[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[pastafarian]

My kids go to a C of E school, and they respect all faiths and even atheists are allowed, but it really annoyed my daughter that as she was about to sit her GCSE exams a teacher would often say a prayer for them. Not what she wanted before trying to concentrate on her exams.

Did the praying work?

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

I remember reading about the Richard Dawkins Clergy Project. He set this up as a safe space for clergymen who had lost their faith and wanted to 'come out'. I personally find people who do this quite ballsy. For some of them their whole life has revolved about belief, prayer, scholarly research and preaching those beliefs to others. The bulk of their friends and acquaintances will be believers and for many that job has paid a monthly salary and put a roof over their head - to turn your back on that is quite brave, I'm guessing some chose to carry on and keep their disbelief to themselves

The recent programme by Rebekeh Vardy about Jehovah's Witnesses dealt with other people who had turned their back on religion. I had previously only associated her with Wagatha Christie, but she came over very well in this very personal programme which was balanced and measured giving both sides a chance to participate. She said the consequences of leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses following abuse were devastating at the time. She was socially ostracised and shunned by her family.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

It's not the same - you can have a group who are like minded and want the same thing, who can take drugs or alcohol and meditate and chant and talk of Jesus having risen from the dead as if it's actually happened, and the next thing you know they're all acting like it actually did. And that would have felt amazing to them, so if any of them (all of them) had some doubt as to whether it really happened, do they really want to spoil the mood by saying 'hey, I think we made that up'.

You obviously think Bart is a smart man, but you then conveniently think he can't distinguish between a group hallucination and a group of people having the same dream. You will twist anything to suit your agenda (I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose). It's like when Russian's in Ukraine call their families back home and tell them what's been happening, but the familes just can't accept the truth, even though it's coming from their own child.

The difference is that the resurrection has the additional physical evidence of the Shroud of Turin

The Shroud that has been dated to the 13th century?

 

[Triggaaar]

Did the praying work?

If it was intended to annoy those who aren't Christian, yes. If it was intended to give people better results, we'll have to wait a couple of months to find out.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

Thomas didn't believe Jesus was resurrected did he?

 

[Triggaaar]

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 major point that you miss, is that it's in all of our interests to believe you. If you're right, we're all going to hell and you're going to heaven, and if we're right, we all just die - so it makes sense for us to follow Jesus just in case you're right (which is quite convenient if you're trying to fool people into joiing your religion).

So how long is it we're going to hell for, was is 10 or 20 years? Eternity! Oh shit, that's more than 20 years right? The risk we are taking is immesurable, whereas you're taking no risk at all. Why are we taking a bigger risk than anyone on earth has ever taken? And your conclusion is that we're doing it deliberately to spite ourselves, by not fairly judging what you see as 'evidence'?

There is no sense or logic to your conclusion. We do look at the 'evidence' you provide and if it held any weight then we'd be open to joining your faith, because we'd be insane not to - but the evidence doesn't stand up to any critical thinking.

Everyone used to be religious, and when evidence started to show that what had been taught it the bible was false (like the fact that we evolved from primates) it took great courage for them to accept that their faith was misplaced.

 

[Triggaaar]

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

Yeah, he's decided that the piece they tested must have been from a repaired piece of cloth.

That makes no sense. When selecting a piece of cloth to remove from the shroud, it goes without saying that they'd remove the least important part of it - a part from a corner with no imagery on it. Given that it was a worthless piece of a the edge of a corner, why on earth would anyone have felt the need to repair that bit in the first place? And how would they have repaired it without it being possible to see that it wasn't part of the original fabric? It makes no sense.

Presumably the Pope thought that the carbon dating would prove that the shroud was from the time of Jesus. It didn't, it proved that it was a fake. If the Pope beilived they'd taken the wrong bit, then he'd have arranged for another bit to be taken.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

The thing is, it only became a 'story not meant to be taken seriously' after it was proved to be made up. Until that point, it was gospel. Just like creation - that was a fact, until Darwin showed that it was not.

