[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[indy3050]

You disagree with people discussing faith and religion outside a place of worship?

I would argue in our modern western society it is easier than ever before for your children to avoid “brainwashing”. Schools are far more accommodating to individual wishes than ever before.

Religious Education these days is far from what I and I suspect you, were taught at school.

These days, Humanities is taught. Classes where pupils learn about all sorts of religions, the good and the bad side to them all etc. it’s very objective.

Parents are the ultimate arbiters of what their kids are exposed to.

If your kids are having anything rammed down their throats, I’d take a look at what you are allowing them to consume.

My kids know the truth. Don’t believe the bullshit, live your life as and how you please. It’s got nothing to do with what I let them consume. Fair play if you want to consume yourself/family/kids in a world of lies. I really will close the thread this time and be quite pleased I did. I just feel sorry for mostly the kids who are not given the chance. It’s not right, at all.

 

[kuzushi]

You’ve wheeled out Bart Ehrman to support your point a few times. He’s a top historical scholar whose books I read with interest, but whilst he may agree with some of the historical points you put forward, he strenuously disagrees with your conclusion that Jesus is god. If you value his insights, perhaps you should consider that as well.

He agrees with all these points I put forward: He agrees that Jesus was a preacher who really existed, and that he had disciples who sincerely believed that he had risen from the dead after he was crucified. Where he disagrees with me is that I believe that they sincerely believed this because that is what happened, whereas his explanation of it is that they had a group hallucination.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

I'm not saying it can be proven. Can you prove where you were born? No, you can't. But we can look at the evidence, which is what scholars do, and the likes of Bart Ehrman and other scholars are pretty sure about quite a few things.

You keep quoting Ehrman, who says THERE IS NO GOD.

 

[kuzushi]

there is of course another option, the resurrection didnt happen and the story was made up. no group hallucination needed, just someones imagination. can never understand why people believe story with no contempoary account, none of the gospels are of someone actually living along side Jesus at the time. for a supposedly important person, no one who met him at the time thought to record their account.

Do you know any scholars who advocate this 3rd option?

 

[kuzushi]

You keep quoting Ehrman, who says THERE IS NO GOD.

Yes, I'm quoting him because he is a leading New Testament scholar.
He agrees with me on everything, except that, he believes in group hallucinations. The problem with that is that a group hallucination is about as plausible as a group dream. If you follow the logic of the evidence all the way, it leads you to a choice between believing in the resurrection or else a group hallucination. The difference is that the resurrection has the additional physical evidence of the Shroud of Turin and also St Paul who was not there with any of the other people when he saw Jesus, so he could not have been effected by a group hallucination, but what he did experience was powerful enough for him to convert from being a persecutor of Christians to becoming a follower of Jesus.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I've read the gospels and am staggered by how they are interpreted by the major Christian religions and some of the greedy selfish fucks who claim to follow them.

Rich people can't get I to heaven (told through a metaphor about camels and needles but pretty clear on the whole, hoarding money thing.

Don't kill people, this couldn't be f***ing clearer.

Yet . . .

Jesus was a liberal hippy who hung out with poor people and minorities. Yet he is followed by right wing bigots (not entirely of course) who have killed people in his name and who worship money nearly as much as pretend to worship him.

The fact that Jacob Reece Mogg thinks he is a Christian is absolutely incredible to me.

You’re possibly/probably aware that the Camel/ eye of a needle thing is referring to a gate in the City Walls of Jerusalem known as the Eye of the needle. So I have always taken it as indicating it’s difficult but not impossible.

The rich man who asked the question of how do I make sure I get to heaven was described as a good man who does everything right. Jesus final answer to him was “give all your money away and come and follow me.”, which the rich man didn’t like. It didn’t say he didn’t do it though. He might have come back………

and I agree about Jacob Rees-Mogg. Maybe secretly he is the most generous philanthropist the World has ever seen, but I doubt it somehow. I remember seeing a clip of him many years ago where he said “I love money”.

 

[kuzushi]

I'm quoting one of the leading New Testament scholars, and you're quoting a comedian.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

In general, nothing in life, even in science, can be proven, but we can have evidence, and the Lord's supper aka Holy Communion is evidence pointing to the fact that Jesus knew that he was about to die, since he instituted the practice of breaking bread and wine the evening before his crucifixion, saying "this is my body, broken for you", and "this is my blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The fact is that this goes right back to the start of Christianity. It was not added later, nor did it creep in over time. So it appears Jesus instituted it the evening before he was crucified, in which case he knew he was about to die.

