Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 04-05-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

God is a cry of human existence: for to know one exists is to exist alone and to exist alone is impossible.

This sort of gobbledygook is motivated by some people's inability to accept, let alone condone, pure atheism. There must be *some* kind of God, some higher power, some inner state of being we can acknowledge, no matter how bizarre or far-fetched the description we give it.

Offended again, Earl ? Feeling persecuted by what other people believe about the objects of your obsession ?
Why do people have to believe what you believe to be acknowledged by you as decent humans ? Any ideas ?

And who says I am not condoning "pure atheism" ? I don't know what "pure atheism" is, but let me assure you I would condone it the moment it showed itself tolerant of me.

Quote:

I believe that some non-Christians hold onto an historical Jesus because even if he is not the son of some non-existent personal God, he can nevertheless be someone who was in touch with that higher power or inner state of being, and so are we vicariously through him.

So what ? Why does that bother you ? As long as they are not intolerant bastards who would shove their beliefs down people's throats and deny them the right to think differently, why should you have a problem with whatever it is they wish to believe ?

Do you get what I am saying to you ?

Quote:

But it's all neuronal impulses jumping our synapses. Why not celebrate what it is really like to be human, and how much evolution has accomplished?

How the fuck do you know that it's all but neuronal impulses jumping our synapses ? Has you brain ever functioned in a way that IT FELT like all time has stopped ? Have you read Dostoyevsky's description of prince Myshkin's epileptic fit from the inside ? I ran it here before .

Quote:

Myths like the historical Jesus only get in the way of truly understanding ourselves and the universe we're a part of.

Truly. Here is what this schizophrenic told me once on the Via Rail Trance Canada Express:

Quote:

Originally Posted by A schizo who claimed to have conversations with Jesus

You see, the kingdom is like a philosopher who choked on his fish sandwich and went to God. But he recovered, because it was not his time yet. And when the doctors gathered around him he said to them ‘Naw, God was not there and I was nowhere, for it can be proven only that I devoured more fish than I could swallow’. And the doctors were astonished at the cleverness of the man. But truly I say to you, the kingdom is not given unto them who cannot find in the scatter within and without that which puts forth and puts away, yeah, even the philosopher.

And when the philosopher heard of this parable, he rushed with an argument to him at Mount Sinai General in the big apple. But he was not seen for the doctors did not know which Jesus he wanted to refute. And they put him in a straight jacket and led him away to calm him and they brought him to the ward of one who was called John Abptits, for he was dyslexic and disheveled and cried about the end and repentance in the house at all hours. And he became like a lamb before John Apbtits and was apbtized by him. And immediately a text message comes from a blocked address on the blackberry saying, ‘ if God did not exist, then imagination would have to be invented’. Truly, it was then the philosopher considered the parable.

Sanity check: what was the name of the philosopher ?

Quote:

And stop labelling anything "God".

Earl Doherty

Eat your crusty shorts, Earl ! If this is your idea of having fun, you might as well continue to be miserable ! :huh:

Best,
Jiri

EarlDoherty · 04-05-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

This sort of gobbledygook is motivated by some people's inability to accept, let alone condone, pure atheism. There must be *some* kind of God, some higher power, some inner state of being we can acknowledge, no matter how bizarre or far-fetched the description we give it.

Offended again, Earl ? Feeling persecuted by what other people believe about the objects of your obsession ?
Why do people have to believe what you believe to be acknowledged by you as decent humans ? Any ideas ?

And who says I am not condoning "pure atheism" ? I don't know what "pure atheism" is, but let me assure you I would condone it the moment it showed itself tolerant of me.

So what ? Why does that bother you ? As long as they are not intolerant bastards who would shove their beliefs down people's throats and deny them the right to think differently, why should you have a problem with whatever it is they wish to believe ?

Do you get what I am saying to you ?

How the fuck do you know that it's all but neuronal impulses jumping our synapses ? Has you brain ever functioned in a way that IT FELT like all time has stopped ? Have you read Dostoyevsky's description of prince Myshkin's epileptic fit from the inside ? I ran it here before .

Truly. Here is what this schizophrenic told me once on the Via Rail Trance Canada Express:

Sanity check: what was the name of the philosopher ?

Quote:

And stop labelling anything "God".

Earl Doherty

Eat your crusty shorts, Earl ! If this is your idea of having fun, you might as well continue to be miserable ! :huh:

Best,
Jiri

Offended again, Jiri? It seems you are in a high dudgeon much more emotional than anything I intended. I was merely putting forward my opinion that certain philosophical tendencies to define "God" in very non-traditional ways could be objected to, and why. Just because one expresses opposition to an idea, does not mean that the speaker is denying the right for others to hold it or express it. And I'm not the one with a persecution complex.

