Jobar

Hi InFlames (cool screen name!) and welcome to Infidels.

I think this topic would be better suited to our Biblical forum, so I'm going to move it there.

A few comments before I do- Tercel admits that Genesis should not be taken literally. This means that there was no literal Adam and Eve, and no Fruit of Good and Evil, and so no Fall.

Now, Jesus is supposed to be the given sacrifice which saves humanity from the Fall. But there was no literal Fall, so tell us again, Tercel, just what it was that Jesus was supposed to do (even assuming his historicity, which I personally don't.)

Oh yeah- Because God's a proven fact.

Oh, really?! Funny, despite being a mod here, I don't recall the thread where this proof was demonstrated. Mind refreshing my memory?

beastmaster

Here's what I don't get.

If god is all-powerful, then he can make reality conform to his metaphors. If god has important lessons to teach us through the Fall of Adam and Eve, for instance, then god can make all those events *really* happen. God isn't limited by the laws of physics.

IOW, if reality is the product of god's mind, then his metaphors should manifest *in* reality, and not just in a book that *contradicts* reality.

InFlames

Thanks

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention when I posted


Jack the Bodiless mentioned different prose styles used in the bible. I have never heard of this before- interesting. I had an argument with a creationist on a different forum and I couldn't understand why he took most of the events in the bible for truth but did not believe that the earth was flat.

Tercel

~laughs~
You guys are very funny sometimes...
Jobar, ever heard of the phrase "pulling your leg"? Stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

Typical atheist logic...
...Genesis 11 and prior is meant metaphorically... to teach theological truths.
Did I say "no Fall"? No. I said that the theological doctrines represented by those stories are truths. Now tell me: Is the Fall a theological doctrine? Hence: Am I saying the Fall is a truth or a fiction?
That man is not morally perfect is obvious. That observation combined with the ideas of a Good God and with Free Will necessarily implies a doctrine of the Fall. Just 'cos the standard non-conservative view is that the writer of Genesis used non-literally true myths (just like Jesus used parables) -ie "stories with a moral"- to teach theological doctrine, hardly means we deny the theological doctrines it's teaching!

So of course I believe in the Fall. I don't know the details of how it happened, but the truth that everyone of us is naturally inclined towards rejecting God's will and good works in favour of our own pleasures and evil deeds is to me a basic fact of experience. Whether the fallenness of mankind is somehow the natural result of the first human's decision to reject God, or it's a result of a decision of each of us in some previous existence (as Origen taught), or simply a choice each and every one of us makes in this life: I don't know. The simple observation I do make is that we are all screwed up to some degree or another (and in my experience it is those truly saintly people -that people might point to as a disproof of this- who are most aware of their shortcomings), and could do with fixing.
I believe the writer of Genesis (who I doubt believed the literal truth of the story more than I do) picked an ancient story that would have been familar to his readers in order to convey this theological truth.

Yeah whatever: Jesus' non-existence is no more credible than inerrancy or the "no moon landing" conspiracies... but I suppose every group needs its wackos - atheists included.

In Jesus, God and man became one. That is, the unfathomable gulf between the perfect God and sinful man was bridged by God taking on the form of man to reconcile man unto himself. For an imperfect and screwed up man of his own efforts can never fix himself, or make himself like a perfect God. To paraphrase CS Lewis: one must first bend down before one can lift something up. And God bending down to become as us -the lowest of all the rational beings in creation- was through that union able to lift all of creation back to himself. And so, where before we had rejected our union with God, preferring to go our own way and do our own thing. God reached out and joined himself with us again, becoming as we are and sharing in that which we suffer in order to become one with us again. And yet though Jesus was tempted as we are, he was yet of God's spirit and did not reject God in the way we do. And so through Jesus, the potential is there, insofar as with are one with Jesus, we are one with God and reconciled to him. Where we cannot, because of our fallenness participate in unity with God -just as those who have blinded themselves cannot see the sun- Jesus provides the way in which we might be reconciled, for we can have unity with Jesus because he is a man, and He can have unity with God because He is of God.

