Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 10-21-2002, 07:43 PM

Posted by Vibr8gKiwi:

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
My understanding of Scripture is: the very human, very fallible writers of the various books reflect, however imperfectly, this or that aspect of the Divine Presence. This culminated in that Presence taking on flesh itself: the Incarnation.

Holy religious mumbo-jumbo Batman! Care to say that in plain English for those of us who haven't been indoctrinated since birth with your particular religious sect and its colloquial vocabulary?

I see nothing particularly jargonlike in anything
I wrote: there's not a single word in the post
which is difficult for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of mainstream Chrisitianity as it has existed over the last two
millenia.

Your reaction to what I wrote indicates to me that
you, like more than a few non-theists here, only
truly feel comfortable disputing with "Bible thumpers". Indeed your particular form of atheism
seems to be steeped in the jargon and pared-down
theology of that type of religion. Which makes me
think that I'm wasting my time here...

Cheers!

Ion · 10-21-2002, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
Moreover unlike most
"stories of divine claim" this one can be chronologically pinpointed with considerable accuracy (28 to 35 AD) and geographical accuracy
as well. The demand that the Bible perform some sort of tricks for us is silly.

Cheers!

I disagree that these accuracies are good enough to establish the resurrection as a fact, in a fact-finding investigation for history:
1) it is medically unheard of;
2) if it happened once in human history despite 1), then the testimonies are not contemporary with the event of resurrection and what it is reported years later is contradictory;
3) the resurrection didn't make the news at that time, for example in neighboring Egypt or anywhere else like it was prophesized by Jesus according to Matt (Matt 24:30 : "...all the tribes on earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming..."), therefore the resurrection is not accepted as a fact in today's history books.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

leonarde · 10-21-2002, 10:03 PM

Ion,
It is difficult to imagine ANY realistic scenario
whereby the resurrection even if true would
be reported as such by today's history books.

As to Egypt and 'making the news': there weren't
foreign correspondents writing for newspapers in
those days: it required centuries more and the
invention of moveable type before a widespread dissemination of 'news' on a regular basis became
possible.

Cheers!

leonarde · 10-21-2002, 10:17 PM

Posted by Family Man:

Quote:

But who were the apostles? The personal traveling companions of Jesus of Nazareth, the people to whom He (allegedly) appeared after the Resurrection. The people IN THE VERY BEST POSITION to determine whether the "ghost" was indeed he.

Except that is an incredibly overly simplistic view of the events. I could argue that the best judges of Jesus would rather be his family, who Mark describes as believing that Jesus had lost his mind. Who is in a better position to judge him, a group of gullible hero-worshippers who knew him for a few years or his family who knew him for thirty?

Well, the NT describes "James, the brother of Jesus" (perhaps a brother, perhaps a cousin) as
a leader of the Jerusalem Christian Church
until he was stoned to death. So if he believed at some point that Jesus had lost his
mind, then he changed his opinion at some point (otherwise his status as a church leader is inexplicable) .

You assume that these men were "gullible
hero-worshippers" whereas the situation that the
Gospel portrays post-Crucifixion is one in which
most apostles scoffed at the first reports of an
empty tomb (with only John and Peter running there after the women had made the empty tomb claim).

Cheers!

leonarde · 10-22-2002, 06:47 AM

Posted by Butters:

Quote:

Leonarde,
I would like to see you answer one point that F.M. raised. If historians should not discount the supernatural events of a document, does that mean we should consider ALL supernatural events recorded in history as true, or just the Jewish/Christian events. If not why?

No, I don't think we should automatically
take recorded "supernatural events" as being exactly as depicted. I see a number of sub-categories with varying degrees of truth/his-
toricity:

I)Stories/events/depictions which are solely the products of the human imagination. One doesn't even have to take a religious example of this: secular ones are there
for our perusal. Consider the case of the so-called "Utopian Socialists" of the 19th Century: these were (largely secular)philosophers
in the pre-Marxist era who hypothesized that human
history was divided up into eras or dispensations,
each one radically different from the other. What
history was heading for was some future age of
socialist nirvana (though the details of such varied from philosopher to philosopher; Francois
Fourier was the most famous of these). To believe
in such ideas one needed(one needs) to believe
that there is a discontinuity in the natural laws
of economics (and in some cases of physics as well). This has the smell of the miraculous about it.
These notions ultimately proved an embarrassment to the (later)Marxists who, to distinguish themselves from the dreamy-eyed Utopian Socialists
dubbed themselves "scientific Socialists".
Religions too have had ideas which were based solely on human imagination.

