have to kill a plant to eat. You are in hell. We call it Earth. Now, it is true there are mnay beautiful things about this place as well. I don't believe the world is all evil and full of hatred. There is a balance to it that I cannot explain logically. Hopefully we can find a way out. I believe that every religion has at least part of it correct, which part, I have no clue. I have believed since childohood that this is hell and when we die we will return until we get it right. That is when we are released form here and get to find out what else there is. Just for reference, I was raised Roman Catholic, went to Catholic school for my first few years. I try to remain open minded about such discussions. I believe that open and friendly conversation can lead to many interesting insights. So, could I be wrong about it all? Yup, could be.

Originally posted by qualm91
I think it's most likely that what we see around us on this Earth was genetically engineered by an extraterrestrial race. And that this is what people think of as "God". Don't call me crazy, this is just what I think is the most likely explanation.

I wouldn't call you crazy for a theory like that. Hell I am sure know many on ATS share this opinion. To me it's always made more sense than the idea of a "all knowing, all powerful" god who passes judgement on the entire world...

I am not hating on anyone's religion by any means, I am just simply agreeing with you and pointing out it just seems more plausible in my opinion.

-SAP-

reply to post by qualm91


Good post OP, and you're right... ATS and many threads have over the years been hijacked by what we would call fanatics if they were in another country. Heck, some would straight out call them terrorists.

This used to be a place for intelligent discourse, and it still is but to a lesser degree. As you noticed, many threads devolve into bible quoting in order to prove a point, which only discredits the poster further.

And as far as those Christians you know that are amazing people -- had they been born Muslims, they would have been amazing Muslims, or amazing Buddhists, or amazing atheists... or simply amazing human beings. I strive to be a better person not because of an old book, but because of proper parenting as a child and because I have an innate sense of what is right and wrong, and because I believe we are all equal and deserve to live our lives in peace and with love.

S&F, welcome to ATS.


Khar

This is just my personal opinion, but I think people should attempt to distinguish between God as "the One Universal Consciousness" and God as "evil aliens who want may want to capitalize on our ignorance by imposing religion/money/violence on us and pretending to be God." Not easy separating the wheat from the chaff, eh?

Originally posted by micmerci
Fair enough...got any contemporary documentation for the existence of Nero?

You mean like the official coins struck in his honour, used throughout the empire, during his reign? Or the contemporary sources that we do know of (even if originals were destroyed). The many later references (that are not forgeries) to these original works? The archaeology that is consistent with accounts. The building works he commissioned? The geneology including real people, events that we know happened etc? That sort of thing?

This is a bit of a silly "strawman". If jesus can't be real neither can Nero na-na-na-na-na. You could argue details of his existence, but few educated (or even uneducated) people would doubt Nero existed, because of the overwhelming evidence we do have. It might take religious delusion/psychosis to argue such a strawman in this way.

It also has nothing to do with jesus claimed existence (you know, the fabled god/man and his book, that is entirely relevant to this thread), which you are obviously having a little difficulty justifying.

Once again genuine historical sources is a loaded phrase

No it isn't. It suits your special pleading and strawman fallacies to claim this.

Yes. Matthew 1:1-16. This wasn't a religious text until it was chosen to be included in the canon. It was merely Jewish birth records. Luke 3:23-38 same.

ancienthistory.about.com...

Still haven't proven the existence of Nero, only deflected. I picked a Roman Emperor because I was trying to keep it easy as a courtesy.

Then start a thread doubting the existence of Nero (instead of using it as a strawman in this thread), I would be happy to contribute. It would also be fascinating to see what other sort of replies might be given. What a shame this scepticism wasn't also turned towards your imaginary friend.

Originally posted by qualm91
Religion, I very much so believe, is just a way to scare people into acting a certain way. It's a form of mind-control that I find disgusting. I know many Christians whom I have the utmost respect for because they are simply amazing people with wonderful hearts who will love you endlessly. I have respect for them, and I have love for them, but I cannot understand how (if they have read the Bible) they can worship this God so blindly and full of trust. Why do you have such faith in a God like this?

This sounds verbatum to my thoughts and rants 15yrs ago. I mean no offense by that nor what I am about to say. Honestly, picking and chosing versus like that is not really different then how the other side does it to prove their point. There is plenty of material that if I looked hard enough I can show how "God" really intended for us to be Sea Turtles with wings but an evil apple manipulated us into being.....something else.