You didn't have to go off the deep end.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 04-05-2012, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

The worldview of any person putting forward an HJ or MJ argument is completely irrelevant to that argument, be they atheist, agnostic (like Ehrman), Christian, or anything else. Trying to defend, and rightly so, the MJ camp from ad hominem because of their worldview and then committing that same ad hominem against HJ'ers who are Christian is both hypocrisy and a double standard.

An open-minded Christian who investigates mythicism and opts for it is no longer a Christian in any regular sense of the word, regardless of obscure groups who might still apply the term to themselves without belief in an HJ. Anyway, the bottom line is that I was responding to Abe, and Abe is the one who separated out Christians and non-Christians, allotting to the latter (atheists, etc.) an a priori 'taint' which his "Christians" did not possess. It was HE who was implying that Christians could never embrace mythicism, leaving only the dregs of horned society banding together as evil deniers of an historical Jesus.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 04-05-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:
Myths like the historical Jesus only get in the way of truly understanding ourselves and the universe we're a part of.

Seriously? Whether or not some faceless old preacher dude lived 2000 years ago bugs you that much?

Why not try to understand something at a little deeper level than the dirt on the pavement, Jon? The "myth" of the historical Jesus, as he is regarded by most (rare enlightened people here who have reduced him to a meaningless cypher excepted, of course), tells us that a god was incarnated to earth, preaching that the present world was worthless and was about to end, that we needed to repent of all manner of sins (whether real or imagined), an incarnated god through whom was available the only avenue of eternal salvation while all non-believers would perish. Who taught that disease was caused by evil spirits, that one should be willing to hate one's father and mother to join a crazy doomsday cult, and so on.

Yes, seriously. That bloody well DOES bug me.

Earl Doherty

Scotsguy44 · 04-05-2012, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

The worldview of any person putting forward an HJ or MJ argument is completely irrelevant to that argument, be they atheist, agnostic (like Ehrman), Christian, or anything else. Trying to defend, and rightly so, the MJ camp from ad hominem because of their worldview and then committing that same ad hominem against HJ'ers who are Christian is both hypocrisy and a double standard.

An open-minded Christian who investigates mythicism and opts for it is no longer a Christian in any regular sense of the word, regardless of obscure groups who might still apply the term to themselves without belief in an HJ. Anyway, the bottom line is that I was responding to Abe, and Abe is the one who separated out Christians and non-Christians, allotting to the latter (atheists, etc.) an a priori 'taint' which his "Christians" did not possess. It was HE who was implying that Christians could never embrace mythicism, leaving only the dregs of horned society banding together as evil deniers of an historical Jesus.

Earl Doherty

The undeniable point is that people of whatever worldview are capable of objectively evaluating the question of whether Jesus was a historical person. I don't care about Earl Doherty's, or Bart Ehrman's, or JP Holding's character or worldview but about the arguments and evidence thy can bring forward to the answering of that question.

Matt

Solo · 04-06-2012, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Offended again, Jiri? It seems you are in a high dudgeon much more emotional than anything I intended.

What's a high dungeon, Earl ? Can you walk us through the process of your neuronal impulses jumping synapses creating this baffling image ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

I was merely putting forward my opinion that certain philosophical tendencies to define "God" in very non-traditional ways could be objected to, and why.

No you weren't. Besides, if "God" does not exists as identifiable identity it certainly exists as a metaphor. That you don't understand the metaphor it does not mean it is semantically empty. There is a classic joke from the Soviet Union that goes like this:

An old lady waited for two hours to get in a bus. Bus after bus came full and she couldn't squeeze herself in. When she finally managed to crawl in, she wiped her forehead, and said, "Finally, glory to God!" The driver said, "Mother, you must not say that. You must say "Glory to comrade Stalin." "Excuse me, comrade," the woman said. "I'm just a backward old woman. I'll say from now on as you told me." But then a worry comes over her face, "Excuse me, comrade, I am old and stupid. What shall I say if, God forbid, Stalin dies?" The driver goes, "Mother, then you can say, "'Glory to God!"

A "pure atheist" would obviously never get the joke. It is not about the existence of God, but tolerance to different beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

Just because one expresses opposition to an idea, does not mean that the speaker is denying the right for others to hold it or express it.

No it doesn't, but that certainly does not apply to your case, to wit:

Quote:

And stop labelling anything "God".