II)Legendary stories or accretions. See the claim
that Davey Crockett "killed himself a bear when he
was only three". Was there a real frontiersman named "Davy Crockett"? Sure. Did he do some remarkable things of a physical nature during his
life? Probably. Was he perhaps precocious in that
regard? Perhaps. Still a literal claim that
he killed a bear at that age isn't necessary to
appreciate the point being made. Religions too have such legends/accretions.

III)Stories which are "true" in broad outline but
which are (pre)interpreted in such a way as would
not be done today. Here I have in mind such things
as the "demoniacs" depicted in the NT: a modern
reader, familiar to a certain degree with human
psychology can say: 'Oh yeah, this one has multiple personality disorder. That one has paranoid schizophrenia' etc. But it's unreasonable
to assume that Jesus or anyone else of the 1st Century would use 20th Century psychiatric jargon
to explain the 'possessed' of their era. They simply "had a demon" and that was that.

IV)Real historical events which were at the time
indecipherable without reference to the supernatural: earthquakes, floods, tornadoes etc.
We are under no obligation to continue to explain
such events in strictly supernatural terms.

V)The supernatural (assuming for the moment that it exists): this would (should) for the modern
constitute a category which meets sufficiently
rigorous standards. When the event in question happened in the remote past, there should be every
effort made to determine whether the reaction of
(alleged) witnesses was consistent with what we
know about human psychology. In the end, historical investigation may not always be able to
tell us whether a given (ie reported) supernatural
event "truly" happened but it should be able present us with imposing "bundles of probabilities".

Cheers!

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-22-2002, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Posted by Vibr8gKiwi: What striking attributes are you looking for???

I would think a "striking attribute" would be obvious--hence "striking!"

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
The list of miracles...

I'm sorry, but a list of claimed miracles in a religious (or even ancient mythological) text is not remotely out of the ordinary let alone striking.

We're talking about the god of the universe here... look at some hubble shots sometime. A book authored by the god that created the universe would stand out somehow.

leonarde · 10-22-2002, 07:03 AM

Talk about vague answers! A striking attribute is
"striking". If you have no real idea what
you want from the Bible (or at least are unable
to articulate it here) then chances are your "quest" will never be fulfilled.

Quote:

I would think a "striking attribute" would be obvious--hence "striking!"

Cheers!

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-22-2002, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Talk about vague answers! A striking attribute is
"striking". If you have no real idea what
you want from the Bible (or at least are unable
to articulate it here) then chances are your "quest" will never be fulfilled.

I do have an idea what I'm looking for. I'm looking for evidence of a Creator of the Universe. I am NOT looking for things that appear EXACTLY like what ordinary men make (as that would not seem to be from a god). The precise attribute is arbitrary--anything "striking" (or supernatural) that separates it from the world of men would do. ANYTHING at all. But unfortunately all we have are unsupported miracle claims just like every other supposed religious text, myth and fraud in history.

Actually the bible does contain many items that if they were actually true could be sufficient, but of course they don't actually work when honestly examined. For example, asking anything in the name of Jesus and having it done, or having true Christians being able to drink any deadly thing and have it not hurt them, etc.

I've got some draino here, you drink it and not get hurt and we might have the striking attribute I'm looking for. Of course what we really have is a factual misstatement in Mark--you cannot drink any deadly thing and have it not hurt you. You know it. I know it. The bottom line remains the same: there is nothing that would show the supposed supernatural origin of the bible. However, instead there IS error, inconsistency, absurdity, atrocity, falsity, etc. Most the rest of these discussions are just a lot of noise to try to protect a childhood fantasy some people don't want to let go.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

Butters · 10-22-2002, 11:51 AM

Posted by Leonarde,

Quote:

No, I don't think we should automatically
take recorded "supernatural events" as being exactly as depicted. I see a number of sub-categories with varying degrees of truth/his-
toricity:

I)Stories/events/depictions which are solely the products of the human imagination. One doesn't even have to take a religious example of this: secular ones are there
for our perusal. Consider the case of the so-called "Utopian Socialists" of the 19th Century: these were (largely secular)philosophers
in the pre-Marxist era who hypothesized that human
history was divided up into eras or dispensations,
each one radically different from the other. What
history was heading for was some future age of
socialist nirvana (though the details of such varied from philosopher to philosopher; Francois
Fourier was the most famous of these). To believe
in such ideas one needed(one needs) to believe
that there is a discontinuity in the natural laws
of economics (and in some cases of physics as well). This has the smell of the miraculous about it.
These notions ultimately proved an embarrassment to the (later)Marxists who, to distinguish themselves from the dreamy-eyed Utopian Socialists
dubbed themselves "scientific Socialists".
Religions too have had ideas which were based solely on human imagination.

