Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Who do you think Jesus was
Options
Comments
-
It doesn't take much imagination to conjure up a situation in people might have dreamed up some story, got caught, then got themselves killed without revealing that they'd made it all up.
Or maybe they did try and explain it was made up?
Apostle: "It was just a prank honest!"
Roman Guard: "Sure it was..."
*stabby stabby*0 -
-
And yet you keep ignoring my points when it suits you.
Not very honest tactics.
For one person on one thread, I'm not doing too bad given how many people are posting in my direction often distorting what I've actually said. I'm simply not going to be able to respond to every post, but I have given you a good deal of effort on this thread and to claim to deny that is where the dishonesty comes in IMO. I'm simply not going to take any nonsense on this
I'm going to do what I can and that's what I'll do given how much time I have and that's all I can do.0 -
And Jakkass you've read my posts and you can clearly see I'm not doing any of the distortion you're charging others of doing.For one person on one thread, I'm not doing too bad given how many people are posting in my direction often distorting what I've actually said. I'm simply not going to be able to respond to every post, but I have given you a good deal of effort on this thread and to claim to deny that is where the dishonesty comes in IMO. I'm simply not going to take any nonsense on this
I'm going to do what I can and that's what I'll do given how much time I have and that's all I can do.
I've given you clear specific examples of what you say doesn't happen, on top of other points. Awfully convenient that you choose that time to decide not to respond.
And remember that isn't the first time you've ignored points you didn't wish to address.0 -
You haven't and that's largely I've spent quite a good deal addressing much of your posts, that can't be really denied. If you have any specific points that you'd like addressed specifically, list them in short and directly based on the context of the New Testament church situation at that time and I'll give them a look.
I'm simply not going to put up with claims of ignoring stuff though. It's infantile especially considering that amount that I've responded to both by yourself and others.0 -
Advertisement
-
You haven't and that's largely I've spent quite a good deal addressing much of your posts, that can't be really denied. If you have any specific points that you'd like addressed specifically, list them in short and directly based on the context of the New Testament church situation at that time and I'll give them a look.But David Koresh was making it up, yet stuck to his fake guns even with the ATF knocking at his door.
Jim Jones was making it up, yet stuck to his fake guns enough to kill himself and everyone around him.
L. Ron Hubbard was making it up, yet stuck to his fake guns while the US government was coming after him.
Joseph Smith was clearly making it up, yet stuck to his fake guns when there was a lynch mob at his door.
Also the fact that you using the bible to show that the apostles never charged or made profit is the same as taking L Ron Hubbard's word for it.
And while I'm at it you've still yet to properly address the other scenario I suggested, that the apostle's actions and death are not as reported in the bible.
Then I would suggest not ignoring points and fobbing off others.I'm simply not going to put up with claims of ignoring stuff though. It's infantile especially considering that amount that I've responded to both by yourself and others.0 -
Also the fact that you using the bible to show that the apostles never charged or made profit is the same as taking L Ron Hubbard's word for it.
I simply don't see that any of the situations that you are presenting are even half-analogous to what we're actually discussing. Wouldn't it be much easier if we just focused on the actual context that we have rather than invoking Koresh or L. Ron Hubbard or Jones?And while I'm at it you've still yet to properly address the other scenario I suggested, that the apostle's actions and death are not as reported in the bible.
The Apostle's deaths largely aren't accounted for in the Bible. External history would confirm that many Christians were martyred, and indeed that at least a few of the Apostles themselves were even if one could claim that most weren't.
It seems absurd to deny history in order to make ones argument doesn't it?
The problem in terms of the Resurrection as far as I would see it is how we get from the situation of this guy called Jesus just existing, to the historical reality of the early church in the Roman Empire.
You're taking an alternative approach and almost suggesting that we deny this history in some way or another. I guess all I can say to you is if one is going to deny the historical precadent concerning the early church that one should at least present a good reason why if we are seriously going to go down this line of thought and I think that's a pretty fair request.Then I would suggest not ignoring points and fobbing off others.