But more than that. For in God there is boundless forgiveness, endless love for us in spite of anything and everything - like the sun God's love never ceases shining on all nor makes distinction between the good and the bad nor the unlovely or the lovely. That distinction is in ourselves: just as the blind man cannot see the sun, or the man with diseased eyes is hurt by the light, or as the man with good eyes experiences joy as he looks out upon the world. It is not to appease God that Jesus died: God - like the Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son loves all his children and will run to welcome them back to himself. Nor that Jesus needed to die for some implacable Necessity higher than God that demanded God repay punishment with punishment. But rather, the "necessity" was us. In our heart of hearts we would always feel ashamed at receiving forgiveness. In the story of the Prodigal Son, would not the son have been forever ashamed of what how he had squandered his father's money? He would always remember the wrongs he had done to his father and the hurt he had cost him. He would always remember his father's unmerited forgiveness and feel -though loved- inadequate, a betrayer, forever ashamed of what he had done. And so with God's pure forgiveness we feel the same way. God's boundless forgiveness only increases our shame. Where we hated him, he loved us. Where we hurt him, he held out his arms to us. And when we come back to him we would know what we deserved, our conscience would tell us and we would feel forever inadequate, less. Is that perfect? God's goal is our deification - to become as Godly as Himself. And yet with us having such feelings could that aim ever be realised? So Jesus suffered in our place. Where our own selves could never truly accept unmerited forgiveness, Jesus suffered as we deserved. Becoming as ourselves he suffered like ourselves should have. And so, we can look to Jesus and see that yes our suffering was punished. And in our union with Jesus -just as God himself is in union with Jesus- so that suffering was our suffering. And so there is no shame. We have died as we deserved. Suffered utterly and died utterly in our union with the one who did not deserved it. And as he was the one who did not deserve it God was able to restore him after it unlike he could have done to ones who deserved it. Thus, for we have been punished as we deserved in Jesus, our conscience no longer condemns us. We are not betrayers, we need not be ashamed at God giving us more than what we deserved, for through Jesus what we deserve is God. Our shame is gone, dealt with and done. Nothing stops us from accepting God and becoming Him completely.
As the song goes: "Our sin and shame, they're gone in Jesus' name". There are two parts: our sin -our separation from God, and our shame. Christ dealt with both forever.

Even if you cannot understand what I'm saying, or you think it's silly, then still it answers your question: I do believe Jesus' death was important and did do something.

Tercel

Sandlewood
I'm more than happy to consider things just plain wrong. There are numerous places in the Bible where I think the writers were just plain wrong in their facts or theological opinions.
Just because "metaphorical" is often used as an escape hatch for those terrified to say "just plain wrong", doesn't mean that "metaphorical" is never justified!

I find your assumption that the Bible is generally incorrect and that increasing knowledge will show it to be more and more so rather amusing...
My point was, is that if science shows us something was not literally true, then it shows us that either the writer meant it as a metaphor or that the writer was literally wrong: The possibility that it is literally true can be ruled out.

Whoah, I've heard of people claiming God spoke to them, but Science? -When did this amazing revelation happen?
And no: "lack of evidence is evidence of a lack" is a philosophical presupposition which has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

I'm assuming you're talking about the existence of God here. I think there are some very very very convincing reasons to believe in the existence of God. Frankly I can't really understand why anyone intelligent would be an atheist. But I suppose cognitive dissonance, feelings of loneliness, lack of a father figure, God not responding on demand, disappointment at not being able to "contact God", feelings of superiority to ignorant believers, peer pressure, feelings about it being more "scientific", or wacko philosophical presuppositions all play their part.
Hehe, I bet that upset a few people... Maybe it can be turned into a good learning experience - just consider: You get one sentence on it and you're upset. Do you know how many entire threads of that kind of stuff aimed at theists I've read in two years of posting?

The Bible is not magically "made" to be anything. The Bible is a collection of writings from within the Jewish-Christian tradition considered to contain worthwhile insights into theology and records of God's activities and records of the incarnation.
The Bible wasn't magically filled by God with Plain Truth, but is a collect of works written by spiritual men who may well have glimpsed the divine.

And subjective things are a priori ruled out as valid or helpful? Is this another of those "self-evident" atheist presuppositions?

No. It was the early Christians who recorded their beliefs in the Bible (in the NT anyway), and later Christians who decided what books were to be in the Bible. -Remember?
Unless you would like to argue the position that there was no Christian doctrine 'till the Bible contents were decided?? (which happend in the west in the 4th century - and even later in the eastern part of the Christian world)

This reminds me of one of the items on a joke "You might be an atheist if..." list. The particular one being: "You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since."
Either that or you've been talking to too many incoherent fundamentalists. (or both)

Peter Kirby

Hi Tercel,

I have a sense of incongruity in this message that I hope you can appreciate. I will try to get at it by analogy.

Suppose that I believe that Apollonius of Tyana was a son of a god (this is made-up). Suppose that I believe that Apollonius was the fulcrum of history. Apollonius gave the wisest teachings ever known, and Apollonius healed people, which although perhaps not contranatural, I interpet as being miracles because they show the love of Zeus. I believe that the death of Apollonius was the event in which death was swallowed up by life, that love conquered evil, and that truth triumphed over falsehood, although those events were not visible to a bystander. I pray to Apollonius during meals and before I go to sleep, and I read from Philostratus for inspiration and guidance. I know that the Apollonius scholars have determined that Apollonius was like many other philosophers or magicians of the age, and I accept their findings because they make sense to me, but I insist that there was something special about the life of Apollonius, because I know the love of Apollonius from experience if for no other reason.

Now suppose there were some Buddhist scholars who came along, analyzed the Apollonius stories, and thought that there was a good chance that the Apollonius stories were ripped off earlier myths. My question is:

Would you trust my opinion on the historical existence of Apollonius? Would you consider me objective for dismissing those critics as being total wacko-loons?

best,
Peter Kirby

Amos

But Jobar, before a passage can be an allegory the reality must exist that the allegory points at.

