Metacrock

Let's assume for a bit that Doherty is right. Paul really believed that Jesus was a spirit being and never lived as flesh and blood. Let's assume the Jesus mythers are right that Jesus began in this way and was never an historical figure. Of course, I believe he really was, but let's assume they are right.

With all the disproffs I've given, there really aren't scads of dying-rising savior gods who were crucified and rose from the dead. With all the short comings in Doherty's theory which have been pointed out, and they still treat it like a sacred cow, that makes me think that they just want a "get out of hell free card." It's the ultimate disproof of Christianity, and that's why they can't open their eyes and see how inadequate the theory is.

But assume it's right. Paul did not say anywhere that one doesn't get the benifits of the atonement if one believes it is litteral history. He just, suppossedly, believed in a crucifiction in space and he never said that those who litteralize it are wrong.

With this in mind, it is not the ultimate disproof of Christianity. Because Paul could be right from the stand point of a mystery cult. Christians all these centruries have been wrong, but still reap the benifits of belief because in their wrongness they aren't so far off as to avoid the good. They do blieve in atonement and that's the point.

Even if we reduce Jesus to just a symbol of God's solidarity and say that he never lived on earth, one still get's the benifits of belief in that symbol and its transformative power.

Now thinking of this fact, how do you feel now about Jesus mytherism? Is it still the ultimate tool to bash Christianity?

Koyaanisqatsi

What "transformative power?" If Jesus never factually existed, then there was no actual sacrifice to provide any kind of "transformative power," and if he never actually resurrected, then no "proof" of immortality.

In other words, no point to believing in anything regarding Jesus. The entire NT would be utterly pointless.

"Bash?" No, christians provide more than enough tools with which to "bash" christianity. If you're asking whether or not Jesus as myth destroys christianity, then the answer is, of course, "yes."

Without an actual "son of God/Man" who was actually meant as a sacrifice to himself to provide an excuse for an all powerful deity to grant salvation....oh, wait. My mistake. None of it is necessary and the whole thing is illogical.

Metacrock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
[B]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Metacrock
Even if we reduce Jesus to just a symbol of God's solidarity and say that he never lived on earth, one still get's the benifits of belief in that symbol and its transformative power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What "transformative power?"




Meta: ahahaha! what transformative power??? you are such a card! Hahahahahah! This Trnasforamtive power







Meta: There would be the sacrafice in space that Doherty thinks Paul believed in. The Spirit being Jesus. Besides the belief in the symbol itself would be the agency of the power.

In other words, no point to believing in anything regarding Jesus. The entire NT would be utterly pointless.


Meta: The point would be the thing the symbol sybmolizes. God's solidarity with humanity.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE: Now thinking of this fact, how do you feel now about Jesus mytherism? Is it still the ultimate tool to bash Christianity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Meta: and that's more important than the facts that support it isn't it? Important enough to ignore the facts?

You basically admitted that one. But no it wouldn't destory it at all. Most liberal christians take it symbolic anyway.

"Bash" probably the wrong word. "Get out of hell free card" is a better description. But what if the Spirit being Jesus send to hell because you don't accept the symbolic value of the iconogrophy or the sybmol itself?



Meta: But if Doherty is right, then the true value of Christian belief is merely symbolic anyway. That means it's beyond anything you could disprove. All Bible contradictions and histoircal evidence would be irrevlivant. After all if there is no Jesus to disprove, then proving he didn't rise from the dead is impossilbe. How can you disprove that a spirit being made this myth into a symbol? But you are still ignoring the truth of the symbol.

Peter Kirby

If people in theological circles became convinced that Paul's Jesus dies in the sublunar sphere, I could easily see people advocating letting go of the supposedly historical man--just as some (Iasion) already do, and as some (Geering) have proposed Christianity without God--Christianity can mean many things to many people.

However, I think it will remain a significant theological point to most Christians, and by reaction to non-Christians in society where there are Christians, for some time to come. You don't reverse eighteen centuries of cultural inertia with a paperback.

Didn't you make a thread about why the historicity of Jesus is important?

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

Meta: I believe in the historicity of Jesus, and I think its theologically crucial. But I don't think that Koy and co are off the hook, so to speak, just because they ignroe the historicity. I'm taking the "worse case senerio," say Doherty is right! It's still not the case that that beats up Christianity.


Yes of course it would shake it up, and I don't expect that to happen because most scholars are going see through it. But even if it did that would not finnish the faith or mean the end of Christianity.


In that thread you link to I said this:


So this is just another attempt another approach to "clear away the clutter." By assuming Doherty I'm trying to get at what is really important. In my mind Earl's self appointed task is to disprove Christianity. I'm saying that even granting his case he has not done that.