I think all of the situations you've drawn up to this point are unlikely and I've explained why they are unlikely. If you consider this "fobbing off" sobeit as far as I'm concerned.0 -
But these are all people who clearly just made up all their cult's beliefs yet all endured hardship and even death holding them.I simply don't see that any of the situations that you are presenting are even half-analogous to what we're actually discussing. Wouldn't it be much easier if we just focused on the actual context that we have rather than invoking Koresh or L. Ron Hubbard or Jones?
You have been saying this doesn't happen. But now you're moving the goalposts by saying they are exactly analogous to what you think the early church was like.
So how come none of those people ever did what you think they should have, and just given up on their cult as soon as there was trouble?
And again: would you honestly think that L Ron Hubbard's writings paint a fair and accurate account of his church and how they profit?
If not (assuming you are using common sense) why then would the exact same not be true of the writings of the apostles?
Yes, and I've asked you for the specific historical accounts of the apostle's martyrdoms that exclude the possibility of their story being embellished to make it seem like a brave and pious martyrdom when it wasn't. But you ignored that request.The Apostle's deaths largely aren't accounted for in the Bible. External history would confirm that many Christians were martyred, and indeed that at least a few of the Apostles themselves were even if one could claim that most weren't.
It seems absurd to deny history in order to make ones argument doesn't it?
The problem in terms of the Resurrection as far as I would see it is how we get from the situation of this guy called Jesus just existing, to the historical reality of the early church in the Roman Empire.
You're taking an alternative approach and almost suggesting that we deny this history in some way or another. I guess all I can say to you is if one is going to deny the historical precadent concerning the early church that one should at least present a good reason why if we are seriously going to go down this line of thought and I think that's a pretty fair request.
It's only denying history if looking into L Ron's military record to find out if he was telling the truth was denying history.
No, you haven't explained at all why they are unlikely beyond your own naive incredulity. And then, when I pointed this out, you ignored that point too.I think all of the situations you've drawn up to this point are unlikely and I've explained why they are unlikely. If you consider this "fobbing off" sobeit as far as I'm concerned.0 -
But these are all people who clearly just made up all their cult's beliefs yet all endured hardship and even death holding them.
Can we be certain that all of them believed they were false, or merely that they were deluded? That's the question. I think there is much more to be gained from looking at the proper context of the New Testament church rather than bringing in contexts which differ in many respects.
But now you're moving the goalposts by saying they are exactly analogous to what you think the early church was like.
So how come none of those people ever did what you think they should have, and just given up on their cult as soon as there was trouble?
Right from the beginning of the first mention of Jones, Koresh and L. Ron Hubbard I said that they weren't analogous. L. Ron Hubbard didn't risk death as far as I know. He died of a stroke, and he was given all the protections of freedom of religion. As for Jones and Koresh we didn't even know if they truly believed that they were teaching lies. They may have believed full well that it was true. In that case it is insufficient for your argument. This is why I would suggest focusing specifically on the Christian context.And again: would you honestly think that L Ron Hubbard's writings paint a fair and accurate account of his church and how they profit?
If not (assuming you are using common sense) why then would the exact same not be true of the writings of the apostles?
There are also external accounts as to how Christians behaved in the Roman Empire. Political and material privilege don't really come into it at least not until Constantine arrived to the scene. Then I'm willing to admit that greed and corruption on a huge scale entered into the Christian communities. Christians began to justify things that Christians wouldn't have justified before. Rome was a Christian State, therefore Christians could serve in the army. Before then they didn't.
I do think that if you are making the positive claim that Peter, Paul and other Apostles were super-rich that it is fair that you should provide what would make you think that this is a likely possibility.
I'm assuming based on the best documents that we have that this wasn't the case. If it was the case then more than likely it would have been accounted for historically as many other accusations against Christians were, such as their inability to proclaim Caesar as Lord.
The dating of the manuscripts make me think that the Biblical texts can tell us at least something about the workings of the Christian text. They are not applied retrospectively (after-the-fact) but during the fact. They are based on events that Paul witnessed when he was in the churches, and that others were telling him. It doesn't seem like there is much evidence to suggest that these letters were merely concocted years later at least not in terms of what Biblical scholarship we have. There doesn't seem to be a whole load of propaganda in there apart from accounting to the real difficulties that the churches had. I mean you're not seriously going to write that people are praising the fact that a man is in a sexual relationship with his fathers wife (1 Corinthians 5:1-2), bringing lawsuits against eachother, participating in other pagan rites, that there is theft and drunkenness amongst people. These churches have serious issues. One would severely question as to why you would write this stuff if you were merely trying to make promotional material? Or is it that there is value in Christians to understand what actually went on in churches such as Corinth so that we can be better Christians? The latter seems more than likely to me than that Pauline texts being made up. What is textually there can even tell us this.
