Christianity

[Harry Baird]

So show me one that matters, instead of penny-ante stuff like Cain's alleged wife.

They all matter. No single one is definitive, but the combination (for me) is.

[P]rove Christ never was who He said He was. [...] Take your best shot.

I could easily retort with: prove that he was. Further: prove that he even said what you think he said about who he was.

And that, from my point of view, is exactly the problem. It's a murky question which can neither be proved nor disproved, although it can't be disputed that Christ was a remarkable individual, to have inspired such a devoted following right from the start.

To me, that (the lack of definitive proof nor disprove) implies something very, very significant about the whole matter. If what's riding on this putative knowledge (that Christ is who you think he said he is) is so devastatingly crucial as the possibility of a conscious being burning in agony for eternity, then a just God would make sure that there was no doubt as to who Christ was and is, and that he is what (you think) he said he is.

But there is room for reasonable doubt. Therefore...

[Immanuel Can]

So show me one that matters, instead of penny-ante stuff like Cain's alleged wife.

They all matter. No single one is definitive, but the combination (for me) is.

There aren't a lot, and practically none for which a good and plausible explanation is not already available. We've had thousands of years of Biblical scholarship to discover these things. The Bible is literally, by far, the most studied and researched book in human history, bar none.

So I have to say, it looks to me like you're being a little petty there. But one can always unilaterally declare, "Whatever you say, I'm just going to refuse to accept it."

One can do that. Nobody can prevent it.

[P]rove Christ never was who He said He was. [...] Take your best shot.

I could easily retort with: prove that he was.

You could, indeed. And that would open up all that wonderful scholarship. So pick your entry point, and let's go there. There's a veritable "Atlantic Ocean" of stuff for us to explore.

Further: prove that he even said what you think he said about who he was.

There's been a lot of scholarship on that, too...

You don't seriously imagine that Christians have never thought of any of these questions before, do you?

And that, from my point of view, is exactly the problem. It's a murky question which can neither be proved nor disproved, although it can't be disputed that Christ was a remarkable individual, to have inspired such a devoted following right from the start.

I find that a little hilarious, frankly. You praise a Man who you deny even existed, and call "inspirational" words you say you don't even think He spoke!

To me, that (the lack of definitive proof nor disprove) implies something very, very significant about the whole matter.

There's no ancient document for which more definitive "proof" exists, actually. You just know nothing about it, apparently.

But there is room for reasonable doubt. Therefore...

"Doubt?" Yes. People can "doubt" things forever, no matter what evidence there is. "Reasonable"? Well, that's debatable.

[Harry Baird]

So I have to say, it looks to me like you're being a little petty there.

Nah. I'm being straightforward. There's plenty of stuff in the Bible that, if taken literally, strains credulity to the breaking point, and, overall, reaches the level of absurdity.

But one can always unilaterally declare, "Whatever you say, I'm just going to refuse to accept it."

That cuts both ways...

[P]rove Christ never was who He said He was. [...] Take your best shot.

I could easily retort with: prove that he was.

You could, indeed. And that would open up all that wonderful scholarship. So pick your entry point, and let's go there. There's a veritable "Atlantic Ocean" of stuff for us to explore.

You pick your entry point, since the case is yours to prove.

You don't seriously imagine that Christians have never thought of any of these questions before, do you?

Of course they have. That doesn't automatically make any answers they've arrived at correct or even plausible.

You praise a Man who you deny even existed

Huh? I believe that Jesus existed, and that he very likely has a meaningful degree of spiritual authority. From where did you get the idea that I don't?

and call "inspirational" words you say you don't even think He spoke!

Huh? I am agnostic as to what Christ actually spoke. But yes, a lot of that which is attributed to him is inspirational.

To me, that (the lack of definitive proof nor disprove) implies something very, very significant about the whole matter.

There's no ancient document for which more definitive "proof" exists, actually. You just know nothing about it, apparently.

