[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[kuzushi]

Anyway, let's move on.
Why don't we talk about this?

@BadFish is talking about moving on from this area of the discussion, and while I would like to reserve the right to continue to address it from time to time as people may refer to it if they are reading the backlog, I think we can turn to other matters at least for the time being. This thread began with the OP @Mustafa II talking about how he found the Christians he'd encountered to be very decent people. This stems from the injunctions we find in scripture. Here is one of my favourite bits:

If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Not even sure that Jesus is a fact.

One thing that can be said with a high degree of confidence is that if Jesus did exist, many of the bible stories about him are fake news.

 

[BadFish]

One thing that can be said with a high degree of confidence is that if Jesus did exist, many of the bible stories about him are fake news

I find this to be an interesting concept.

Christians believe in a Jesus that did miracles and came back from the dead (Although according to Erhman some don't). Are you saying that the Jesus that exsisted was one without all the necessary Christian bells and whistles?

This could lead to question if they are the same dude?

I guess this is where different scholars will differ in their opinions of how much really happened. I am working my way through Erhman's podcasts and hope that this is addressed somewhere.

 

[kuzushi]

How do you feel this is going for you at the moment?

My advice would be to reconsider how you are coming across on this thread. Because in terms of the bit in bold you are appearing the opposite.

Either that or perhaps take a break from it.

Or alternatively, carry on and assume that you are right and everyone else is wrong and there is nothing wrong with the way you are presenting yourself and your arguments on this thread.

I suspect you will pick the latter. Self-reflection and metacognition do not appear to be strong points.

It seems that I have been getting a few people's backs up, which surprises me if they are such confident, secure atheists.
From my point of view, all I've been doing is stating what I believe, and trying to make people see that there is a historical case for the resurrection.
Perhaps part of the problem is that I keep seeing people coming in and saying "Oh, Christianity, it's all made up, it's all fiction" etc., which is such arrant nonsense. I know that you personally don't take that view, since you have tentatively answered yes to point 1. But so many people do. It's as if people have given up on knowing or even caring what a fact is. I get it that the resurrection is quite a thing for people to accept, but basic historical facts such as the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion.. seriously? I'm not trying to offend people gratuitously, but aside from the eternal consequences, it's sad that people have got to the point where they don't know such elementary things. How can one even have a discussion about Christianity, especially since Christianity is founded on the resurrection, which is an event that is purported to have taken place in history.

 

[kuzushi]

One thing that can be said with a high degree of confidence is that if Jesus did exist, many of the bible stories about him are fake news.

You're not confident that he existed but you're confident that if he did the stories about him are fake news. Okayyyy..

 

[kuzushi]

This is one of the most famous parts of scripture.

If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[BadFish]

It seems that I have been getting a few people's backs up, which surprises me if they are such confident, secure atheists.
From my point of view, all I've been doing is stating what I believe, and trying to make people see that there is a historical case for the resurrection.
Perhaps part of the problem is that I keep seeing people coming in and saying "Oh, Christianity, it's all made up, it's all fiction" etc., which is such arrant nonsense. I know that you personally don't take that view, since you have tentatively answered yes to point 1. But so many people do. It's as if people have given up on knowing or even caring what a fact is. I get it that the resurrection is quite a thing for people to accept, but basic historical facts such as the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion.. seriously? I'm not trying to offend people gratuitously, but aside from the eternal consequences, it's sad that people have got to the point where they don't know such elementary things. How can one even have a discussion about Christianity, especially since Christianity is founded on the resurrection, which is an event that is purported to have taken place in history.

I would give this question an awful lot of thought if you consider that this discussion about Christianity has gone well. I'll give you a clue - No ones believes or confidence in their position has been effected.

I was spot on about the self-reflection and metacognition wasn't I.

 

[kuzushi]

I would give this question an awful lot of thought if you consider that this discussion about Christianity has gone well. I'll give you a clue - No ones believes or confidence in their position has been effected.

I was spot on about the self-reflection and metacognition wasn't I.

I can reflect on how I present what I'm saying.
I just wonder whether it is how, or what, though.
Is it how I'm saying it, or what I'm saying that is upsetting you?
You see, I've been polite all the time. I've not called anyone stupid, or mad, or an idiot. I think the strongest word I've used is "silly."
And yet you're telling me I'm the one who needs to change the way I present my points.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

It seems that I have been getting a few people's backs up, which surprises me if they are such confident, secure atheists.
From my point of view, all I've been doing is stating what I believe, and trying to make people see that there is a historical case for the resurrection.
Perhaps part of the problem is that I keep seeing people coming in and saying "Oh, Christianity, it's all made up, it's all fiction" etc., which is such arrant nonsense. I know that you personally don't take that view, since you have tentatively answered yes to point 1. But so many people do. It's as if people have given up on knowing or even caring what a fact is. I get it that the resurrection is quite a thing for people to accept, but basic historical facts such as the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion.. seriously? I'm not trying to offend people gratuitously, but aside from the eternal consequences, it's sad that people have got to the point where they don't know such elementary things. How can one even have a discussion about Christianity, especially since Christianity is founded on the resurrection, which is an event that is purported to have taken place in history.