If we are going to discount the Biblical text as an accurate document concerning the early church we need to have good reason to as far as I'm concerned.Yes, and I've asked you for the specific historical accounts of the apostle's martyrdoms that exclude the possibility of their story being embellished to make it seem like a brave and pious martyrdom when it wasn't. But you ignored that request.
Let's start off with one. I don't remember you asking.
This is book 20, chapter 9 of the Jewish Antiquities from Josephus. Josephus was a contemporary of the Apostles. round brackets are additional information I feel necessary.Festus (who tried Paul according to Acts 25) was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa] (Agrippa was the King who Paul shared the Gospel with in Acts 26), desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no moreIt's only denying history if looking into L Ron's military record to find out if he was telling the truth was denying history.
All you have to do is research the history concerning Christians in the Roman Empire. I would encourage you to do so prior to conjuring up an alternative account.No, you haven't explained at all why they are unlikely beyond your own naive incredulity. And then, when I pointed this out, you ignored that point too.
This is absolute nonsense, I've gone right through your points. There was one post I left unaddressed to respond to Wicknight and robindch. If I'm going to ignore anything from now on it will be such accusations. I don't owe you a response, and I'm trying my best to get around to people. So kindly cop on :pac:0 -
No, we can't know how much they believed or didn't believe their garbage at the end. But it's clear that they started off with purely and clearly fictional beliefs and ended up enduring hardships and death without walking away from their cult.Can we be certain that all of them believed they were false, or merely that they were deluded? That's the question. I think there is much more to be gained from looking at the proper context of the New Testament church rather than bringing in contexts which differ in many respects.
L Ron's wife was arrested by the US government. He himself was charged with many crimes in the US and elsewhere.Right from the beginning of the first mention of Jones, Koresh and L. Ron Hubbard I said that they weren't analogous. L. Ron Hubbard didn't risk death as far as I know. He died of a stroke, and he was given all the protections of freedom of religion.
And it's just as likely they made everything up. Or it was a combination of both of them. but they were claiming stuff they had to have known wasn't true, yet stuck to their guns.As for Jones and Koresh we didn't even know if they truly believed that they were teaching lies. They may have believed full well that it was true. In that case it is insufficient for your argument. This is why I would suggest focusing specifically on the Christian context.
I notice how you've avoided mention Joseph Smith, who's claims are clearly made up and suffered much persecution.
Yup, Christians, not the apostles.There are also external accounts as to how Christians behaved in the Roman Empire. Political and material privilege don't really come into it at least not until Constantine arrived to the scene. Then I'm willing to admit that greed and corruption on a huge scale entered into the Christian communities. Christians began to justify things that Christians wouldn't have justified before. Rome was a Christian State, therefore Christians could serve in the army. Before then they didn't.
Is there any external sources that confirm that they were living off little charity, or is that all from the bible?
I'm not making a positive claim, I'm putting it forward as a possibility.I do think that if you are making the positive claim that Peter, Paul and other Apostles were super-rich that it is fair that you should provide what would make you think that this is a likely possibility.
The reason it is likely, is because we see it in every cult worldwide for thousands of years.
Here's a small sampling of the books written by L Ron Hubbard himself pertaining to his religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_bibliographyThe dating of the manuscripts make me think that the Biblical texts can tell us at least something about the workings of the Christian text. They are not applied retrospectively (after-the-fact) but during the fact. They are based on events that Paul witnessed when he was in the churches, and that others were telling him. It doesn't seem like there is much evidence to suggest that these letters were merely concocted years later at least not in terms of what Biblical scholarship we have. There doesn't seem to be a whole load of propaganda in there apart from accounting to the real difficulties that the churches had. I mean you're not seriously going to write that people are praising the fact that a man is in a sexual relationship with his fathers wife (1 Corinthians 5:1-2), bringing lawsuits against eachother, participating in other pagan rites, that there is theft and drunkenness amongst people. These churches have serious issues. One would severely question as to why you would write this stuff if you were merely trying to make promotional material? Or is it that there is value in Christians to understand what actually went on in churches such as Corinth so that we can be better Christians? The latter seems more than likely to me than that Pauline texts being made up. What is textually there can even tell us this.