Yep. Right on time, there's the slipperiness: you snuck in the qualifier "ancient". That's a whole different standard to "modern" or even unqualified. If there's so much riding on the matter, then why would God leave us with such a paucity of standard of proof ("ancient"), rather than something definitive from the modern era?

[Nick_A]

I asked uwot if he knew the difference between knowledge and understanding. Of course he avoided it. Now I ask you. Would you agree that knowledge consists of all our associations. However understanding is defined by what we do. We know many facts but if we absorbed them we wouldn't do the opposite.

It seems to me that what you are getting at is a further elaboration of, and the desire to receive some sort of affirmation (?) that some people here grasp what mysticism entails. Mysticism, either in the Christian or the pagan (or semi-Christian) tradition, best describes my own situation and relationship. So I would certainly say that 'understanding' is a very different animal that assembly of facts (which is what I take your term here 'knowledge' to mean). I definitely agree that mind and intellect can be 'illuminated'. The best people, the most realized people, have always seemed to me to have spirits and minds illuminated by something ineffable.

So as you might guess I tend to place stock in Plato's declaration about a 'leaping spark' that 'self-nourishes'. That is a mystical insight. But I am certain that mystical insight does not depend on some slavish relationship to Christianity nor, I must say, to Jesus of Nazareth. I take 'Logos' and 'the Word' in a different sense.

The best minds -- the best (Christian) theological minds -- I have encountered are of the Oxford Movement. I am just now reading Christian Mysticism by WR Inge:

Inge was a strong proponent of the spiritual type of religion—"that autonomous faith which rests upon experience and individual inspiration"—as opposed to one of coercive authority. He was therefore outspoken in his criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church. His thought, on the whole, represents a blending of traditional Christian theology with elements of Platonic philosophy. He shares this in common with one of his favourite writers, Benjamin Whichcote, the first of the Cambridge Platonists.

My own orientation (within Christianity and the pagan-Christian traditions) has been influenced by this school of Christian thought.

There is nothing mystical abut it but just basic psychology. If we know so much about Christianity for example, why can't we practice it? The reason is that we don't understand it. If understanding is defined by what we do, it is obvious that we don't understand Christianity.

Mark 9:23-25
New King James Version
23 Jesus said to him, “If[a] you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”

24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

A person may believe in what they know but find out soon enough that they do the opposite since they do not understand what they believe. Of course those proud of their knowledge will find this revelation offensive but what good is all this knowledge if a person doesn't understand it and does the opposite? To admit the difference between knowing and understanding is a step in the right direction towards wisdom but rare in the academic community. The obvious question is how to acquire understanding but is offensive for those who believe they know everything.

[promethean75]

What in the heck are you guys talking about in this neverending thread?

Do you guys talk like this with people during your day in real time, or is this strange behavior reserved for philosophy forums?

[Harry Baird]

So show me one that matters, instead of penny-ante stuff like Cain's alleged wife.

They all matter. No single one is definitive, but the combination (for me) is.

On a related note, here's a presentation of the implausibilities of the general Christian story, let alone that of a strictly literalist Christianity. There are a few items that I'm not quite in agreement with, but, for the most part, I think that it's a highly compelling critique of mainstream Christianity. This is the sort of stuff which prevents me from identifying as a Christian, even though I think that there is a lot that Christianity does get right.

God's Checklist 2.0 [YouTube video]

[Immanuel Can]

You pick your entry point, since the case is yours to prove.

Great.

Let's go.

Let's start with the Resurrection.

There's no ancient document for which more definitive "proof" exists, actually. You just know nothing about it, apparently.

Yep. Right on time, there's the slipperiness: you snuck in the qualifier "ancient". That's a whole different standard to "modern" or even unqualified. If there's so much riding on the matter, then why would God leave us with such a paucity of standard of proof ("ancient"), rather than something definitive from the modern era?

The Bible says, "In the fulness of time, God sent forth His Son..." In other words, He arrived at just the time He needed to.