Peter Kirby

Is the historicity of Jesus crucial to genuine Christianity or not? State your true position.

I believe that Christianity has at least another 2000 year run left in it, but that Christianity will become increasingly divided between progressives (reason has authority, homosexuality ok, evolution scientific, miracles lack evidence, salvation to non-Christians) and evangelicals (scripture is the only theological authority, sex restricted to married heterosexuals for procreation, Adam and Eve real people, the resurrection is a fact, turn or burn). This rift has been evident since the great Modernist crisis of the early twentieth century (with the Fundamentalist backlash), and the irreconcilable differences between the two poles are evident on every theology board and in the easy classification of Protestant theological schools (like Dallas Theological Seminary, home of Daniel B. Wallace, compared to Drew Theological School, home of Darrell Doughty). Evangelicals who believe in inerrancy will obviously not even consider the historicity of Jesus seriously--it's in the Gospels, it's a fact. However, the progressives will have a genuine option, especially if they can be persuaded that heavenly, scripture-based interpretation might have biblical legitimacy. So I think that the agonizing over the question, and perhaps a bellwether of the debate's trend, will come from the liberal theologians such as, popularly, Spong and Borg.

So, I agree that laying a sound historical basis for Jesus mythicism, if such were possible, would not kill Christianity. The convinced inerrantists won't even consider. The liberal has probably done enough soul-searching and spiritual development that she is willing to take the step of "getting back to Paul" and "letting go of Nazareth," if that's where the evidence leads. Since Christianity is a thoroughly malleable and variegated tradition, no fact on earth or in heaven will slay the hydra. The decision to abandon that tradition, or to realize that you aren't really a part of it as usually understood, must ultimately be a matter of both the heart and the head. Some more heart and some more head, but the saying always holds true: a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I don't see how apologetics clears away the clutter. Most of it is so dreadfully illogical, it just creates more clutter. It provides some rationalizations for people who want to believe, and allows them the comfort of their beliefs without forcing them to really explore those beliefs or respond to challenges to them.

Certainly the transformative power of mystical experience is not limited to people who believe in god or in the historical Jesus. You can search for that transformation using secular meditation or psychotherapy or any of a smorgasbord of religions, quasi-religions, cults, yoga, magnetic waves, drugs, etc.

You can't claim that belief in a historic Jesus or god is necessary to this sort of religious experience. And, conversely, it does not appear that a positive belief in either God or HJ necessarily leads to any personal transformation.

After all, what effect has that belief had on all those believing Christians who support terrorism and environmental degradation by driving big SUV's to church on Sunday morning - the ones with the bumper stickers that say "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"? What effect has that belief had on some prominent Christians who have violated various of the ten commandments? How about George W. Bush, who supposedly gave up drinking, but now suffers from the delusion that God wanted him to wage war on Iraq, and who can't figure out how to tell the truth?

If this belief in a HJ has some transformative power, where is the statistical evidence?

Metacrock

Meta: Yea, sure it is! I think I've been pretty clear. Since Earl is clearly wrong, there is no reason to historicity of Jesus. But it is not so crucial to it that it would kill it if that weren't the case. It's better to affirm the historicity of Jesus, but should it turn out otherwise, that is not the end of the faith. I think that's clear.



Meta: I think the "old time Gospel hour" thing is pretty much finnished. There might be a chance for a sythesis around the kind of Theology that Tillich and Neibuhr did. But I do think there will be a split, and the liberals will becoem unitiarians and the Evangelicals will become "new Evangleicals" (moderates) and the fundies will dry up and blow away with the times. They are from the 19th century, and they belong in that century and as we move further from it they have less and less of a chance of surviving.



Meta: If there is one position that doesn't have a future it's the pure Jesus myther. You guys who are cheering the idea of fundies drying up need to take note: the death of communism also meant the death of the right-wing anti-communist. (I dont' mean you Pete)

Metacrock

Meta: WEll those are the one's who don't do it like me! Once my technqiues catch on it will be a different ball game. They are you know, Christians on CARM are starting to use my God arguments and trying to talk like I do! (it's funny).


Meta: Yes you can! See my answer on the thread "the question Christians avoid." But Christianity still mediates with more efficacy.


Meta: That's just where you are as mistaken as a nun in a brothel. Most certinly it does! Millions of personal testimonies and conversion accounts dipcit just that. So even if it is not exclusive, it is definately one provider and Maslow said nothing to exlude it.

Historicity of Jesus is a theolgoical decisoin and it comes under the heading of having good theology. It can't be evaluated only on the basis of the historical facts (although of course they are essential).



Meta: Well it didn't keep them from the fallacy of guilt by association did it? What effect did atheism have on Mao or STalin?

