That New Testament malark.

the real ramon

Scofflaw wrote:

People apparently don't notice if someone they're giving directions to is suddenly replaced by a different person!

Especially in Ireland I'd imagine, we're always miles away!

Fascinating though. I think I wouldn't notice.

As for the gospels, I'd agree with Wicknight in that he didn't want to die and his followers made up a pretty good reason for the credulous times as to why he never saved the world.

As for his character, there's not much to go on and it was all written some decades later so all we can do is speculate. I often do wonder though did he think he was the 'first coming' in much the same way as some people these days believe they are the 'second coming'

I think Siddharta Gautama and Jesus both had an excellent understanding of psychology, and think both meant well, I'd just ignore the ressurection stuff.

People are more fascinated with the figure of Jesus though than with his philosophy (with the exception of Quakers), which makes most sects ofChristianity a bit of a personality cult.

J.R.HARTLEY

Asiaprod wrote:

Pilate expressed great surprise to learn that Jesus had expired after only 3 hours. Way to short an expected time for the event to happen.

Only no 1 requires the person to be the Son of God for the act to have made sense. This is the accepted way it went down. Until some book is discovered that can authenticate any of this, it will always be down to speculation. For me, the true answer always comes down to one simple fact,.....does the system of belief and all that goes with it you have chosen to follow work for you?

the only thing about that fact is that as the story goes, he had been flogged to within an inch of his life and could barely walk the road to the place of execution, now, the main and important point behind this is that weak legs and a tired body cannot bear the persons weight on a cross and therefore they'd suffocate much earlier than normal (that is how you die on a cross). a lot of the "academics" i have seen on TV that argue this point seem ignorant of it or else conveniently forgot. either way it does help explain it, now thats only johns gosple that gives 3 hours as the death time, matthew and luke i think give it as six hours.
anyway your other points are all sound ,

the true answer always comes down to one simple fact,.....does the system of belief and all that goes with it you have chosen to follow work for you?

that is, for me, the most spot on part of any post in this thread. well said.

Excelsior

I know I am on borrowed territory here and can't do my usual job of flaming people, crucifying people or insulting them but just a couple of points-

We have references to over a hundred Messiah movements between about 100BC and 100AD in Palestine. This gives us a pretty clear idea of what tended to happen. There is only one Messiah movement that began to grow after the typical and expected Roman punishment for claiming to be King.

Generally accepted thought on the matter would estimate the Romans crucified as many as 100,000 in Palestine during their occupation. It is unlikely enough to discount that they somehow got the Jesus' death wrong, especially when you consider the political fervency amongst the Jewish population that caused his trial.

I won't deal with the myriad other permutations raised here lest my efforts to debate your views could be misconstrued as Bible bashing, brainwashing or moralising.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

that is, for me, the most spot on part of any post in this thread. well said.

so you can believe whatever you want, just so long as it makes you feel good?

ye gods.

(edit)

also, am I the first person to bring up the point that he may have been a mushroom?

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/Allegro/Allegro-SundayMirror.htm

I'm reading his book atm, and it's pretty good.

Asiaprod

Mordeth wrote:

also, am I the first person to bring up the point that he may have been a mushroom?

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/Allegro/Allegro-SundayMirror.htm

That was a surprise to me! Does this mean we can no longer use the term Magic Mushroom but must now say Spiritual Mushroom.

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

I know I am on borrowed territory here and can't do my usual job of flaming people, crucifying people or insulting them but just a couple of points

Happy to see you're still dropping by.

And I'm thinking a bit of flaming and crucifixion might liven things up!

Zombrex

the real ramon wrote:

People are more fascinated with the figure of Jesus though than with his philosophy (with the exception of Quakers), which makes most sects ofChristianity
a bit of a personality cult.

True, and they also see the resurrection of Jesus as "proof" that God exists. Which is why you get into big flame wars if you try and suggest that Jesus might not have been resurrected, or at the very least that the authors of the Bible cannot know for sure that he was.

An interesting question to pose to Christians is if they would still believe in God (not Jesus, but God) if it was proven for sure that Jesus was not resurrected. I have already had people on the Christianity forum tell me that if the New Testement is wrong then there is no God. To me that isn't faith, that is seeking proof and reassurance for your beliefs.