You know, I've had other discussions with other skeptics who criticize Him not for being at the beginning of history itself. They ask, "What about all the people before Christ came? Is it fair that He came in the early years AD, and not a few thousand years ealier? What about poor Socrates, or the other ancients? Didn't God care about them?"

And now, you want to criticize Him for not coming in your own day -- so you could watch Him, I guess.

So that's perspective. But the answer is obvious: God's timing is the right timing. Neither you, nor the other critics are more qualified to know when "the fulness of time" was or is. But God doesn't make mistakes.

So we have ancient evidence...but the best sort the human race possesses, and a whole lot more, I'm certain, than you have the slightest idea exists. But maybe I'm too hasty. Maybe you do know the evidence for the Resurrection.

Here's everything you could possibly want to know about that, in what has been called "the most comprehensive defense of Jesus' resurrection anywhere," by one of the pre-eminent Biblical scholars and theologians today. Let's see what you make of the evidence. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrectio ... 0825427886.

[Harry Baird]

Let's start with the Resurrection.

Fine. What have you got?

He arrived at just the time He needed to.

Maybe he did, but how are we to know that to the standard of proof that warrants eternal agony in a fiery hell for non-acceptance. (Wait, did I even say that? As if there could ever be a warrant for such a fate).

You know, I've had other discussions with other skeptics who criticize Him not for being at the beginning of history itself. They ask, "What about all the people before Christ came? Is it fair that He came in the early years AD, and not a few thousand years ealier? What about poor Socrates, or the other ancients? Didn't God care about them?"

Perfectly reasonable questions. What is your answer to them?

And now, you want to criticize Him for not coming in your own day -- so you could watch Him, I guess.

Oh dear. You've misunderstood that particular criticism of mine, which is not about when he came, but rather how we can know with the requisite certainty that he came, whenever it was.

But maybe I'm too hasty.

Yeah, probably. I probably know a fair bit more about all this than you imagine or allow yourself to imagine.

[Nick_A]

What in the heck are you guys talking about in this neverending thread?

Do you guys talk like this with people during your day in real time, or is this strange behavior reserved for philosophy forums?

If a person's goal is to get a girls pants off, this type of conversation is useless. It is only useful for those who feel the attraction to meaning and express it in their own way

[Harry Baird]

Here's everything you could possibly want to know about that, in what has been called "the most comprehensive defense of Jesus' resurrection anywhere," by one of the pre-eminent Biblical scholars and theologians today. Let's see what you make of the evidence. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrectio ... 0825427886.

Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader, so I'm unlikely to read that book.

In any case, I think you misunderstand. I'm very open to the possibility that Jesus resurrected.

What I'm asking you to prove though is that Jesus actually, and truthfully, claimed that only those who believed that he resurrected would be saved from an eternity of fiery agony in hell. Moreover, I'd then expect a rationale for how this could be in the slightest bit reasonable on the part of a wholly good God.

[Dubious]

We've had thousands of years of Biblical scholarship to discover these things. The Bible is literally, by far, the most studied and researched book in human history, bar none.

That depends on what you call scholarship. Does the old variety of "scholarship" - if one can call it that - have anything in common with modern biblical research or has there been a whole new list of recently applied disciplines and techniques employed in its study...that aside whether these new apps proclaim or disclaim the bible's theological underpinnings.

From...Chapter VIII - The Rise of Modern Biblical Scholarship and Recent Discussion of the Authority of the Bible

