mrunicycler

Offer they may.

Deliver, they do not.

If people get solace from being connived, that's fine and dandy.

However, the amenities offered by churches (the pools and gyms, etc) are not the reason people give money. They give because they're told that if they don't, they will suffer for eternity in hell. The amenities are nothing but a way to keep involved, so that they'll keep coming back to give more money.

And it's very questionable as to how well a church truly offers solace.

In my experience, it makes people feel worse about their lives, that they will feel the need to give more.

Solitary Man

And why are those excluded? Have you done a systematic comparison of historical people and the evidence for them? Why is circumstantial evidence excluded? Do you have any solid evidence that your great-great-great-great grandfather existed? No, it's a logical step, not any concrete evidence.

Are you familiar with historical methodology? It doesn't seem so. What evidence is there that Athronges existed? How do you determine what is reliable and what is not reliable?

Solitary Man

Well, you'll have to have something a little more concrete than merely your anecdotal experience.

And whatever reasons people go to church, it's a blatant lie to say that they don't offer any services. Clearly you're dead wrong.

mrunicycler

Well and good, I can accept your definition, as well as mine.

However, are you now saying that the religious leaders who kept the oral traditions of the early church were not spreading their faith in a systematic way?

Are you claiming that things must be written in order to be systematic?

Solitary Man

No, I just don't see any evidence that the earliest traditions were propaganda.

mrunicycler

I would if I was interested in convincing anyone of this. You're the one who began talking about the church offering solace, and so it is incumbent on you to reveal the solace it offers, if you want to convince anyone of your views.


I'm not saying they don't offer services.

I'm saying that the services they offer are not commensurate with the amount of money they make.

I'm saying that what services there are are intended to keep the weak, tired, huddled masses coming back for more of the same.

I'm saying that the rest of the money goes into the greedy hands of corrupt religious leaders.

And I'm saying that these organizations should be looked at carefully before a person to decides to join.

However, most religious people are indoctrinated into it at a time when they're too young to know the difference between reality and fantasy, and are incapable or unwilling to question the tenets taught them in early life.

Toto

Discussions of the services provided by contemporary churches is a bit too modern for this forum.

Thanks for taking that conversation elsewhere.

mrunicycler

Because, by their very nature, they are unreliable and/or reliant upon a fallacious book (the bible) for their 'facts'.

I'm not an historian, if that's what you're asking, and so have never had the time to delve into a 'systematic comparison'.

Have you done a systematic comparison? If so, were you biased by your faith when you did?

Circumstantial evidence would be excluded because there is none, other than your holy books.

I'll repeat, as it is your holy books whose merits are in question, using them as evidence of the holy book's authenticity is circular.

A logical step it may be, but it's based upon an understanding of the human reproductive system and the fact that I exist. I would be concrete evidence that all of my ancestors existed.

Unlike your holy books, which are nothing but hearsay involving magic and money.

Unless, you're suggesting that I am the product of immaculate conception, or a figment of your imagination.

In which I 1) will start demanding money from the religious, or 2) have no proof to offer that could convince you of my real-ness.

Are you? It doesn't seem so. That you regurgitate two mulitsyllabic words put together doesn't improve my opinion of your ideas. Nor should it anyone else's.

I don't know. I've never been told by anyone that I should worship him, and so have never bothered to research him for myself.

Perhaps, if it interests you, you should start a thread on the subject, or read about him for yourself.

But it is not in any way related to the historocity of the biblical jesus, except that they're both religious figures affiliated, in one way or another, with Jews.

I determine what is reliable by making a judgment of the available data based on reality as I see it.

How do you?

Solitary Man

Unreliability and fallacity here is assumed, not shown.

So how do you know then?

Yes I have, both during my time as a Christian and after I deconverted.

Correction - they're not my holy books. I didn't pen them. And yes, there's still Josephus, Q (not a book), and the traditions behind the "holy books".

Perhaps you'd like to make this explicit.