All detailing how to go about being a Scientologist and their beliefs.
Plus there's thousands of other writings (Scientology claims that he wrote 65 million words) detailing the same.
So I'll ask you the same question.
Sure, the same reason you should be discounting L.Ron's works.If we are going to discount the Biblical text as an accurate document concerning the early church we need to have good reason to as far as I'm concerned.Let's start off with one. I don't remember you asking.So do the non-ecclesiastical sources confirm all the details of the martyrdoms the bible has?
What about their martyrdoms exclude the possibility that they have been embellished or spun?
Ok, and which details about this account excludes the possibility of embellishment and spin by the apostle's followers?This is book 20, chapter 9 of the Jewish Antiquities from Josephus. Josephus was a contemporary of the Apostles. round brackets are additional information I feel necessary.
And nothing you've shown has excluded the non-magical possibilities we've put forward.All you have to do is research the history concerning Christians in the Roman Empire. I would encourage you to do so prior to conjuring up an alternative account.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, we can't know how much they believed or didn't believe their garbage at the end. But it's clear that they started off with purely and clearly fictional beliefs and ended up enduring hardships and death without walking away from their cult.
That's the problem when we are arguing specifically as to whether or not the Apostles could have died for a concocted lie that they themselves didn't believe in. The analogy doesn't hold if you can't be certain that they died knowing full well that it was a lie.L Ron's wife was arrested by the US government. He himself was charged with many crimes in the US and elsewhere.
Arrest != death. It isn't even addressing the question that we're trying to resolve.And it's just as likely they made everything up. Or it was a combination of both of them. but they were claiming stuff they had to have known wasn't true, yet stuck to their guns.
This also precludes the possibility that yes they did make it up but they believed that it was from a higher power. That's not the same as dying for something that is a clearly concocted lie that they themselves know to the false.I notice how you've avoided mention Joseph Smith, who's claims are clearly made up and suffered much persecution.
Joseph Smith believed that the Book of Mormon was true. You know full well I am not even making reference to people who died for what they believed to be true. Joseph Smith is a much better example than L. Ron Hubbard actually. Although it can be argued that L. Ron Hubbard didn't believe in his lie, he didn't have to suffer all that much for it. It cannot be argued that Joseph Smith didn't believe in his lie, and yes he lost everything including his life for it.
I have yet to see how this demonstrates that it isn't unlikely that people can die for a clearly concocted lie that they themselves knew was false.Yup, Christians, not the apostles.
Is there any external sources that confirm that they were living off little charity, or is that all from the bible?
I've made a pretty good case as to why the New Testament texts can be trusted in respect to the Apostles. If you have a reason to contest that please present it.I'm not making a positive claim, I'm putting it forward as a possibility.
The reason it is likely, is because we see it in every cult worldwide for thousands of years.
Putting it forward as a possibility != making a positive claim that it is a possibility. We have no evidence to suggest that the Christian community had a lot of material wealth. We do have sources which suggest that Christians often had very little and indeed shared a lot of their resources. If Christians had extortionate wealth I'm fairly sure that it would have been documented somewhere. We can only determine what is actually reasonable based on what evidence we have rather than pulling it from nowhere.Here's a small sampling of the books written by L Ron Hubbard himself pertaining to his religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_bibliography
All detailing how to go about being a Scientologist and their beliefs.
Plus there's thousands of other writings (Scientology claims that he wrote 65 million words) detailing the same.
So I'll ask you the same question.
His books seem to be books demonstrating and explaning the teachings of Scientology. Paul's letters don't do this solely. They are pastoral letters accounting in a very raw manner in the ups and downs of Christian communities. They are hardly promotional material and they give us a real insight into the real difficulties and struggles that Paul had in building Christian communities. I don't see any reason to publish these letters apart from to give the wider Christian church something to learn from and something to build Christian character from.