It took many many years of research and self-reflection and I constantly find myself even today finding my own truth not the truth I am told to believe. When it comes to religion, which is not the same as spirituality, has to be taken in context. For starters many of the old patriarchs of the Old Testament (same books the condone slavery, wife beating) originated in older books with different contexts themselves.

I useed to think it was as simple as people just being afraid and I would rationalize it as such: Our ancestors didn't understand science so fire and lighting scared them. They were scared of everything so they assigned a God to each of their fears and worshiped in hopes they would please these Gods and excape fate. Then as we developed we understood the principles of electricity, fire, etc but there was one thing we still didn't understand so feared. Death, it being such a mystery and used to freigthen us that we fear what we don't understand so we assign a God to that.....afterlife.

Throughout the years I learned the rabit hole goes much much deeper and the truth is obfuscated by truthiness and half truths. The bible is relevant in the sense that it served its purpose through the dark ages. We had generation after generation to experience all that we needed to. We should rejoice in that thought and know in the end all will be revealed and the truth is much stranger than fiction, yet ellegantly perfect.

I wish you all the luch on your journey for truth and hope you find it.

Stay Sacred.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Okay, so with a fairly small amount of digging I have found what you're referring to and they are called "cargo cults". Basically, these cargo cults form rather rapidly from events or encounters with some powerful "force"(for lack of a better term) beyond the understanding of that particular culture.

Now that we know HOW they are formed. Let's move on to the next question: WHY?
We know that the particular "cargo cults" we're speaking of were formed when met face to face with foreign cultures and technologies. They reacted in a manner that is....quite interesting if you ask me, but that's not my point.

My point being this:

As compared to other modern religions, Christianity in specific as it is the main course of discussion within this thread, what correlations can be made between the rise of cargo cults and the rise of Christianity? i.e. What was the profound and powerful "force" that prompted the rise of Christianity?

A2D

I find the silence on my previous postings deafening. I'm not trying to be rude or draw attention to myself here. I responded to the thread hoping that general discussions would ensue and we could possibly encourage others to free their mind or possibly even gain a bit of knowledge ourselves. This has not been the case.

OP, Please let me know what you think of my response.

Much appreciated.
A2D

reply to post by qualm91


All I can say is, if the God of the Old Testament does indeed exist, he's really dropped the ball. Why isn't he in Washington working some of that magic on Congress?

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

Okay, so with a fairly small amount of digging I have found what you're referring to and they are called "cargo cults". Basically, these cargo cults form rather rapidly from events or encounters with some powerful "force"(for lack of a better term) beyond the understanding of that particular culture.

Now that we know HOW they are formed. Let's move on to the next question: WHY?
We know that the particular "cargo cults" we're speaking of were formed when met face to face with foreign cultures and technologies. They reacted in a manner that is....quite interesting if you ask me, but that's not my point.

My point being this:

As compared to other modern religions, Christianity in specific as it is the main course of discussion within this thread, what correlations can be made between the rise of cargo cults and the rise of Christianity? i.e. What was the profound and powerful "force" that prompted the rise of Christianity?

A2D

A fascinating subject. Did you know John Frum has gone from a normal person (probably real) who predicted "cargo" would arrive (possibly the only religious profit to be successful) and advised returning to normal customs instead of those imposed by the harsh missionaries..... to a supernatural "saviour deity" who lives in the local volcano, waiting for the right time to reappear and save his people, in around 80 years?

There are many ways in which parallels can be drawn with christianity and many ways it also, cannot. Would be a great discussion.

A favourite anecdote is the one about a christian tourist suggesting to a local chief/ John Frum "wise man" that it might be a little silly to think Frum is returning after this time. To be met with....."No, he is our saviour. You christians have been waiting 2,000 years for your saviour.....and you haven't given up hope".....

There is wisdom in that.

reply to post by qualm91


yeah umm George Carlin is dead. And your making fun of the bible like an ignorant bad comic yourself...So do yourself a favor and keep your pathetic ramblings to yourself ...All the bullsh t going down around us and non- believing superior feeling morons such as yourself. are wearing on my last nerve ,lucky for you God has patience .

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


I've read your discussions with the other member here back and forth....but I have to ask, can you reference any legitimate historian with a degree that denies the historical figure of Jesus? (I can....and will)

But first:

H.G. Wells - “I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.”