No, you're still assuming that you that you need all of your grandparents to exist. And for that you're assuming that the world then is the same as it is now. While I don't disagree with your assumptions, assumptions they are nonetheless.

Nothing? Really? Is there not poetry in Psalms? Wisdom is Ben Sirah? Ethics in James and Matthew? Are there not descriptions of ancient life? If all you see is magic and money, then it is you who are biased by your "faith".

Both are possible. Neither are supported widely by evidence, but you cannot "prove" otherwise without some axiom.

That second one is fair - you can't have any proof that's not already established by assumed (circular) axioms.

My, my, I disagree! But this is what a university education is for. You've already been shown to not know how to discern much (for example, you thought I was a Christian above).

What ideas in particular do you not approve of?

Well, I think you ought to worship him. Better go see what evidence exists for him.

It has already been done. I was asking you to see your methodology. It seems you don't have one.

Really, you ought to learn to spell. It's historicity, not historocity. Are you educated?

What a cop out answer. How do you do that?

mrunicycler

So then, you have shown the reliability and honesty of the bible and its spawn? Or are you assuming that?

And is the reliability of the bible, which claims countless miracles as fact, really in question?

Perhaps you and I have different understandings of how in-depth one's research must be to be considered systematic.

As much reading as I've done, I don't consider myself to have done it in a systematic way...even those books that I read for college courses. Rather, it was out of casual curiosity, seeking answers to questions I had at the time.

They are the holy books whose authenticity you are supporting. Therefore, they are, in my estimation and for the duration of this argument, yours.

And the traditions behind 'the holy books' can hardly be used as evidence for the holy books. That you would think that they could is hardly testament to your objectivity.



If you need for me to be more explicit on this than I have in this thread, I cannot do anything for you.


I didn't say they weren't assumptions, but that they are assumptions grounded in reality.

You cannot compare the assumption I make when I say I exist to the assumption a christian makes when he says god/jesus exist(ed). One has proof, the other does not.

And, to say that the world two thousand years ago had different physical laws than today, you'd need to back that up with some evidence...other than the claims of miracles to be found in religious texts.


That there is poetry in psalms and wisdom in ben sirah doesn't make the point of this thread--the historicity of jesus--any more valid. When I say 'nothing but hearsay and money', I'm referring to the holy books as it relates to the thread's OP. Meaning, having people believe in jesus/god is nothing but an endeavor through hearsay and propaganda to get money and power.

If Oral Roberts were to encourage safe sex, he would be wise. If he did so because he heard the voice of god tell him to, you should take a look both at what he says, and why, before deciding whether or not to agree with him.


Again, to compare the axiom "I exist" to the axiom "Jesus existed" is a fallacy.


No. University undergraduate degrees in any given subject won't teach you anything about the historical method. Post graduate work in a field relating to history will.

An assumtion I made based on your defence of the bible and its spawn. Not an illogical one, given the circumstances.


Do you know what this thread is about? Or, are you just trolling?

Given, I'll repeat, that the thread topic is about the biblical jesus, I'd think you'd know that I'm referring to your opinions on the historicity of the biblical jesus.


Why would I waste my time on your opinion that I should worship him?

Unless, you're going to enact laws based on your belief, or ask millions of people to give you money based on that belief.


You were going off topic in order to introduce an ad hominem into the thread. That I didn't fall into it doesn't mean I lack methodology in forming my opinions, and that I admit that my reading was not done in a systematic way is only a testament to my honesty, not a lack of knowledge or methodology.


I am. Very. I'm actually going to go back to college to get another degree, while I stay home and raise a baby that my wife is currently pregnant with (she makes more money than I did, and thanks in advance for any congratulations).

I apologize that I sometimes make mistakes, and that the filter of my word processor failed to pick it up, as well.

Obviously, however, I was clear enough for my meaning to be taken, which is all I really ask of my spelling, anyhow.

But again, this is nothing but an ad hominem, and has no real bearing on the thread topic.

Are you asking how the neurons work in my brain during the decision making process?

Perhaps, your initial question was unclear.