It is true that Adam did not fall literally but the fall of man points at the perception of knowledge in the conscious mind. This made the "non rational animal" man a "rational animal" and that is how the dual nature of man is created in the myth.

Only in this second nature is good and evil known and so the redemption of our prior nature must be the subjugation of our second nature.

In Christendom the "Jesus way" is said to be they only way but really all we have to do is is be a good Catholic because the event is archetypal and "as easy as eating and drinking" according to William Golding, who gave us his version of this event in "The Spire."

Tercel

Come on Peter you should know better than that. I'm a liberal: I'm not worried about questioning the Holy Bible and finding it wanting. I'm not worried about finding mistakes, or things wrong with it. I'm not at all afraid to conclude parts or all of the Bible are copies of earlier myths. I've spent the last week on a conservative board getting told I was not a Christian because I dared to try and convince them that the Bible contained errors and contradictions.

Yes I believe that Jesus gave some very wise teachings, yes I believe he healed people: That position comes from my analysis of which parts of the Bible can be considered historically trustworthy. If I woke up tomorrow and found that Jesus didn't give those teachings, I'd say "Oh, okay." and proceed only to wonder what was wrong with my methodology that had caused me to reach a mistaken conclusion. With regard to my faith: I wouldn't care. If I woke up tomorrow and found that Jesus never healed anyone: Same thing.
I am objective as anyone can possibly be on such matters. Perhaps more so than you atheists since I lack your philosophical presuppositions that miracles cannot happen etc.

With regard to the question of the historical Jesus: Yes there is a slight difference to the above. -My theology as it stands would need a rethink, as well as my historical methodology. No big deal, I'm in the process of rethinking my theological beliefs all the time. In the two years I have been posting here my theology has changed considerably: I occasionally read some of my first posts in the archives and just laugh since I disagree with almost everything I said then. Such is learning.
My belief in God wouldn't be hurt by finding Jesus didn't exist: since it is derived from philosophical considerations, not historical ones. I admit that the question of God's existence is an area in which I am not so uncaring. If I woke up tomorrow and found God doesn't exist I would have serious problems with it.
But if I woke up tomorrow and found Jesus never existed, I'd say "Oh, okay" and wonder how I managed to screw up my historical methodology and theology so badly.

So to answer your question: No, I am objective on the question of Jesus' historical existence.

I just think the non-historicity position has no merit. I think you're probably noticing my annoyance of the non-historical position at the moment because I've been reading too much of the articles on Doherty's website lately.
It reminds me so much of the inerrantists (and since I'm in the middle of debating some at the moment I'm in a fairly good position to make the comparision) it's really quite sick: "No, what the verse REALLY means (~sigh~ if only you had the magic God-given knowledge like me) is XXXX. Now you might think it says YYYYY because that's what it says. But if you were to take into account hypothetical AAAA, assertions BBB and CCC and were to combine it all into a reconstruction DDDD of what REALLY happened: Then you would understand the True Meaning of the verse."

Yeah whatever.

Peter Kirby

Hi Tercel,

As part of the post to which I responded, you had written:

"As the song goes: 'Our sin and shame, they're gone in Jesus' name'. There are two parts: our sin -our separation from God, and our shame. Christ dealt with both forever."

It seems to me that this statement attributes cosmic significance to the life and death of Jesus, as the one who acts as the mediator between God and man. As I suggested, the idea that a God-man was necessary to deal with Original Sin was developed by St. Anselm (Cur Deus Homo?). Such a theology makes it very important for Jesus to be real and for Jesus to be both human and divine.

It seems to me that someone who has such a view of the redeeming character of Christ would not just go "Oh, Okay" if they were to be convinced that the man never lived. But maybe you respond better to paradigm shifts than I do.

. . .

Why in the world would anyone doubt the existence of a historical Jesus? Well, for example, a common type of Jesus-mythicist that I've found is one who has a strong presumption that all hearsay accounts should be dismissed as evidence out of hand. I do not consider this to be irrational, though it is not a view that I share.

It does seem to me that the certainty with which the existence of Jesus is held and the significance which is attached to his life far outstrips the veneer of historical evidence.

In this matter, I think it would be reasonable to say something like, "I know that there are some counter-arguments, but my examination of the material available persuades me that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of this conclusion." But when a person says that the chance of a historical Jesus is "virtually nil," or when a person says that those who doubt the historical existence of Jesus are all "wackos," some motivation beyond the commitment to reason is evident.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yellum Notnef

It`s glaringly evident and makes you look like a baby Tercel.
It`s also quite odd to see such an knee-jerk emotional defense of the HJ from a guy who just claimed his response would be"no big deal" and "Oh,Okay" if he was to find there was no HJ.
Quite odd indeed.

This doesn`t make you look very good either Tercel. I feel bad you you if you honestly think any of the above reasons are why some of us don`t believe in god. But I suppose you`ll just tell me it was a meant as a joke like earlier in the thread when you said the existence of god is a "fact".
Btw,Nice emergency backpeddling on the god/fact thing. I could have sworn I heard Bede and Layman both say "Doh!" when you said that one.