I personally believe this need for proof of God, from the Bible, is causing a lot of the religious fundamentalism problems we see in places like the US. Really the faith of these fundamenatalists is actually quite insecure. They need proof and they need reassurance that what they believe is correct, and will always be correct. Which, in my opinion, goes some way to explain the attacks on things like evolution that have been taking place.

hairyheretic

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

If you have faith, do you really need proof?

Louisiana

blind faith is no good to anyone, you need to have an understanding in what you believe in. Jesus was reknown as a phophet to more than the christians. you can believe in him and what he stood for without getting bogged down by mysticisim and other worldly forces.

the word god derived from the word goodness. jesus could have stood for what was good and worked hard in the community. the simplest sollution is usually correct. id be more impressed with the do unto others idea than with stories of raising the dead.

Dades

hairyheretic wrote:

If you have faith, do you really need proof?

I think you can still have faith and look for proof.

Of course if you find real* proof, it wouldn't be faith anymore.

* can of worms

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

I think you can still have faith and look for proof.

True. But to me a more interesting question is can you still have faith if your established proof turns out to be false.

Thats a question the western religions have had to constantly ask themselves since the 17th century as the scientific method has continued to errode the previously established biblical theories of the Earth.

I think its funny that Christians constantly go on about how science can never disprove God. That is true, and probably gives them some security that no one can ever tell them that they have been wrong all along.

But at the same time can Christians (and others) accept their faith if by the same token science can never prove God does exist.

Can a religious person be religious if it turns out no one can ever find real evidence for their faith? You can see that the need for evidence, for proof, is very strong by looking at how fundamentalist religions gravitate around books like the Bible or Quar'an. To me it seems head-hurtingly illogical that someone would take the Bible literally, but at the same time I can understand that doing so gives the person a sense of security that their beliefs are correct. If the natural world matches the Bible that proves the Bible is correct, and therefore proves God exist.

Maybe the atheist forum isn't the best forum to ask these questions

hairyheretic

I'd call myself spiritual rather than religious (spirituality being your connection with whatever you believe in, and religion the man made trappings that grow up around that). I doubt I could ever produce independently verifiable proof for my beliefs, but to be honest, I don't see the need to. I'm not going to try and force anyone else to believe as I do. My beliefs are my own. I believe that they are valid. Thats really all I need.

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Maybe the atheist forum isn't the best forum to ask these questions

I think that it is a very good place to ask these questions. Some of the ideas that have come up are real food for thought.

J.R.HARTLEY

Mordeth wrote:

so you can believe whatever you want, just so long as it makes you feel good?

ye gods.

(edit)

also, am I the first person to bring up the point that he may have been a mushroom?

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/Allegro/Allegro-SundayMirror.htm

I'm reading his book atm, and it's pretty good.

no, you obvoiously picked it up wrong, where i'm coming from is that you shouldn't follow a faith that you can't personally believe.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Can a religious person be religious if it turns out no one can ever find real evidence for their faith? You can see that the need for evidence, for proof, is very strong by looking at how fundamentalist religions gravitate around books like the Bible or Quar'an. To me it seems head-hurtingly illogical that someone would take the Bible literally, but at the same time I can understand that doing so gives the person a sense of security that their beliefs are correct. If the natural world matches the Bible that proves the Bible is correct, and therefore proves God exist.

Science may not be able to prove/disprove God, but it's relatively trivial to prove/disprove a literal reading of the Bible, as we know...

I don't think fundamentalist Christians gravitate to the Bible because of a search for proof. Most sects are already committed to the Bible as the only reference point, because this distinguishes them from the Catholic Church, which did not allow its laity to read the Bible. They are committed to a literal interpretation because any other allows so much leeway that it would be difficult to assemble more than a couple of fundamentalists who agreed. This commits them, in turn, to the contortions of creationism or ID.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

True. But to me a more interesting question is can you still have faith if your established proof turns out to be false.

Thats a question the western religions have had to constantly ask themselves since the 17th century as the scientific method has continued to errode the previously established biblical theories of the Earth.

I think the key word here is "erode". Many biblical claims have been shown to be false (or at best, analogous) as science advanced over time. That time-span has allowed the slow "re-interpretation" of what was once firm belief.