Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TomboyMom · 05-12-2006, 07:43 AM

So, Richbee:
Are you ready to retract your OP, stating that:

Quote:

the general consensus of modern scholarship accepts the following ten details as established historical facts

, or are you still asserting that this is the case? If the latter, what evidence do you have as to the general consensus of modern scholarship in this area? Not, evidence as to the "facts" (that is to say, non-facts), but evidence as to what the consensus of modern scholarship accepts.

JEST2ASK · 05-12-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Fortunately American Christians, and their deviation into literalism, represent a small minority of the planets 1 billion Christians, who have more sense both scientifically and exegetically.

But I wonder if the 44% doesn't include a lot of simply ignorant people, Christian or otherwise.

Quote:

Apikorus
The Christian center-of-mass is shifting away from Europe. I don't know of any creation/evolution belief polling in Africa or Korea. African Catholics, in general, are significantly more conservative than their American counterparts.

Gamera could you please present a break down by contients of Christian distribution ... I would be interested in that , I am of the opinion that Modern , liberal, non-literal , "educated", Christians are in the minority ... ETA are not the majotity of Catholics located in South America.

However as I read somewhere :
There are lies , damn lies and statistics :devil:
so I am not sure any answer would adequately reflect reality ....

Vivisector · 05-12-2006, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Gamera could you please present a break down by contients of Christian distribution ...

FWIW:

Wiki and Adherents.com

V.

Gamera · 05-12-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Gamera could you please present a break down by contients of Christian distribution ... I would be interested in that , I am of the opinion that Modern , liberal, non-literal , "educated", Christians are in the minority ... ETA are not the majotity of Catholics located in South America.

However as I read somewhere :
There are lies , damn lies and statistics :devil:
so I am not sure any answer would adequately reflect reality ....

I'll spare myself the full analysis you request by pointing out that the Vatican has on numerous occasions spoken out against demonizing science and evolutionary theory in particular, saying it is not incompatible with the bible. Assuming all the good catholics in Central and South America listen to the Pope, that resolves that issue for the biggest Christian denomination on the planet.

EthnAlln · 05-12-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I'll spare myself the full analysis you request by pointing out that the Vatican has on numerous occasions spoken out against demonizing science and evolutionary theory in particular, saying it is not incompatible with the bible. Assuming all the good catholics in Central and South America listen to the Pope, that resolves that issue for the biggest Christian denomination on the planet.

Except for Sean Hannity, who knows more than the Pope and 200 Nobel Prize Winners.

dongiovanni1976x · 05-12-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dongiovanni1976x

gamera, I'd like your opinion on what the "gospel's message" is as it is offered
e.g.: There are four canonical gospels but you believe they have a syncretic harmony to them. Jesus may say he is the only way to the father but this should be taken metaphorically. Any person, regardless of specific beleifs can get to the Father" if they act in accord with Jesus' message. And since you believe there is a common message found in all four gospels, that message is to love others as you would love yourself. Following this golden rule is synonomous with follwoing Jesus...yes, no, maybe- close- way off?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Wonderful question. In my opinion, for what it's worth, I think you're close, but I don't know if you have fully considered the implications of requiring the love of others as a basis of "salvation" (given that nobody can be commanded to have an emotional state - and that to my mind is the point).

Good point. I follow you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

the gospels are not the gospel message itself...we have actual examples of [this message being] preached...[t]hey all revolve around Jesus's relationship to God (as a child), his suffering, death and resurrection. The point of this [message] is...a message of love, filtered through the particular terms of the culture of the time (notions of sin, judgment, heaven, etc)...these are simply culturally specific ways of talking about an existential issue: who we are and how we relate to God and others.

The premise is that we are alienated from God and our authentic selves through selfishness, and the kerygma calls upon us to simply accept God's love (as shown through his awful willingness to allow his own son/self to die for us) to be reconciled with God and regain our authentic identities as loving persons...the message itself is that God's love, once accepted as preeminent and beyond all the other things we rely upon in life, allows us to become loving persons. I don't think you have the gospel message unless you have the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus...which is only experienced through the Jesus narrative.

You have some very well thought out and interesting ideas- I respect that very much. However I am trouble about one aspect that seems to either contradict, or weaken, your Heideggerian/Christian paradigm: If we are, as the existentialists would have us believe, isolated from objective meaning then how does objective history play into our formulation of our understanding of this "message" embodied as you claim in the gospel narrative
(s)?

IOW's, when you say,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

All of history is a narrative, and every narrative has an agenda. So to talk about the historical Jesus as opposed to the gospel Jesus is virtually incoherent from my perspective.

are you sugesting that every person, in order to come to the point of accepting God's love must some how experience the pain and suffering inherent in the gospel narratives- regardless of whether the event even happened -or- are you saying it did happen as a historical fact but proving that beyond a reasonable doubt is of no concern (or something else entirely?)

Because it seems that if you rely on the objective phenomena of Christ's death and resurrection, in order to come to a point where you can invite God's love (or, implicitly, the ability to combat human selfishness) why would you exclude the objective neurology behind the formulation of such belief systems and the inescapable reality of selfishness in the first place?

Richbee · 05-13-2006, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Richbee please admit that your sources are not from a wide specrum but choosen due to their bias, and support for your belief system.

Why?

I didn't include enough of the rabble and internet infidels???

LOL!

Richbee · 05-13-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

So, Richbee:
Are you ready to retract your OP, stating that:
, or are you still asserting that this is the case? If the latter, what evidence do you have as to the general consensus of modern scholarship in this area? Not, evidence as to the "facts" (that is to say, non-facts), but evidence as to what the consensus of modern scholarship accepts.

<insult removed>

One fact is clear here, I am excluding any of your opinions as those of a "scholar". I bet you think Richard Carrier, Ron Price and Brian Flemming are "scholars".

LOL!

Richbee · 05-13-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Richbee, please show me exactly where in the Gospel of Mark it claims to be an historical account. Be concrete.

Michael

Why should we don't Mark or any Gospel account? It is you that have the burden of proof!

LOL!

EthnAlln · 05-13-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Why should we don't Mark or any Gospel account? It is you that have the burden of proof!

LOL!

I assume "don't" is a misprint for "doubt". So, then, you'll take the burden of proof in showing that the Jewish writings of the time, like the Toldoth Jesu, which contradict the Christian accounts, are not historical? They actually make more sense to me, even though I'm not Jewish, than the Christian scriptures.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.