You keep talking about stuff that you believe as if it’s true. You have faith, but you don’t have evidence - or if you do, you have not presented it here.

Many Christian denominations do not practice communion, so even people with a similar faith to yours disagree with you about communion.

You say this goes right back to the start of Christianity. What is your evidence for that, from the year 35 CE? No. The very earliest reference is 1st Corinthians, possibly 20 years later. And it doesn’t feature in John’s gospel, why not? And is evidence from the biblical cannon unbiased and reliable? No, it is not. Do you have any independent, unbiased evidence?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The simple truth you are incapabable of understanding is that your God, or any of the other Gods for that matter, did not create us.

One of my own main tenets is that Faith, by definition, has to have room for doubt.

Your certainty (simple truth!) is as bad as the certainty that many people - including me - would find difficult in certain people of faith.

 

[kuzushi]

You keep talking about stuff that you believe as if it’s true. You have faith, but you don’t have evidence - or if you do, you have not presented it here.

I have the same evidence as the majority of scholars who in the main concur with me on nearly all the points I'm presenting here: Jesus was a real person who lived and was crucified, and had disciples who sincerely believe that he rose from the dead. You're the one who is off-kilter with the mainstream academic view of these things if you disagree with this.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Yes, I'm quoting him because he is a leading New Testament scholar.
He agrees with me on everything, except that, he believes in group hallucinations. The problem with that is that a group hallucination is about as plausible as a group dream. If you follow the logic of the evidence all the way, it leads you to a choice between believing in the resurrection or else a group hallucination. The difference is that the resurrection has the additional physical evidence of the Shroud of Turin and also St Paul who was not there with any of the other people when he saw Jesus, so he could not have been effected by a group hallucination, but what he did experience was powerful enough for him to convert from being a persecutor of Christians to becoming a follower of Jesus.

I know Ehrman’s work well, I’ve studied many of his books in depth, I regularly watch his Misquoting Jesus videos, and I’ve studied a number of his courses. To use Ehrman to support your position, then trash him over group hallucinations is neither accurate nor fair.

On the other hand, your continued use of the Shroud of Turin to support your position is, I think, a bad mistake on your part as it makes you look like a crank.

Regarding Paul’s vision, what do we know? Pretty much nothing, except that he went blind. And you want to use that as proof if Jesus’s resurrection? I think an epileptic fit or seizure is more likely.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

I have the same evidence as the majority of scholars who in the main concur with me on nearly all the points I'm presenting here: Jesus was a real person who lived and was crucified, and had disciples who sincerely believe that he rose from the dead. You're the one who is off-kilter with the mainstream academic view of these things if you disagree with this.

What mainstream academic view have I disagreed with? Please provide evidence. Thank you.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I couldn’t and wouldn’t single Christians as a group out ahead of anyone else to be honest.

Along with every other group in society, there will be individuals blessed with grace, empathy and a peaceful mind. Similarly, if you look at American TV evangelism, which is effectively a grift, and the horrific abuse that has been carried out by the Catholic Church and the Church of England, not to mention read your history books, countless atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity.

Look at any organized religion, at atheists and agnostics too, and you will find a mix of the good and bad. As was pointed out earlier, it’s a human thing.

Where any organized religion becomes dangerous is where it gets used as an excuse for actions that defy logic. When actions can’t be justified except by saying “It is god’s will” that’s a sure sign that an abuse of power is occurring.

Where (to my mind) atheists and agnostics score over their religious counterparts, is they take responsibility for their actions. There’s no “god’s will” or “the devil made me do it” - they accept accountability for their actions as their own.

I’m more alongside people who take an active interest in improving the world we’re currently in, than those who are content to allow us to wallow in shit in this world, because they’re secure in their belief of reward in a world to come.

the Christian Churches that I am part of and the vast majority of Christians I know are very much about taking an active interest in improving the World we’re currently in. Have you heard of Christian Aid? CAFOD? Who are the first bodies to respond to major disasters worldwide? Many of them are Christian based…. Or their equivalents in other faiths. Who do you think, many years ago, founded the idea of food-banks in this country, and similar things like Basics Banks to answer other needs.

 

[Baldseagull]

In general, nothing in life, even in science, can be proven, but we can have evidence, and the Lord's supper aka Holy Communion is evidence pointing to the fact that Jesus knew that he was about to die, since he instituted the practice of breaking bread and wine the evening before his crucifixion, saying "this is my body, broken for you", and "this is my blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The fact is that this goes right back to the start of Christianity. It was not added later, nor did it creep in over time. So it appears Jesus instituted it the evening before he was crucified, in which case he knew he was about to die.