I‘m very disappointed in your apparent lack of faith. It shouldn’t matter to you if we disagree with you yet it does. you appear to be trying to convince yourself just as much as us. By definition religion is based on faith and so I would argue that facts have bugger all to do with it. I just happen to like facts.

Comments such as ‘arrant nonsense’ when you have no facts other than a book which should be in the fiction section of the library doesn’t help your cause.

 

[kuzushi]

I‘m very disappointed in your apparent lack of faith. It shouldn’t matter to you if we disagree with you yet it does. you appear to be trying to convince yourself just as much as us.

No, I am convinced. It's not just the arguments, it's things that have been happening in my life.
Do you not know why it matters to me if you disagree with me? It's because I am so convinced, and therefore am concerned about the consequences for you.

By definition religion is based on faith and so I would argue that facts have bugger all to do with it. I just happen to like facts.

Comments such as ‘arrant nonsense’ when you have no facts other than a book which should be in the fiction section of the library doesn’t help your cause.

Your comment here makes me wonder whether you've been following this thread. The very existence of the Church demonstrates that some very driven, passionate and convinced people set the whole thing up in the face of intense persecution. This is regardless of anything in the Bible.

We've also discussed the Shroud of Turin, the most studied object of any kind in all of history. Again, this is not the Bible.

 

[BadFish]

I can reflect on how I present what I'm saying.
I just wonder whether it is how, or what, though.
Is it how I'm saying it, or what I'm saying that is upsetting you?

So close . . .

You see, I've been polite all the time. I've not called anyone stupid, or mad, or an idiot. I think the strongest word I've used is "silly."
And yet you're telling me I'm the one who needs to change the way I present my points.

. . . and it's gone.

How do you think people have reacted to your table? Any positive responses? Why do you think that might be?

 

[kuzushi]

As a suggestion, how about to change tack a bit, since we are supposed to be moving on, how about people post their favourite bible verses?

So close . . .


. . . and it's gone.

How do you think people have reacted to your table? Any positive responses? Why do you think that might be?

The table was a way of focusing people on the essence of how we can establish whether Christianity is true or not, since it is based on the truth or otherwise of the resurrection.

Let's go back to this:

I can reflect on how I present what I'm saying.
I just wonder whether it is how, or what, though.
Is it how I'm saying it, or what I'm saying that is upsetting you?

Is it what I'm saying or how I'm saying it that upsets you?

 

[Triggaaar]

That's precisely the point. The resurrection is the "test case" for Christianity.
My contention is that most scholars accept that:
1. Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in the first century
2. He was crucified
3. His disciples sincerely believed that he rose from the dead (which is why they went to such lengths to spread Christianity far and wide, and why there were so many Christian martyrs).
These three things shouldn't be controversial. Even atheists among the scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, agree with all of them.

Those 3 things are not accepted, and the third is very controversial. The scholars, in the main, are Christians. That you've got one atheist who thinks maybe they all had a group halucination, does not mean atheist in general would agree. And if you were to hypothetically guarantee to Bart that it wasn't a group halucination, he wouldn't suddenly believe Jesus really was resurrected, he'd conclude that they lied or were simply persuaded.

 

[BadFish]

The table was a way of focusing people on the essence of how we can establish whether Christianity is true or not, since it is based on the truth or otherwise of the resurrection.

How about we get back to this? I asked you three questions (1) How do you think people have reacted to your table? (2) Any positive responses? (3) Why do you think that might be?

The three questions were designed to get you thinking about these questions.

I can reflect on how I present what I'm saying.
I just wonder whether it is how, or what, though.
Is it how I'm saying it, or what I'm saying that is upsetting you?

I was directing your reflection if you like. Trying to steer the conversation in a direction which will show you what has been explained to you quite a few times now.

Do you think you have answered those questions?

. . . and I have just put the pieces together. I apologise wholeheartedly for publicly calling you out on this stuff.

If you are really interested in my thoughts (not on religion) please PM me and we can continue our discussion there.

Again, I apologise, for any embarrassment or upset caused. My Bad.

 

[Triggaaar]

The 3 points are fact, as Ehrman would agree

You're being silly. If you understand what a fact is (and the evidence so far is that you don't) then you're either lying or you're confused.

You contest that most scholars believe that the disciples believed in the resurrection. Firstly, the scholars are often biased. Secondly, those that have concluded that the desciples probably belived in the resurrection, are not saying it's a fact that they did. Thirdly, not all scholars agree with them anyway.

That you're trying to pass this off as a fact is a complete joke.

 

[kuzushi]

Those 3 things are not accepted, and the third is very controversial.

From wikipedia: "The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Baptism_and_crucifixion

The scholars, in the main, are Christians. That you've got one atheist who thinks maybe they all had a group halucination, does not mean atheist in general would agree. And if you were to hypothetically guarantee Bart that it wasn't a group halucination, he wouldn't suddenly believe Jesus really was resurrected, he'd conclude that they lied or were simply persuaded.

