Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Horatio Parker · 09-27-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christianity is a very complicated religion; its theology is a nightmare and disagreement among believers inevitable. A religion based on a human-only prophet would have made Christianity easier to live with and healthier for its servants.

I agree the theology is a nightmare. Which is why the only churches in the first world doing OK are the charismatics such as the Pentecostals. I don't know about the catholics, but in the protestant churches the clergy, who have to varying degrees mastered this thorny counter-intuitive stuff, are frustrated by the inability of their membership, who are there primarily for a spiritual experience, to comprehend doctrine. Little wonder it's declining.

The whole arena of the miraculous and the supernatural need to be thrown out.

Horatio Parker · 09-27-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have always believed that people who engage in discussions at this forum no matter what their position all do so for the same reason - life is pointless. People die but books and ideas live on. Books and ideas about how life is pointless without books and ideas last the longer than any others.

I think you answered your own question; the point of life is to explore ideas.

Iskander · 09-27-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is there any real life issue that would change if Jesus existed, or if he didn't?

Does the historical Jesus even have anything to do with Christian origins, or how to live a good life?

Why do Christians keep the issue open? Why do atheists care?

Nothing would change. HJ has little or nothing to do with Xtian origins or living the good life. But these realizations are slow in coming.

It's the idea of Jesus that has the power, not the degree to which the gospel stories represent history.

I bring up this point over and over: if your desire is to know God and if Jesus represents an eternally living truth about understanding God, then the history is irrelevant(tempted to hit the key caps there like aa). Jesus is a psychic reality to those open to him. That these realities are not concrete is what everyone has trouble with. Many of the earliest Xtians realized this, but they didn't prevail.

To the Xtian the question should be is Jesus alive, not did he live circa 3BCE-30BCE.

Christians don’t feel the need to believe in virgin birth and therefore they make Jesus fully human.

Christians don’t need to believe in the physical resurrection of the Christ and for most Christians the thought that they will one day rise in the flesh is a disagreeable and undesirable one. The eternal life as in the soul is what attracts them: to go on living whatever this could mean.

Christians are aware that their religion had a long and difficult gestation period resulting in multiple gospels and the addition of human-only commentary ( Paul...) ranking as equal to the reported word of god (Jesus), but the petulant posturing of ‘scholars’ surprise them.

Profile: The one true Bishop of Durham: Dr David Jenkins, retiring scourge of sacred cows

Quote:

Two months later, he consented to a recording in the library at Auckland Castle of a discussion about his beliefs. 'To believe in a Christian way, you don't necessarily have to have a belief that Jesus was born from literally a virgin mother, nor a precise belief that the risen Jesus had a literally physical body,' he said; and when this was attacked, he responded with a phrase that would continue to dog him: '(The Resurrection) is real. That's the point. All I said was 'literally physical'. I was very careful in the use of language. After all, a conjuring trick with bones proves only that somebody's very clever at a conjuring trick with bones.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1392030.html

judge · 09-27-2011, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am more concerned with the debate. I defend mythicists when I think they are unfairly attacked. But I don't understand why non-Christians spend their time attacking mythicism.

Rationalists attack mythicists when they are non rational.
That can't be that hard to understand.

I can understand why someone who was raionalist, who believed in the value of rationalism would point out both when christians were non rational and when non-christians were non rational.

otherwise it's probably just an emotional bias against christians rather than evenly applying rationalism.

aa5874 · 09-27-2011, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am more concerned with the debate. I defend mythicists when I think they are unfairly attacked. But I don't understand why non-Christians spend their time attacking mythicism.

Rationalists attack mythicists when they are non rational.
That can't be that hard to understand.

I can understand why someone who was raionalist, who believed in the value of rationalism would point out both when christians were non rational and when non-christians were non rational.

otherwise it's probably just an emotional bias against christians rather than evenly applying rationalism.

The use of the word "Rationalists" is completely void of any real significance. It must be that any person claiming to be a "rationalist" may in fact be irrational at the same time.

Horatio Parker · 09-27-2011, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christians don’t feel the need to believe in virgin birth and therefore they make Jesus fully human.

Christians don’t need to believe in the physical resurrection of the Christ and for most Christians the thought that they will one day rise in the flesh is a disagreeable and undesirable one. The eternal life as in the soul is what attracts them: to go on living whatever this could mean.

Christians are aware that their religion had a long and difficult gestation period resulting in multiple gospels and the addition of human-only commentary ( Paul...) ranking as equal to the reported word of god (Jesus), but the petulant posturing of ‘scholars’ surprise them.

Profile: The one true Bishop of Durham: Dr David Jenkins, retiring scourge of sacred cows

Quote:

Two months later, he consented to a recording in the library at Auckland Castle of a discussion about his beliefs. 'To believe in a Christian way, you don't necessarily have to have a belief that Jesus was born from literally a virgin mother, nor a precise belief that the risen Jesus had a literally physical body,' he said; and when this was attacked, he responded with a phrase that would continue to dog him: '(The Resurrection) is real. That's the point. All I said was 'literally physical'. I was very careful in the use of language. After all, a conjuring trick with bones proves only that somebody's very clever at a conjuring trick with bones.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1392030.html

I agree, but none of that is doctrine.

Is Xtianity going to commit suicide over the issue of spirituality? I don't think so.

aa5874 · 09-27-2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christians don’t feel the need to believe in virgin birth and therefore they make Jesus fully human....

You are completely out of touch with reality. In the Christian Churches and Bibles it is TAUGHT that Jesus was God Incarnate and that Jesus ACTUALLY LIVES right now.

You need to go to a Church or read the Christian Bible.

Toto · 09-27-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am more concerned with the debate. I defend mythicists when I think they are unfairly attacked. But I don't understand why non-Christians spend their time attacking mythicism.

Rationalists attack mythicists when they are non rational.
That can't be that hard to understand.
...

On these boards, I have seen self-described rationalists mount full bore attacks on mythicism, based on fallacious arguments.

aa5874 · 09-27-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am more concerned with the debate. I defend mythicists when I think they are unfairly attacked. But I don't understand why non-Christians spend their time attacking mythicism.

Rationalists attack mythicists when they are non rational.
That can't be that hard to understand.
...

On these boards, I have seen self-described rationalists mount full bore attacks on mythicism, based on fallacious arguments.

But, strange enough I have seen you make strange attacks on mythicists that don't support Doherty.

It would appear to me that you defend Doherty not mythicists.

Can you help Dave 31 defend Acharya S?

Iskander · 09-27-2011, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christians don’t feel the need to believe in virgin birth and therefore they make Jesus fully human.

Christians don’t need to believe in the physical resurrection of the Christ and for most Christians the thought that they will one day rise in the flesh is a disagreeable and undesirable one. The eternal life as in the soul is what attracts them: to go on living whatever this could mean.

Christians are aware that their religion had a long and difficult gestation period resulting in multiple gospels and the addition of human-only commentary ( Paul...) ranking as equal to the reported word of god (Jesus), but the petulant posturing of ‘scholars’ surprise them.

Profile: The one true Bishop of Durham: Dr David Jenkins, retiring scourge of sacred cows

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1392030.html

I agree, but none of that is doctrine.

Is Xtianity going to commit suicide over the issue of spirituality? I don't think so.

No, it is not doctrine, but it is what is in existence in the life of the church: women bishops, gay bishops, giving support to legislation legalising medical terminations and more is how the church in Britain behaves.

Suicide? I hope not I much rather see a civilised church providing the service some people will always need that to see them disappear and have to domesticate savage and intolerant religions .

It is late in London, goodnight.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.