Your only evidence for that, is that it is written in the Bible, which to me is an unreliable source, particularly on the finer detail.

 

[kuzushi]

I know Ehrman’s work well, I’ve studied many of his books in depth, I regularly watch his Misquoting Jesus videos, and I’ve studied a number of his courses. To use Ehrman to support your position, then trash him over group hallucinations is neither accurate nor fair.

I'm not intending to trash him. In fact I think he's very good. I just find his idea of a group hallucination, well I don't buy it, but then I know he doesn't buy the resurrection theory that I espouse.

On the other hand, your continued use of the Shroud of Turin to support your position is, I think, a bad mistake on your part as it makes you look like a crank.

It may do, but I think if people are fair and look into things they'll see that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. A lot of very educated and intelligent people believe in the shroud, just as many do not, including scientists who have studied it and become followers of Jesus because of it, such as Peter Schumacher, the inventor of the VP-8 image analyzer.

Regarding Paul’s vision, what do we know? Pretty much nothing, except that he went blind. And you want to use that as proof if Jesus’s resurrection? I think an epileptic fit or seizure is more likely.

He went blind, and according to Luke writing in Acts was told to go to the house of Ananias in Damascus, who prayed for him, and then he recovered, and became a believer in Jesus. What evidence is there that he had an epileptic fit? Why would he simulaneously have a vision of Jesus talking to him and telling him to go to Ananias's house? Those who say we don't know that that is what happened, well we know that that's what Paul says happened as he wrote a significant portion of the New Testament.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes, I'm quoting him because he is a leading New Testament scholar.
He agrees with me on everything, except that, he believes in group hallucinations. The problem with that is that a group hallucination is about as plausible as a group dream. If you follow the logic of the evidence all the way, it leads you to a choice between believing in the resurrection or else a group hallucination. The difference is that the resurrection has the additional physical evidence of the Shroud of Turin and also St Paul who was not there with any of the other people when he saw Jesus, so he could not have been effected by a group hallucination, but what he did experience was powerful enough for him to convert from being a persecutor of Christians to becoming a follower of Jesus.

The shroud of Turin is not physical evidence of resurrection. Unless Jesus spent more than 10 centuries decomposing before he decided to Rise Up.

After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

So if I understand correctly. The bible (both old and new) is the word of god and is infallible …. apart from the bits that are obviously bollocks except about JC and rising from the dead, which is also bollocks but central to Christianity. Cake and eat it?

Just out of interest in the formal training as a Local Preacher in the Methodist Church that I underwent over 25 years ago it was made very clear in at least two places that the “God made the world in 7 days ( or rather 6 days and had a rest on the 7th“) is clearly a story and not meant to be taken seriously.
there are clearly people - fundamentalists - who would believe the creation story, and fair enough. I and millions of others don’t. Darwin was right.
You would also find that there are plenty of differing opinions about many of the more contentious things in the Bible - Old and New Testament - including about the facts of the Resurrection and many other things.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

the Christian Churches that I am part of and the vast majority of Christians I know are very much about taking an active interest in improving the World we’re currently in. Have you heard of Christian Aid? CAFOD? Who are the first bodies to respond to major disasters worldwide? Many of them are Christian based…. Or their equivalents in other faiths. Who do you think, many years ago, founded the idea of food-banks in this country, and similar things like Basics Banks to answer other needs.

I know that many religious based organisations do good work, but that doesn’t mean that what they believe is true. I’m involved in two organisations delivering humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Neither has a religious base.

On the other hand, if churches sold their fancy buildings, treasures and art they could make a bigger contribution to helping those in need.

 

[kuzushi]

What mainstream academic view have I disagreed with? Please provide evidence. Thank you.

I'm not actually saying you have. I'm just saying that if you disagree with those things, then you are disagreeing with the mainstream. You may not disagree with it, and by the sounds of it if you are aware of Bart Ehrman you don't, but there are quite a few people on here who seem to.

 

[pastafarian]

Is it fiction that Jesus lived, had disciples, preached about the kingdom of God, predicted his own death by crucifixion, was crucified, and that his disciples then went out proclaiming that he had risen from the dead. Is all that accepted or rejected by the majority of scholars, simple question, and think carefully before you answer if you don't want to look silly.

Fiction embellished by folklore
Very telling that no one thought to write at the time of an unknown number of wise men turning up at this incredibly important birth or leave archaeological evidence or contemporary writings of the Massacre of the Innocents