Although I haven't read L. Ron Hubbard's books and I don't claim to be an expert on Scientology. This probably is the reason why I tend to focus on what Christians believe rather than arguing about other forms of thinking. 1) There isn't an adequate opportunity for Scientologists to defend themselves, and 2) I haven't read those books. Sometimes it is for only 1 of those 2 reasons. For example I have familiarity with some Qur'anic texts but I would prefer to discuss this with a Muslim present.
Apparently you know much more about Dianetics and other texts of Scientology than I do. I would be curious in looking into it at some time, but I don't see the point of discussing Scientology in this context admittedly.Sure, the same reason you should be discounting L.Ron's works.
I don't discount what I'm not familiar with. I want to look into things I'm not familiar with.Ok, and which details about this account excludes the possibility of embellishment and spin by the apostle's followers?
This account is a historical account by someone who wasn't a Christian. Josephus was a Pharasaic Jew.
This account describes the mere fact that Christians were martyred, and that the Roman and Jewish societies were hostile towards Christianity. That's all I need to do to demonstrate to you that Christians didn't live in relative safety and that many Christians risked their lives.
You doubted this a few posts ago. You also suggested that Peter, Paul and others were effectively 1st century equivalents of Joel Osteen or Benny Hinn despite the fact that what texts we do have suggest otherwise. If you're claiming that is a possibility there must be good reason to claim this?And nothing you've shown has excluded the non-magical possibilities we've put forward.
I hope you've been following but I've been arguing about people more than likely not being willing to risk their very lives for a lie that they themselves concocted and knew to be false. I'm not arguing that people cannot be deluded.0 -
-
-
robindch - I want to eliminate one possibility for now, which is why I've been focusing on it exclusively. I'm happy to move on to other issues, but this one (dying for a lie that they didn't believe was true to begin with) is important before we discuss the others. If you read the thread to this point you'll see that's what I've been focusing on.
I think that the other options still don't hold up if that's what you're asking based on previous discussions.0 -
This thread gets more and more ridiculous :pac:
Jakkass - People don't just die for something they themselves made up.
The rest of us - Here are a ton of examples of people doing just that.
Jakkass - Those aren't analogus cause, um, well, we can't be sure exactly of the details of any of them. I'm going to choose to ignore all examples that don't come from the early Christian church, the thing I was trying to support in the first place.
I'm paraphrasing of course.
What is the point Jakkass of claiming your faith in the resurrection is based on rational assessment when you simply ignore anything that counters the conclusions you have draw :rolleyes:0 -
This thread gets more and more ridiculous :pac:
I know, the fact that I actually give reasons why I disagree is compared to "ignoring" points. Absolutely ridiculous :pac:
This type of posting style is beneath you Wicknight. I've spent a good deal of effort looking to King Mob's posts.0 -
-
I know, the fact that I actually give reasons why I disagree is compared to "ignoring" points. Absolutely ridiculous :pac:
It is when your reasons for ignoring comparisons are ridiculous fob offs.
You know perfectly well what these examples demonstrate, that people will face hardship, punishment and even death for things the themselves have made up. You have been given example after example of people doing just that.
Every example of this given to you you have not dealt with instead saying, in a very weak fashion, that they aren't exactly the same so you are going to ignore them.
For example Smith. You know perfectly well that Smith made up (ie lied) about the golden tablets and the seer stones he claims to have discovered. Any time anyone else wished to see these he made up some bs excuse as to why they couldn't. Whether or not he in later life believed his own story is debatable but it is clear that he, like L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones and all the rest, made up the stories that originally founded his cult.
You are being very disingenuous in this discussion, and it simply shows your original naivety in your belief the apostles wouldn't have suffered and died for something they themselves made up.0 -
Great, go through them an explain why. It would be significantly better than doing what you're doing at the moment.
Smith could well have believed what he was doing was the truth given to him by God. That's not a fob-off.
I'm dealing with each point as it comes in respect to the dying for a lie that they themselves know is false. I have no valid reason to believe that Joseph Smith knew it was false. If he did it would be the best example we have on this thread.
