Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

But they didn't have a vision of the same thing. It seems everyone believed something different about their visions.

Does it? What makes you think that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

And you have the scenario backwards. The people could well have come together because they shared some type of philosphical relgious idealogy and later had the visions.

'Could well have'? But is that what you think happened? If it isn't, what do you think happened? And if it is, what makes you think so? What sort of philosophical/religious ideology do you think they shared, and why?

No Robots · 05-28-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm not sure I see a difference between 'religion' and 'thought system'. Perhaps you could explain this a bit more.

Sure. Few would describe secular humanism as a religion, nor would many say that belief in miracles is essential to being a secular humanist. Yet, as we have seen, some secular humanists do apparently believe in the possibility of miracles. Thus we can distinguish between the thought system known as secular humanism, and religious thinking that attaches itself parasitically to thought systems.

Quote:

In these miracle cases you raise for Daoists and Buddhists, are belief in these central to the religion or does the whole thing collapse a la Paul's statement about the resurrection? (Sorry, I can't find the passage on short notice)

I understand the resurrection as spiritual, not material. This was also Paul's understanding.

Quote:

I was looking for something specific. This sounds to me like something I might have heard from someone who had just finished reading "The Celestine Prophecy". Again, perhaps some additional explanation would be helpful.

Perhaps had you read Stranger in a Strange Land you would be a devotee of Valentine Michael Smith. I find valuable insights about humanity from a large number of authors, some of them admittedly writing fiction.

I have in fact read Stranger in a Strange Land, and was indeed inspired by the protagonist.

Quote:

I do not see how mythicists prevent anyone from increasing their direct knowledge unless you prefer an elaborate, well worn lie to the truth. If anything, the modern Christian apologist is more of an impediment to learning about the origin of Christianity. Are you somehow assuming that if mythicists could prove their case that bibles would have to be destroyed or something? I don't get what you're saying here.

I'm saying that mythicists are offering a distorted view of the truth on this matter which impedes people from finding that truth. In particular, it is the claim of scientific validity that I find reprehensible on the part of mythicists.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

If there was a true leader to this cult, who really spoke the things attributed to him, there is NO WAY the story would be as disjointed and appear as jagged as it is.

But what if there was an original true leader who did not really say exactly the things attributed to him, and whose original message and life story have been deliberately distorted?

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

The problem with all of these excuses is, if there was an actual known 'story' of the life of Christ, NONE of this stuff should be at this level of disagreement.

It is common enough, I think, for details, even major details, about the life of people who really existed to be the subject of historical dispute. I can't see why you would have difficulty with this.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

The question of Multi-layered Q is legitimate. If this represents maybe the first writings about Jesus, one wouldn't expect the document to eventually evolve a history.

I don't see why not. I don't see anything surprising about the possibility of an account of a real-life historical individual being built up cumulatively as information comes in.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

So what exactly is the problem with it all being imaginary?

The absence of a clear alternative explanation for the first origins of the movement.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The alleged appearances of the risen Christ.

Well, if you are saying that the man really lived, but that he did not rise from the dead, and that the stories that he did are the result of mass hysteria ... does that count as an HJ account or an MJ account? And is that what you are saying?

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The idea is that they shouldn't, just like lions and tigers.

Why shouldn't lions and tigers interbreed?

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

JM is particularly dangerous because it touches on something that is absolutely vital to the well-being of humanity, ie. our understanding of Christ.

'Absolutely vital'? Why? We got along without him before we met him.

Sparrow · 05-28-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I'm saying that mythicists are offering a distorted view of the truth on this matter which impedes people from finding that truth. In particular, it is the claim of scientific validity that I find reprehensible on the part of mythicists.

Are you saying that you know what truth that is? IOW, you know what happened with certainty?

I don't understand what 'claim of scientific validity' was/is made. Please explain further.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.