judge

But even scientific knowledge is tentative, subject to being overturned. So it is not trully objective in any infallible sense.
One can know god exists by hypothesis and experiment, the same route one learns using science.

judge

But there is no need to assume (what we imagine to be) the worst in people.

reniaa

hi eheffa,

thx for replying to me, I am not the scholar but i do enjoy these forums as a way to broaden my thought processes

Can I ask what would you class as proof now of inerrant & inspired bible to satisfy you?

Clivedurdle

Jung used the term collective unconscious, Frazer thought in terms of common experiences around agriculture. There is a major difference between pointing out "ikeaisms" that probably are there, and coming up with sound reasons for those commonalities.

There are examples of ape behaviour that may be religious. Our brains do create patterns, especially with various drugs that humans have experimented with for thousands of years.

Anthropology is continually recording similar belief structures around day and night, life and death, hunger and plenty. Supplicating the gods is in some ways a logical thing to do in a situation of not enough information.

With development of societies a move to monotheist religions also makes sense.

My point, use the evidence to work out what might be going on, do not assume external causes like gods and their only begotten son as having any relevance outside of the abilities of ourselves to invent and imagine stuff.

And do not throw the baby out with the bathwater because some authors use an incorrect theory. Belief in God and his only begotten Son is more off the wall than Atlantis, because 12,000 years ago the Black Sea was flooded from the Med and we have not really started with underwater archaeology.

xaxxat

Oh, really? Please feel free to school me on how this is done...

eheffa

(Edit: sorry That title should be "Thanks AntiPope Innocent III - much food for thought)


I am beginning to see that there are also a wide range of options:

At one end of the spectrum we have:

1.) The Deliberately Fictitious Jesus (Never Existed) >

2.) Purely Mythological Jesus (Never Existed but created to serve allegorical purpose) >

3.) Mythologized Jesus (Existed but not Divine i.e. may have made claims or was understood to have made claims of divinity ? "Jesus Seminar" Jesus) >

4.) Jesus the Incarnate Son of God (Reported by the Gospels which give flawed but incomplete picture of him, his words & deeds but essentially reliable in the important details of personhood, miracles resurrection etc.) >

5.) Jesus the Incarnate Son of God, One with the Father, reported on flawlessly by the inerrant God-breathed Gospels and exactly as understood by the Fundamentalist/orthodox faithful - fulfilling the Creeds.

Obviously, there are intermediate possibilities & combinations but for the average Joe, the implications of numbers 4 & 5 are most significant in terms of a call to faith. Unless Jesus is /was in reality the Incarnate Son of God fulfilling this role, the other possibilities make no demands of belief or allegiance.

When examining the evidence for an HJ it is increasingly difficult for me to have confidence in Jesus fulfilling the #4-5 category. The #3 Jesus Seminar Jesus has very little call either as the view is so cloudy & obscure one can have almost no confidence in the picture of who this man would have been. Lurking behind all this is of course the threat that if you get this wrong, there will literally be "Hell to pay". (The implication of this sort of gravity to the question begs for an answer to another question: "If God wanted us to know all about his grand plan for our redemption, why would he have communicated it in such flawed & obscure ways? In other words, if the evidence for an HJ is so tenuous, what's to stop us believing in any old myth or religious tenet? Why not believe in the Assumption of Mary, or even B'ahai for a bonus?)

Not to be disingenuous in all this, I have to say that I have been reading a lot of Atheist literature that makes a lot of sense to me and so this question is being asked in the larger context of whether belief in God is at all tenable


or my slowness to catch on or my lack of courage to have engaged these issues sooner :wave:



The working Hypothesis that the Gospels were very late creations would support the view that the early church was not aware of something that had not yet been written...on the other hand 1st & 2nd century publishers were probably a little slower in pumping out the million sellers than they are now & the difficulties of copying & distribution could have had some effect on this.


I appreciate your comments.

-evan

eheffa

Thanks for the link. I have read this with interest.

-evan

eheffa

Could you elaborate on this? Sorry to miss your point here. As I understand it, the point of apologetics is to provide a rational defense for a belief in something. If there is no rational defense for a Christian belief, then apologetics would be useless.... is that your point?


-evan

Toto

Hi evan - in this forum, "apologetics" is usually an insult. Apologists are noted for coming up with weak and unconvincing arguments, based on their prior need to reach a specific conclusion. The apologists' arguments usually do not convince a skeptic, but are designed to reassure the fellow believers.

eheffa

Thanks.



This is what I seem to be discovering & it is quite surprising really.


This too would lead one to conclude that such a murky message would not have the ability to command one's unwavering allegiance.

-evan