And how do you determine an event is or is not solely a product of imagination? IMO ALL supernatural events are products of the imagination. It seems to me, if you reject 99% of them, why give credence to those of one sect?

II)Legendary stories or accretions. See the claim
that Davey Crockett "killed himself a bear when he
was only three". Was there a real frontiersman named "Davy Crockett"? Sure. Did he do some remarkable things of a physical nature during his
life? Probably. Was he perhaps precocious in that
regard? Perhaps. Still a literal claim that
he killed a bear at that age isn't necessary to
appreciate the point being made. Religions too have such legends/accretions.

Yes indeed they do. I for one am inclined to believe there was a historical Jesus, not because of any evidence I have seen supporting him (which is none), but because most myths have a kernal of truth to them. If modern technology hadn't been developed, who knows what Davy Crockett would have been credited with doing?

III)Stories which are "true" in broad outline but
which are (pre)interpreted in such a way as would
not be done today. Here I have in mind such things
as the "demoniacs" depicted in the NT: a modern
reader, familiar to a certain degree with human
psychology can say: 'Oh yeah, this one has multiple personality disorder. That one has paranoid schizophrenia' etc. But it's unreasonable
to assume that Jesus or anyone else of the 1st Century would use 20th Century psychiatric jargon
to explain the 'possessed' of their era. They simply "had a demon" and that was that.

I don't think it would have been unreasonable for Jesus,if he was God, or the son of God to have said, "look here, this guy has a mental disorder, there are no Demons in him" He still could have cured them, and maybe told his followers how to treat others, instead of telling them to cast out demons. (By the way, this might have been a "striking attribute") Of course this points out the uselessness of miracles. To many people have claimed to preform them. They are easy to fake.
And again, how do we determine if these stories are "True" to begin with?

IV)Real historical events which were at the time
indecipherable without reference to the supernatural: earthquakes, floods, tornadoes etc.
We are under no obligation to continue to explain
such events in strictly supernatural terms.

V)The supernatural (assuming for the moment that it exists): this would (should) for the modern
constitute a category which meets sufficiently
rigorous standards. When the event in question happened in the remote past, there should be every
effort made to determine whether the reaction of
(alleged) witnesses was consistent with what we
know about human psychology. In the end, historical investigation may not always be able to
tell us whether a given (ie reported) supernatural
event "truly" happened but it should be able present us with imposing "bundles of probabilities".

I think that historical investagition leaves us with only one "Probability". It is extremly probable that supernatural events do not exist outside of the minds of those who choose to believe them.

So let me get this straight. Historians should investigate ALL report of supernatural events, using your methodology, to see if any are true?

leonarde · 10-22-2002, 12:37 PM

Historians should take seriously just about
all claims of supernatural phenomena because even if a given one isn't historical the belief of the given adherents in the phenomenon can have a concrete historical result. Think of
the early tentativeness of Montezuma when he first found out about the Spaniards having landed.
His tentativeness and his later fatalism were inextricably linked to his belief that these Spaniards (Cortes and company) were the fulfillment of a religious prophecy/story about
light-skinned gods who would one day appear from
over the ocean. Even when the first Spaniards died
in combat with the Aztecs (thus proving to be mortal after all), even this apparently didn't shake some Aztecs out of their
awe of the Spaniards. The conquest of the Aztecs
would never have happened so quickly without the
religious element and the belief in the supernatural.
As to the merits of this or that supernatural claim, they must be taken on a case by case basis; any sweeping statements along those
lines are bound to be off.

Cheers!

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

10-21-2002, 10:03 PM	#73
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Ion, It is difficult to imagine ANY realistic scenario whereby the resurrection even if true would be reported as such by today's history books. As to Egypt and 'making the news': there weren't foreign correspondents writing for newspapers in those days: it required centuries more and the invention of moveable type before a widespread dissemination of 'news' on a regular basis became possible. Cheers!

10-22-2002, 12:37 PM	#80
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Historians should take seriously just about all claims of supernatural phenomena because even if a given one isn't historical the belief of the given adherents in the phenomenon can have a concrete historical result. Think of the early tentativeness of Montezuma when he first found out about the Spaniards having landed. His tentativeness and his later fatalism were inextricably linked to his belief that these Spaniards (Cortes and company) were the fulfillment of a religious prophecy/story about light-skinned gods who would one day appear from over the ocean. Even when the first Spaniards died in combat with the Aztecs (thus proving to be mortal after all), even this apparently didn't shake some Aztecs out of their awe of the Spaniards. The conquest of the Aztecs would never have happened so quickly without the religious element and the belief in the supernatural. As to the merits of this or that supernatural claim, they must be taken on a case by case basis; any sweeping statements along those lines are bound to be off. Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.