And so it goes - as soon as something is proven to be nonsense we have to go 'oh yeah, that was just a bit of fun that bit'.

 

[Baldseagull]

Do you mean how do I know that Christianity is true and Islam is false? One reason is the one I've just mentioned in this post, the fact that the Quran denies that Jesus was crucified, that's how I know Islam is false.

The Quran says there was a crucifixtion, but that it was someone God created to look like Jesus, just for the purpose of sparing his son. I don't find that any more or less unlikely than he died on the cross and then was resurrected.
The events that you say are evidenced by witness testimony also fit this fantastical version of events, if you have faith, and one way that he could be seen walking about a few days later is that he was never the man on the cross.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

Mainstream? The vast majority of people in the world disagree with pretty much everything you say.

You're claiming that scholars think the disciples believed in the resurrection - exactly how many scholars have studied the bible? We have no idea how many do we? And how many of those scholars were belivers, how many weren't etc? You don't have these details, so don't claim to know what the concensus is.

 

[Triggaaar]

That’s not a fact. Present what you believe, that’s fine, but don’t overplay your hand.

You're being unfair. His hand is 2 7 offsuit - overplaiyng it is all he has.

 

[Hugo Rune]

We agree about everything else to do with the facts pertaining to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Crucifixion?

There is little primary evidence for ‘crucifixion’:

"There is no distinct punishment called 'crucifixion,' no distinct punishment device called a 'crucifix' anywhere mentioned in any of the ancient texts including the Gospels," he told ABCNews.com.

Jesus Christ May Not Have Died on Cross

For 2,000 years the crucifix has been a potent symbol of both Jesus Christ's death and the religion which sprung up in its aftermath. But according to a Swedish theologian, despite the crucifix's proliferation in art and literature for generations, there is no evidence in the Bible or other...

abcnews.go.com

The most likely thing that happened was that they suspended him on a pole or something and dumped his body in the tomb whilst he was still alive. I suspect that there are a lot of similarities between Jesus and Rasputin, one being that they were both particularly difficult to kill off. What it is with these mystics?

Look into the eyes,
Look into the eyes,
Not around the eyes!

 

[Blues Guitarist]

If it was intended to annoy those who aren't Christian, yes. If it was intended to give people better results, we'll have to wait a couple of months to find out.

So, is the suggestion that god cares what exam results people get?

 

[Triggaaar]

(did the shepherds ever meet the angels…. Or whatever - does it matter?) or whether it’s from the “it’s all fairy stories” brigade. I prefer “live and let live”.

Live and let live is basically how our society is. You have your beliefs, others have theirs, and we all get along fine. The difference on this thread is that someone is trying to argue that the bible and scholars and scientists have somehow proven that Jesus is the son of god. It's pretty clear to everyone else that that is not the case, and so it is being debated. It's unusual for it to be debated on here, because not many people share @kuzushi 's beliefs. Most Christians have beliefs more similar to yours, and wouldn't really try to argue that there's any evidence of Jesus being the son of god.

 

[Triggaaar]

So, is the suggestion that god cares what exam results people get?

Cares? He more than cares - he's going to go out of his way to make sure they get good results, and to hell with the people actually suffering in this world.

 

[pastafarian]

The thing is, it only became a 'story not meant to be taken seriously' after it was proved to be made up. Until that point, it was gospel. Just like creation - that was a fact, until Darwin showed that it was not.

And so it goes - as soon as something is proven to be nonsense we have to go 'oh yeah, that was just a bit of fun that bit'.

Good point, not so long ago in human history you would have been accused of blasphemy and possibly torched at the stake or accused of being a witch, maybe even exiled from society for even suggesting any part of the bible was absolute bobbins.
The bible was the truth including the creation narrative,the global flood and everything in the ark.
Along comes science with opposing evidence and all of a sudden.........."oh yeah, that bit is made up, its just a story...........the rest is true though"

 

[Stato]

Here are some other questions that I'd like answered.