Transformative experience is no gaurontee that one wont turn around and do something stupid. But I don't want to get into this because it's a red herring. History is full of nobel Christians who did good things (like Albert Schweritzer) but you don't count them. You only look at the negative. You want to insist that the nobels ones dont count for the faith and the negatives do.


Meta:hahaahah statistical evidence ahahahahaahah! Right here: These studies all used Bible beleiving christian chruches, they aren't limited to them but they include them. Now I know you are going to go "well that's not unique to them" That just sums up your attitude and how vein it is. You can't understand because you aren't listening. Here's the data:


http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/coh_spr.htm

Cities on a Hill News Letter Spring 1999


Social Scientists Agree: Religious Belief Reduces Crime
Summary of the First Panel DiscussionPanelists for this important discussion included social scientists Dr. John DiIulio, professor of politics and urban affairs at Princeton University; David Larson, M.D., President of the National Institute for Healthcare Research; Dr. Byron Johnson, Director of the Center for Crime and Justice Policy at Vanderbilt University; and Gary Walker, President of Public/Private Ventures._ The panel focused on new research, confirming the positive effects that religiosity has on turning around the lives of youth at risk.
From left to right: Midge Decter, John DiIulio, David Larson, Byron Johnson and Gary Walker.

Dr. Larson laid the foundation for the discussion by summarizing the findings of 400 studies on juvenile delinquency, conducted during the past two decades._ He believes that although more research is needed, we can say without a doubt that religion makes a positive contribution._

His conclusion: “The better we study religion, the more we find it makes a difference.”Previewing his own impressive research, Dr. Johnson agreed._ He has concluded that church attendance reduces delinquency among boys even when controlling for a number of other factors including age, family structure, family size, and welfare status._ His findings held equally valid for young men of all races and ethnicities. Gary Walker has spent 25 years designing, developing and evaluating many of the nation’s largest public and philanthropic initiatives for at-risk youth._ His experience tells him that faith-based programs are vitally important for two reasons._ First, government programs seldom have any lasting positive effect._ While the government might be able to design programs that occupy time, these programs, in the long-term, rarely succeed in bringing about the behaviorial changes needed to turn kids away from crime.

Second, faith-based programs are rooted in building strong adult-youth relationships; and less concerned with training, schooling, and providing services, which don’t have the same direct impact on individual behavior._ Successful mentoring, Walker added, requires a real commitment from the adults involved – and a willingess to be blunt._

The message of effective mentors is simple._ “You need to change your life, I’m here to help you do it, or you need to be put away, away from the community.”_ Government, and even secular philanthropic programs, can’t impart this kind of straight talk.Walker is working on a pilot project with Dr. DiIulio and Rev. Eugene Rivers to implement a faith-based mentoring system in 10 cities around the country._ But the project faces some daunting challenges, as Mr. Walker sees it._ Can faith-based mentoring, which usually works on a small-scale, informal basis, be successfully bureaucratized, even by private organizations?_ And can faith-based mentoring overcome resistance from government and philanthropic funders in order to grow and thrive?



Rail
http://www.inviteafriend.org/research.htm

Attending services is the most significant factor in predicting charitable giving. Robert Wunthnow, Acts of Compassion, Princeton University Press, 1991.
_






Attending services is the most significant factor in predicting volunteer activity. Ibid.
_






Sixth through twelfth graders who attend religious services once a month or more are half as likely to engage in at-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, sexual excess, truancy, vandalism, drunk driving and other trouble with police. Search Institute, "The Faith Factor," Source, Vol. 3, Feb. 1992, p.1.
_






Churchgoers are more likely to aid their neighbors in need than are non-attendees. George Barna, What Americans Believe, Regal Books, 1991, p. 226.
_






Three out of four Americans say that religious practice has strengthened family relationships. George Gallup, Jr. "Religion in America: Will the Vitality of Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century," The Public Perspective, The Roper Center, Oct./Nov. 1995.
_






Church attendance lessens the probabilities of homicide and incarceration. Nadia M. Parson and James K. Mikawa: "Incarceration of African-American Men Raised in Black Christian Churches." The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 125, 1990, pp.163-173.
_






Religious practice lowers the rate of suicide. Joubert, Charles E., "Religious Nonaffiliation in Relation to Suicide, Murder, Rape and Illegitimacy," Psychological Reports 75:1 part 1 (1994): 10 Jon W. Hoelter: "Religiosity, Fear of Death and Suicide Acceptibility." Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 9, 1979, pp.163-172.
_


The presence of active churches, synagogues, or mosques reduces violent crime in neighborhoods. John J. Dilulio, Jr., "Building Spiritual Capital: How Religious Congregations Cut Crime and Enhance Community Well-Being," RIAL Update, Spring 1996.
_