That's a valid objection to that argument.0 -
Great, go through them an explain why. It would be significantly better than doing what you're doing at the moment.
Smith could well have believed what he was doing was the truth given to him by God. That's not a fob-off.
If he believed that why did he shield the tablets from everyone else, refusing to read them in public, instead translating them behind a curtain or looking into a box.
If you want to argue that after all that he still genuinely believed and was not aware of what he was doing then equally it is plausible that the apostles made up the entire story of the resurrection, details and all, while still believing that it was all true.
You will notice that accepting such a human trait doesn't exactly help the case for the truth of the resurrection.I'm dealing with each point as it comes in respect to the dying for a lie that they themselves know is false.
You are "dealing" with each point with the some what ridiculous assertion that we don't know if they were, at any point, lying or making stuff up. Which is totally contradicted by their behavior. Smith acted like a 2 bit charlatan, deploying tricks left right and centre to avoid anyone witnessing him reading the tablets, Jones had people research his congregation so he would know what illnesses they had that he could "cure", Koresh slept with children and had men he disliked removed from the compound.
There is no doubt that these people were making stuff up (hence you aren't a Mormon!). The argument is that people will not die for a belief they themselves made up. Again this is counters by all these examples.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Are you saying they didn't believe it was true at the start or at the end?dying for a lie that they didn't believe was true to begin with
There are plenty of examples of people dreaming up a belief, then subsequently convincing themselves it was true over time, then getting themselves killed because of it.
And depending on how one wants to contextualize it, it's also quite easy to find plenty of examples of people who dream up something they know is false, then get themselves killed quite quickly because of it.0 -
If he believed that why did he shield the tablets from everyone else, refusing to read them in public, instead translating them behind a curtain or looking into a box.
You know that there are varying justifications that he could have used while believing that they were full well true. That the glory of God should only be seen to his chosen prophet. God communicates to his prophets in private. If you witnessed it you wouldn't have faith would you? There are numerous excuses that could have been full well believed by Smith.If you want to argue that after all that he still genuinely believed and was not aware of what he was doing then equally it is plausible that the apostles made up the entire story of the resurrection, details and all, while still believing that it was all true.
We don't have any good reason to suggest that Smith actually didn't believe based on personal statements or anything else. If we did as I've said it would be the best and closest example you have presented.
I don't see how it is equally plausible. How do you bring yourself from seeing Jesus die, the one you had put all your hope in to going around Asia Minor and Europe preaching that He had conquered the grave. Wouldn't the most probable option be that they would have thrown in the towel and gone home to Galilee to live the rest of their lives in humiliation and despair?
I find it woefully simplistic that the Apostles would just get up and with enthusiastic zeal go into lands where their lives would be clearly at risk to preach a message which they clearly knew was false.
Surely you can at least agree that it is significantly more probable that they would have just thrown in the towel or that it would have been hugely embarrassing for them?You will notice that accepting such a human trait doesn't exactly help the case for the truth of the resurrection.
I'm still not getting which human trait would make it significantly likely that the Apostles would have conjured up a lie that they themselves knew to be false, and a lie that they themselves would risk their lives for?You are "dealing" with each point with the some what ridiculous assertion that we don't know if they were, at any point, lying or making stuff up. Which is totally contradicted by their behavior. Smith acted like a 2 bit charlatan, deploying tricks left right and centre to avoid anyone witnessing him reading the tablets, Jones had people research his congregation so he would know what illnesses they had that he could "cure", Koresh slept with children and had men he disliked removed from the compound.
We don't know and there isn't good reason to suggest that they didn't believe what they were preaching.There is no doubt that these people were making stuff up (hence you aren't a Mormon!). The argument is that people will not die for a belief they themselves made up. Again this is counters by all these examples.
The argument is that people would not die for a belief that they made up and knew full well was false.
You're missing out the last part of the argument. If this can't be satisfied then it doesn't fit the definition.
robindch: They would have had to be martyred knowing full well that it was a lie as far as I would see for the argument to make sense that the Apostles conjured up this false gospel and then went out to the Middle East dying in the knowledge that it was just fiction.0 -
You know that there are varying justifications that he could have used while believing that they were full well true. That the glory of God should only be seen to his chosen prophet. God communicates to his prophets in private. If you witnessed it you wouldn't have faith would you? There are numerous excuses that could have been full well believed by Smith.