Can I ask how you know he'd conclude that they lied or were persuaded? Are you sure you are not making an unsupported statement?

 

[Silverhatch]

It seems that I have been getting a few people's backs up, which surprises me if they are such confident, secure atheists.
From my point of view, all I've been doing is stating what I believe, and trying to make people see that there is a historical case for the resurrection.
Perhaps part of the problem is that I keep seeing people coming in and saying "Oh, Christianity, it's all made up, it's all fiction" etc., which is such arrant nonsense. I know that you personally don't take that view, since you have tentatively answered yes to point 1. But so many people do. It's as if people have given up on knowing or even caring what a fact is. I get it that the resurrection is quite a thing for people to accept, but basic historical facts such as the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion.. seriously? I'm not trying to offend people gratuitously, but aside from the eternal consequences, it's sad that people have got to the point where they don't know such elementary things. How can one even have a discussion about Christianity, especially since Christianity is founded on the resurrection, which is an event that is purported to have taken place in history.

Just happened on this thread. I am atheist. I believe that Jesus was a man. I believe he was a good man with fabulous values. I believe he was a pain in the arse to the Jewish establishment both religious, political and economic. I believe he preached insurrection in the eyes of the establishment. I believe he had enthusiastic/fanatical followers. I believe he was crucified. I do not believe he is a deity. I believe that his codes/rules have been used by organised Christian religion for good and a great deal of bad. I believe that early Christianity was driven/marketed/distributed by Zealots as are any belief systems. Deifying a man helps with distribution and fanatical zealotry. Jesus existed. He was an (extra)ordinary man. I am an atheist. Happy that these two positions can co-exist because 400 years ago I’d have been crucified for heresy by religious zealots. The same fate could/would still be served upon me in many parts of the world today in the name of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish faiths.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

I think it's quite interesting. Among those for whom we have full data, there are 3 different conclusions: Yes to all 4, yes to the first 3, and yes to the first 2.

Please take me out of your stupid table, I am not an experiment or part of any project of yours.
I would never have replied to any of your posts if I had known.
You don’t listen, and have an agenda which I’m not sure of.

You epitomise everything I despise about Christianity and other religions.

@Psychobilly freakout That's a bit harsh. I think you are overreacting. My only agenda if I have one is to discuss these matters and put my point of view, and also to learn from other people, too, which I have. Are you sure you want me to remove you? I will if you insist, but it's just a representation of your current opinion on the question of historical matters relating to Jesus.

Yes, remove me.
I do not believe in jesus as a historical religious leader, rather a leader of a cult.
I do not believe in Christianity, it is a contrived religion based on past religions to suit the day and powers that be at the time.

Please remove me.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think you are running away from the truth.

And why would he do that? What has he got to gain by avoiding the truth?

Did his followers believe he rose from the dead? Well, it's apparent that they did since it is through them that the New Testament ended up being written, although Paul got converted through an experience that he had on his way to Damascus.
The evidence of the third point is the fact that Christianity exists in the world today.

Suggesting that the existence of Christianity is somehow 'evidence' is farcical. Judaism still exists, Islam exists (and didn't require disciples to believe something happened). Presumably the disciples did believe in Jesus's teachings in general, and wanted his teachings to live on. If they thought (as you do) that Chrisitanity would have died out without people believing he was resurrected, then the disciples had the biggest possible incentive to lie about it.

If the disciples hadn't been very convinced of the truth of the gospel

They could have believed the gospel, without actually believing he was resurrected.

So, the final question, were they right? I think they must have been. That's my opinion, and the opinion of billions of others.

We know that most people in the world are not Christian. Even amoung those, there was be a large percentage that don't believe Jesus was resurrected.

It's not the sort of thing the disciples were likely to have made a mistake about. That's my opinion. I don't buy Ehrman's group hallucination theory. Perhaps you do.

We don't have to buy Ehrman's hallucination theory to know that Jesus was not resurrected.

 

[kuzushi]

You're being silly. If you understand what a fact is (and the evidence so far is that you don't) then you're either lying or you're confused.

Of course I know what a fact is. Don't try to be patronising.

You contest that most scholars believe that the disciples believed in the resurrection. Firstly, the scholars are often biased.

Yes, I don't dispute that they will often be believers.

Secondly, those that have concluded that the desciples probably belived in the resurrection, are not saying it's a fact that they did.

OK

Thirdly, not all scholars agree with them anyway.

That you're trying to pass this off as a fact is a complete joke.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed.[1][7][8] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[9]

Get it? Virtually all scholars of antiquity. Not Bible scholars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Historical_existence
Compare that the fact that forty percent of laypeople do not believe that Jesus was a real person.

Jesus 'not a real person' many believe

A survey for the Church of England suggests 40% of people in England do not believe that Jesus was a real person.

www.bbc.co.uk

Virtually all versus 40%