1. When you go to Heaven, do you go at the 'age' you die? If so Heaven will be mostly filled with old people. A but dull.
2. When you go to heaven, are all your ailments cured? If not, if you died by falling into a meat grinder, you'd have to live in Heaven as a human sausage.
3. So, assuming from the above, you are given a god-rebuild before emerging for the cameras, what version? For me, my peak was probably around 22, when I was like a dog with two cocks. But would that really be compatible with Heavenly decorum?
4. Also, if you died as a child, would you go to Heaven as a child, or would God fast-forward you a bit? If so, he'd either have to fill your head with false wisdom, or you'd be a child in an adult's body, which would be weird.
5. If you had been someone who put up with mountains of misery, stoically, in life, (the fate of 95% of humans throughout history) with the belief in an afterlife keeping you going, how would you feel when you arrived in Heaven? And what would prevent you now from 'letting rip' a bit?
6. In general, what would you do in Heaven? If you are a fairly simply sort who does a simply job, feeds the kids, watches a bit of Corrie, then gets an early night, would your aspirations be transformed with (presumably) limitless opportunity?
7. Or would we just be beams of light, contentedly drifting in mist, singing OM, and feeling really nice. For ever. ?
8. And what happened to all the humans who died before they had invented god and the afterlife? I bet they were a bit surprised when, seconds after a sabre toothed tiger bit their head off, they suddenly found themselves in eternal delight.
9. The alternative would have to be that you can only get in if you truly believe. If so I am bit surprised anyone thinks that dogs will be let in. I you let dogs in, then what about seagulls, and slugs, and ants, and bacteria, and the coronavirus? It's wrong to be life-ist, isn't it?

I guess that wondering about this, while knowing that whatever it turns out to be will be fantastic, is all part of keeping the faith.

I believe you need to study Saint Ian's epistle to the Nwobhmians.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm sorry if you find my attitude aggressive.
I didn't think I was being aggressive, but if that is how I've come across, I'm sorry.

I don't think you're being aggressive in general, as dangull below says, you are defending yourself against a group of mostly non religious people. Perhaps you made a comment that seemed a bit aggressive towards Blues (I haven't looked) but in general, no you're not.

I admire your belief systems and defending yourself against a non religous football forum
However, your views of dismissing the other religous faiths today is a bit arrogant in my view.

Well if you really believe something, it might be difficult to imagine how others can't see what you think is obvious. I expect my atheism is extremely arrogant.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The thing is, it only became a 'story not meant to be taken seriously' after it was proved to be made up. Until that point, it was gospel. Just like creation - that was a fact, until Darwin showed that it was not.

And so it goes - as soon as something is proven to be nonsense we have to go 'oh yeah, that was just a bit of fun that bit'.

So you would prefer people not to take account of what is now accepted thinking?

And my belief (and that of many others) is that the creation story was written by people as a poetic way of describing that God was somewhere behind it all, whether it took place over 6 days, or whether over billions of years starting with the Big Bang.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yeah, he's decided that the piece they tested must have been from a repaired piece of cloth.

That makes no sense. When selecting a piece of cloth to remove from the shroud, it goes without saying that they'd remove the least important part of it - a part from a corner with no imagery on it. Given that it was a worthless piece of a the edge of a corner, why on earth would anyone have felt the need to repair that bit in the first place? And how would they have repaired it without it being possible to see that it wasn't part of the original fabric? It makes no sense.

Presumably the Pope thought that the carbon dating would prove that the shroud was from the time of Jesus. It didn't, it proved that it was a fake. If the Pope beilived they'd taken the wrong bit, then he'd have arranged for another bit to be taken.

The Vatican does not claim that it is the shroud of Jesus, but they do not say that it definitely is not either.