Bart Ehrman - "I don't know of any respected scholar who maintains that there is not abundant evidence that Jesus existed."

Michael Grant - "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Richard A. Burridge - "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

And finally, my favorite.... In The Historical Jesus: Five Views Robert M. Price (who denies the historicity of Jesus Christ) says that his view runs AGAINST the views of....THE MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS.

Pause....
Just a thought....
Why do the majority of scholars accept the historicity of Jesus Christ if "there isn't any evidence"...?

Note: This has nothing to do with any claims or feats of the figure of Christ....simply his existence. Many scholars deny or seriously doubt the claims, but rarely doubt the actual figures existence.

A2D

That you, Tyanna, are experiencing questions about "God" makes me wonder about your interest in Physics. Many of the great physicists have turned to theology in their later years to assuage their questions about reality. Though, just so you know, I have turned there once. I will explain.

Probably one of the better Physics instructors I had in college was a devout Mormon. I set up a meeting with him once and asked him how he could possibly balance his faith with his beliefs. His answer was both simple, and complex; he said, it was all a matter of "time". Time, as you will know, is a very interesting paradigm in physics. It is not easy to understand time. In fact, it was time, and the relationship of electro-magnetism vs. gravity which brought even Einstein to his knees scientifically.

In this thread you have said that 'the Bible' has been manipulated by man. The truth, as you probably know, is that the Bible was not even written for several hundred years after Christ's death. It was a legend.

Religion was a way to explain that which the simple people did not understand. The moon and stars if you will. Religion has always been a way to explain things which people fear, but are unable to control. Look back in history; before the Bible (the Quran or anything else) there were multiple "gods". They served the purpose of explaining things that no one else could...all throughout history. Multiple 'gods' became unacceptable once defined religion came on stage. Why? Because, (honestly) the money went to more than one house of worship.

Believe in "God", or don't; that choice is up to you. Just know this; belief is not contained in a book, a legend, or a story. Belief is contained in an understanding of history, existence and reasonable probability of what will happen in the future.

For me, I do believe in "God", as strange as that may seem to you based on what I've said. What form the entity some characterize as "God" takes is lost on me, but...

No other entity could have created such a magical and truly complex universe as the one we live in. As you learn more, you will see.

My .02

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Interesting indeed. However, it's unfortunate to note that in the case of the John Frum cargo cult movement, they were already heavily influenced by existing religious practices within the Sulphur Bay.

And again, my initial point still stands. That is,

Given that religion is in fact pre-historic (having existed before recorded history) we have literally zero way(barring one of the greatest discoveries of mankind) of knowing any who why or whats about the earliest religions formed. We can't determine who formed the earliest religion. Thus we can't determine why.

Thus, to say religion was created as a tool to control masses, is simply a misunderstanding of intention and usage.

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I've read your discussions with the other member here back and forth....but I have to ask, can you reference any legitimate historian with a degree that denies the historical figure of Jesus? (I can....and will)

Of course there are.

This one seems one of the better ones. He has put out a (genuine) alternative hypothesis for review amongst peers.

en.wikipedia.org...

Pause....
Just a thought....
Why do the majority of scholars accept the historicity of Jesus Christ if "there isn't any evidence"...?

The majority of relevant scholars who specialise in this feild, both historically and presently also seem to be religious delusionals. For most of our own history, people would have risked death to deny biblical history, many biases still linger on.

In contrast, the "mainstream" scholarly position seems to be that the story was probably based an ordinary unremarkable man, noticed only by a handful of fanatical followers, who later became mythicised out of all proportion. Though, less on evidence and more because of "where there's smoke, there must be fire".

The quotes you mention seem nice, but are opinions that have no solid evidence. There is no way (as yet) that this position can be genuinely supported, without special pleading. Such as beginning with acceptance of scripture as historically reliable. The quote above seems to be an "argumentum ad populum" (appeal to numbers) fallacy.

Note: This has nothing to do with any claims or feats of the figure of Christ....simply his existence. Many scholars deny or seriously doubt the claims, but rarely doubt the actual figures existence.

A2D

I would argue there are no scholars at all who believe in the claimed feats. We know they cannot happen. The problem is that so many in this field who think themselves scholars, do accept it (personally) and are biased by belief.