People with religious faith are less likely to be school drop-outs, single parents, divorced, drug or alcohol abusers. Ronald J. Sider and Heidi Roland, "Correcting the Welfare Tragedy," The Center for Public Justice, 1994.
_






Church involvement is the single most important factor in enabling inner-city black males to escape the destructive cycle of the ghetto. Richard B. Freeman and Harry J. Holzer, eds., The Black Youth Employment Crisis, University of Chicago Press, 1986, p.354.
_






Attending services at a church or other house of worship once a month or more makes a person more than twice as likely to stay married than a person who attends once a year or less. David B. Larson and Susan S. Larson, "Is Divorce Hazardous to Your Health?" Physician, June 1990.
Improving Personal Well-Being







Most happy people are also religious people.

96% of people who say they are generally happy agree that "My religious faith is the most important influence in my life." </BLOCKQUOTE>George Gallup, Jr. "Religion in America: Will the Vitality of Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century?", The Public Perspective, The Roper Center, Oct./Nov. 1995.








Most people who find their work exciting and fulfilling are religious people.


<65% of people who say their occupation is exciting and fulfilling say that they find "comfort and support from my religious beliefs." Ibid.







Most people who are excited about the future are religious people.

>80% of those who say they are "excited about the future" agree that they find "comfort and support from my religious beliefs." Ibid.







Most people who feel close to their families are religious people.

94% of people who "feel very close" to their families agree that "my religious faith is the most important influence in my life." Ibid.







Eight in ten Americans say religious beliefs help them respect themselves. Ibid.






More than eight in ten say that their religious beliefs lead them to respect people of other religions. Ibid.

_Improving Health







Regular church attendance lessens the possibility of cardiovascular diseases, cirrhosis of the liver, emphysema and arteriosclerosis. George W. Comstock amd Kay B. Patridge:_ "Church attendance and health."_ Journal of Chronic Disease, Vol. 25, 1972, pp. 665-672.

_





Regular church attendance significantly reduces the probablility of high blood pressure._ David B. Larson, H. G. Koenig, B. H. Kaplan, R. S. Greenberg, E. Logue and H. A. Tyroler:_ " The Impact of religion on men's blood pressure."_ Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 28, 1989, pp.265-278._ W.T. Maramot:_ "Diet, Hypertension and Stroke." in_ M. R. Turner (ed.) Nutrition and Health, Alan R. Liss, New York, 1982, p. 243.

_





People who attend services at least once a week are much less likely to have high blood levels of interlukin-6, an immune system protein associated with many age-related diseases._ Harold Koenig and Harvey Cohen, The International Journal of Psychiatry and Medicine, October 1997.

_





Regular practice of religion lessens depression and enhances self esteem. _Peter L. Bensen and Barnard P. Spilka:_ "God-Image as a function of self-esteem and locus of control" in H. N. Maloney (ed.) Current Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion, Eedermans, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 209-224._ Carl Jung: "Psychotherapies on the Clergy" in Collected Works Vol. 2, 1969, pp.327-347.

_





About half of religious people "have a lot of stress" in their lives, but only half of these "often get depressed." George Gallup, Jr. "Religion in America: Will the Vitality of Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century?" The Public Perspective, The Roper Center, Oct./Nov. 1995.

_





Church attendance is a primary factor in preventing substance abuse and repairing damage caused by substance abuse._ Edward M. Adalf and Reginald G. Smart:_ "Drug Use and Religious Affiliation, Feelings and Behavior." _ British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 80, 1985, pp.163-171._ Jerald G. Bachman, Lloyd D. Johnson, and Patrick M. O'Malley:_ "Explaining_ the Recent Decline in Cocaine Use Among Young Adults:_ Further Evidence That Perceived Risks and Disapproval Lead to Reduced Drug Use."_ Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 31,_ 1990, pp. 173-184._ Deborah Hasin, Jean Endicott, _ and Collins Lewis:_ "Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Patients With Affective Syndromes."_ Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol. 26, 1985, pp. 283-295. _ The findings of this NIMH-supported study were repilcated in the Bachmen et. al. study above.

_
This data is reprinted from RIAL Update which is edited by Robert B. Lennick and published twice a year by Religion In American Life._ Reprinting of any material in this copyright publication requires written permission from the editor.

Koyaanisqatsi

So, all you're talking about is a variation on the placebo effect when you say "transformative power," and when you post the same fallacious examples you've posted many times before, all you're doing is leaving out the well known effects of operant conditioning and cognitive dissonance.

Great.



BTW, neither of your links work. At least not on my browser (IE 5). Perhaps there is a god .

And, I'll assume your do have written permission to be posting it here, yes? Very un-"transformative power" of you if you don't.