Groan. :mad:
Lets establish something first. Do you believe that Smith says was happening was actually happening to him? That he was actually reading golden tablets from God?0 -
Lets establish something first. Do you believe that Smith says was happening was actually happening to him? That he was actually reading golden tablets from God?
No I don't think so, but I do believe that he believed that what he claimed was happening to him was happening to him. That's an important distinction.
What I am saying is that he himself didn't believe that what he claimed was happening to him was fiction.
It's possible that the Apostles were highly deluded and I've accepted that on numerous occasions. I'm looking forward to discussing that possibility a little more after we can sufficiently rule out this one.
It is very unlikely that the Apostles went out into a hostile world to risk their lives for what they knew themselves was fiction.
That's the part you're missing.0 -
What most of the cynical atheists miss, if of course, the strength of a belief in the after life. If people believed that they were certainly willing to die for it - as Paul was, and probably most of the apostles too. Guessing they were rich is nonsense. Some people actually believe what they believe, and are willing to die for it.
In group evolutionary terms, strong belief systems like this are more likely to succeed that weak ones - the Christian ( and later Islamic) belief in the after life promotes a lot of self sacrifice which cant be explained by desire for love, fame, or fortune. Including the taking of one's own life.
This is impossible to imagine for the atheist. To whom nothing is worth dying for and the only reason anybody could believe anything is to make a quick buck, because if the atheist were involved in a large organisation, it would be to make a quick buck, nothing else would make sense.0 -
No I don't think so, but I do believe that he believed that what he claimed was happening to him was happening to him. That's an important distinction.
What I am saying is that he himself didn't believe that what he claimed was happening to him was fiction.
Not sure that's true of Smith or Hubbard, but I'd say it's likely in the case of people like Jim Jones.It's possible that the Apostles were highly deluded and I've accepted that on numerous occasions. I'm looking forward to discussing that possibility a little more after we can sufficiently rule out this one.
It is very unlikely that the Apostles went out into a hostile world to risk their lives for what they knew themselves was fiction.
That's the part you're missing.
Just a qfe here - can we please move on with this discussion?What most of the cynical atheists miss, if of course, the strength of a belief in the after life. If people believed that they were certainly willing to die for it - as Paul was, and probably most of the apostles too. Guessing they were rich is nonsense. Some people actually believe what they believe, and are willing to die for it.
In group evolutionary terms, strong belief systems like this are more likely to succeed that weak ones - the Christian ( and later Islamic) belief in the after life promotes a lot of self sacrifice which cant be explained by desire for love, fame, or fortune. Including the taking of one's own life.
This is impossible to imagine for the atheist. To whom nothing is worth dying for and the only reason anybody could believe anything is to make a quick buck, because if the atheist were involved in a large organisation, it would be to make a quick buck, nothing else would make sense.
wtf are you talking about?0 -
Well, I already gave you an example of somebody who condemned themselves to life in prison, when the general suspicion is that he knew full well that he was going there falsely.robindch: They would have had to be martyred knowing full well that it was a lie as far as I would see for the argument to make sense that the Apostles conjured up this false gospel and then went out to the Middle East dying in the knowledge that it was just fiction.
If had more time this morning and the ability to google court cases properly, I'm sure that I could find plenty of instances of this without the slightest trouble.0 -
Rather a generalisation, no? Unless you've spoken with every individual who lacks a belief in god(s) before posting? (I must have missed your PM).This is impossible to imagine for the atheist. To whom nothing is worth dying for and the only reason anybody could believe anything is to make a quick buck, because if the atheist were involved in a large organisation, it would be to make a quick buck, nothing else would make sense.
Clearly an atheist isn't going to die for a religious cause but to suggest that no atheist has a cause they would die for is either disingenuous or naive.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »wtf are you talking about?
It was in fairly remedial English.
Here's a simpler synopsis for the not very bright. with pauses.
Because. An. Atheist. Cant. Imagine. People. Actually. Believing. In. A. Higher. Power. They. Assign. Cynicism. Or. Desire. For. Money.To. Believers.0
Advertisement