Earl Doherty

Quote:

And I'm not the one with a persecution complex.

You didn't have to go off the deep end.

Earl Doherty

I thought you said I was in 'a high dungeon'; now I am 'off the deep end' . Choose a metaphor and stick with it, will you !

And I was not going off the deep end: there existed a famous atheist philosopher who in his eighties choked on a tuna sandwich and had an epiphany of sorts while his windpipe was blocked, and though it did not change his commitment to atheism, he said he now understood better what other people called "God". Who was he ?

And think about this: if you saw the philosopher as he was choking all you would have seen is a suffocating man losing consciousness. Unless you had a similar experience you would be clueless as to what "going to God" felt like.

When you next read John 20:29, remember the philosopher and me going off the deep end in a high dungeon. You will be wiser.

Best,
Jiri

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-06-2012, 08:05 AM

He said "dudgeon," not "dungeon." "Dudgeon" means "indignance," "ire," "outrage."

Solo · 04-06-2012, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

He said "dudgeon," not "dungeon." "Dudgeon" means "indignance," "ire," "outrage."

All right. :notworthy: Dyslexics of the world, untie !

Jiri

Duvduv · 04-09-2012, 08:42 AM

In GJohn the eternal life is dependent on belief in the Christ which is demonstrated by partaking of eating his body and drinking his blood. This is not found either in 1 Corinthians 11. In the other gospels the eucharist idea is a symbolic act of remembering the Christ.

But does that notion of eternal life in GJohn mean the same thing as the idea of eternal life in Romans 6?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It is interesting that the promise of eternal life in GJohn 3 has an echo in the epistle to the Romans chapters 3 and 6. This is despite the total absence of GJohn notions such as the Logos Word from the epistles, among other things.
And in the Synoptics Jesus never says this but promises eternal life by things like proper behavior or dedication to himself or following the commandments of the Torah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

HJers themselves ridicule people who believe the Bible is fundamentally true but still rely heavily on the Bible for their historical Jesus.

In any event, the HJ argument is a most Devastating argument against the credibilty of Early Christians and the supposed followers of the Jesus if he did live..

If HJers can show that Jesus was just an ACTUAL ordinary man who was KNOWN by his disciples and people of Galilee to have NO ability to heal the sick, was KNOWN to have a human father, was NOT a Jewish Messiah, did NOT walk on water, did NOT transfigure, was NOT sacrificed for mankind, did NOT resurrect and did NOT ascend to heaven then Christianity would have been derived from a Falsehood--from Deception.

If Jesus was KNOWN as an ordinary man with a human father then the Pauline writings can be dumped as fraudulent letters.

An ordinary man cannot offer Salvation to mankind.

The HJ argument will destroy Christianity if Jesus has no ability to Remit Sins.

John 3:16 KJV

The Historical Jesus destroys the very heart of the Jesus story, the very heart of Christianity.

aa5874 · 04-09-2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In GJohn the eternal life is dependent on belief in the Christ which is demonstrated by partaking of eating his body and drinking his blood. This is not found either in 1 Corinthians 11. In the other gospels the eucharist idea is a symbolic act of remembering the Christ.

But does that notion of eternal life in GJohn mean the same thing as the idea of eternal life in Romans 6?...

I am dealing specifically with the question of the humanity of Jesus of the Codices NOT theology.

Was Jesus a known human being who had NO ability to remit sins and that lies were fabricated to make him into the LOGOS, the Creator and a Sacrificed Universal Savior to show GOD'S LOVE???

An historical Jesus POSES SERIOUS Questions about the INTEGRITY and VERACITY of so-called early Christians.

Is it reasonable and logical to accept that the Jesus cult was INITIATED by KNOWN lies, that is, people of Judea, potential Converts, KNEW ALL ALONG that the Jesus story was a PACK of LIES yet believed those very LIES that they INVENTED????

It is MOST illogical that there was ever a human Jesus that is the basis for the Jesus cult.

It is FAR MORE reasonable that some person fabricated a story about a character called Jesus the Son of God just like some one Fabricated a story about ADAM and EVE in the very Canonical Bible.

People of antiquity BELIEVED GOD Made ADAM and ALSO BELIEVE GOD MADE JESUS in the womb of Mary with his HOLY SPIRIT.

Jesus of the CODICES is MYTHOLOGY just like ADAM.

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

04-06-2012, 08:05 AM	#257
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	He said "dudgeon," not "dungeon." "Dudgeon" means "indignance," "ire," "outrage."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.