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2008

Summary

The Rise of Modern Biblical Scholarship

During the century and a half in which modern methods of study have been applied to the task of biblical research the achievement of scholarship has been positive and immense. Inscriptions and documents contemporaneous with the biblical writings have been discovered; ancient languages can now be read whose existence was unknown or barely suspected by scholars a hundred years ago. It is today possible to compare biblical religious and social ideas and practices with those of other ancient peoples who lived alongside Israel and who influenced and were influenced by the development of Jewish and Christian thought and worship. Modern archaeological, philological and ‘history-of-religion’ methods have resulted in the accumulation of a mass of knowledge which illuminates every page of the Bible, while at the same time the development of the critical, literary and historical study of the biblical books themselves has brought about a complete revision of traditional notions about their relation to one another. It is impossible here to catalogue the results of these researches, but it is necessary to say something about their rise in the nineteenth century and their consequences both for biblical interpretation and for Christian theology in general in the twentieth. One thing has happened as a result of the rise of modern biblical research in the nineteenth century, and it affects every school of biblical interpretation in the western world today: it is no longer possible to ignore the discoveries of the scientific investigators, the archaeologists, philologists and workers in the sphere of the history of religion (loosely called ‘comparative religion’).

[Immanuel Can]

Let's start with the Resurrection.

Fine. What have you got?

Here's everything you could possibly want to know about that, in what has been called "the most comprehensive defense of Jesus' resurrection anywhere," by one of the pre-eminent Biblical scholars and theologians today. Let's see what you make of the evidence. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrectio ... 0825427886.

Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader, so I'm unlikely to read that book.

Well, that will tell us lots. I've given you the best source available, highly lauded by the relevant experts as the most comprehensive and current source. There's literally nothing better on this subject for you to read.

If you are actually concerned about any of this, you'll make an exception to your alleged antipathy to reading. If you're not, you won't.

It's now really that simple.

[Harry Baird]

Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader, so I'm unlikely to read that book.

Well, that will tell us lots.

Uh, no. It tells you only that I'm not much of a reader. There are all sorts of great books about all sorts of subjects that I'd read if I was. But I'm not. It's nothing specific to this topic, and thus tells you nothing specific about it.

Now, since you expect me to read an entire book simply because you referred me to it, you can hopefully watch the ten or so minute video to which I referred you. I look forward to your response.

[Harry Baird]

[Deleted post: its sentiments were unnecessarily unkind]

[Age]

Oh. So, you don't understand logical possibility. It's a formal concept - do some research on it if you need to.

Your INABILITY to just SAY and EXPLAIN, HOW, it is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'logically, possible for human beings to live without air or oxygen here, SHOWS and REVEALS MORE where you are, EXACTLY. That is; you are ACTUALLY NOT even ABLE TO explain HOW.

If you actually understood what logical possibility means, then you wouldn't need an explanation. Do me a favour and look it up.

You are STILL UNABLE TO back up and support YOUR CLAIM here.

And because you do NOT YET KNOW what 'logical possibility' refers to EXACTLY, this is WHY you are NOT ABLE TO provide an example for your CLAIM here.

I did indicate in my initial response to you that I don't know how I could be convinced that some putative One Truth really is The One Truth,

What is this One Truth, that you speak of here, which is considered or reputed to be the One Truth, EXACTLY?

I'm not proposing any particular candidate, just referring in general to potential candidates.

You BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that there could NEVER even be a 'potential candidate', correct?

If, and when, EVERY one is agreeing on some thing being true, right, or correct, then, unfortunately for you, and contrary to what you BELIEVE, this will actually absolutely rigorous enough for you.

So, if everybody agrees that the Earth is the centre of the universe, then it's true. What nonsense.

It is this kind of Truly DISTORTED thinking WHY 'you', human beings, do NOT and can NOT evolve any further, and progress forwards.

I suggest you LOOK AT and READ MY WORDS, AGAIN, while NOT adding ANY STUPID or ABSURD thinking into them, as you have here.

I will say this again, if some thing could be wrong, then NOT ALL would agree that it is right.

So, to IMAGINE that EVERY one would agree on some thing being right, which could be wrong, is just PURE NONSENSE in the EXTREME I will add.

See, you can NOT even DISAGREE with this, let alone even try and REFUTE it.

More nonsense.

LOL Go ahead and 'TRY TO' SHOW us that that is ACTUALLY nonsense.

You can NOT back up and support your OTHER CLAIM here. And, you are NOT ABLE to back up and support THIS CLAIM, EITHER. As you WILL PROVE absolutely True, FOR ME.