[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[BadFish]

What I'm about to write doesn't apply to everyone here, but to a few.

What I've found is that people have tried to ridicule me for holding the view that Jesus lived, was crucified and had disciples who believed that he rose from the dead, even though this is the view of scholars who are experts in the field, and yet you are trying to paint me as the arrogant one. Surely it's more arrogant to mock someone (not saying you have, you might have done but I've lost track of exactly who has) where you are the one in the wrong, and not even bother to research the facts or be open to changing your view.

People don't have to accept it any more than they have to accept the holocaust (unless they are in Austria), or that the earth is a sphere, but don't mock the one who is holding the correct (in terms of expert consensus) opinion on the matter, and if he sticks to his opinion, don't accuse him of arrogance, or being mad or an idiot or intransigence.

I think you are mistaken, no-one has mocked you because of what you state here. This is a fallback position you are taking, call it solid and safe ground to retreat to. As a discussion tactic, it is disingenuous to pretend that this I all you are saying, you are not and you have said far more.

Aside from that you are currently arguing with ghosts. You say yourself that 'a few' have mocked you for this belief (I have my doubts but am not prepared to reread the thread to find out). You have now quoted me twice to have the same argument, yet I am not arguing with you about this. If you insist on my take on it I think (no fact here) that on the balance of the evidence I have read, the probability is that it is more likely that Jesus lives, had followers and was crucified. I remain agnostic to idea that his followers believe he was resurrected, this idea seems to me to have come from the bible which as I have mentioned, believe is highly suspect in terms of factual evidence.

To keep up with the discussion, I have suggested that your posts are arrogant, I stand by this and highlight the parts of your latest post that feed my opinion. And I have suggested that his arrogance and the fact that you have gathered and ignored so much evidence to now see your beliefs and opinions as fact (see highlighted parts in your post) is concerning.

To quote the good book "only a Sith deals in absolutes".

 

[pastafarian]

Advances in neuroscience have shown that our brain is the organ that makes the need for a soul completely pointless.
You get some very dangerous evangelists, especially in the US who will say utter vulgar claptrap that someone with a mental health condition for example has a damaged soul that can be healed by Jesus and encourage them to avoid science and medicine.
Dangerous stuff.

 

[BadFish]

I think you are mistaken, no-one has mocked you because of what you state here. This is a fallback position you are taking, call it solid and safe ground to retreat to. As a discussion tactic, it is disingenuous to pretend that this I all you are saying, you are not and you have said far more.

Aside from that you are currently arguing with ghosts. You say yourself that 'a few' have mocked you for this belief (I have my doubts but am not prepared to reread the thread to find out). You have now quoted me twice to have the same argument, yet I am not arguing with you about this. If you insist on my take on it I think (no fact here) that on the balance of the evidence I have read, the probability is that it is more likely that Jesus lives, had followers and was crucified. I remain agnostic to idea that his followers believe he was resurrected, this idea seems to me to have come from the bible which as I have mentioned, believe is highly suspect in terms of factual evidence.

To keep up with the discussion, I have suggested that your posts are arrogant, I stand by this and highlight the parts of your latest post that feed my opinion. And I have suggested that his arrogance and the fact that you have gathered and ignored so much evidence to now see your beliefs and opinions as fact (see highlighted parts in your post) is concerning.

To quote the good book "only a Sith deals in absolutes".

Sorry to quote myself but I have just realised what is happening here.

@kuzushi has to deal in absolutes here. He has to make this stuff fact because in his interpretation of Christianiy there is not room for doubt. He has said it so many times "Jesus is the way to avoid judgement" there is no grey area in this it is an absolute fact for him and he has gone about proving it to himself.

However, for @DavidinSouthampton there is always doubt, in fact, David refused to talk in absolutes and his interpretation of Christianity allows him, maybe even encourages him to do this. Is this a recognition of the contradictions and lack of absolutes in the bible?

Who knows but this is the fascinating thing to me, that here are two posters with faith in the word of god, yet they interpret it so differently. It is little wonder we have so many religions and offshoots. The bible is written this way, to enable people to interpret it and its lessons as they see fit. Perhaps the problem here is strict, organised religions and people's need for them.

 

[Baldseagull]

What exactly are you objecting to? This is a thread about Christianity.
It's funny how some people get all cross and angry about these things. We've been having an interesting chat about spiritual matters here. I see no reason to start calling people names. You say stuff, I say stuff, back and forth like tennis. Why are you worried about me converting you? That implies that you are finding what I'm saying persuasive. Are you not just as capable of persuading me of your point of view as I am of persuading you of mine? Are you unable to resist what I'm saying?

Yes, I am sure of what I'm saying, and there are reasons for this.

There are no logical reasons to be certain, what are your reasons?

 

[The Clamp]

Sorry to quote myself but I have just realised what is happening here.

@kuzushi has to deal in absolutes here. He has to make this stuff fact because in his interpretation of Christianiy there is not room for doubt. He has said it so many times "Jesus is the way to avoid judgement" there is no grey area in this it is an absolute fact for him and he has gone about proving it to himself.

However, for @DavidinSouthampton there is always doubt, in fact, David refused to talk in absolutes and his interpretation of Christianity allows him, maybe even encourages him to do this. Is this a recognition of the contradictions and lack of absolutes in the bible?

Who knows but this is the fascinating thing to me, that here are two posters with faith in the word of god, yet they interpret it so differently. It is little wonder we have so many religions and offshoots. The bible is written this way, to enable people to interpret it and its lessons as they see fit. Perhaps the problem here is strict, organised religions and people's need for them.

I think it’s the eternal struggle between the rational and the irrational. The human condition.

I like to think I am seeking a balance and the Christian church is helping me in this part of that journey. It may be the end point, it may be a stage.

I believe in a life force that works for the good of all life on earth but I don’t believe there is a God in the traditional sense, or a place called heaven.

I believe we all get cycled back into nature and our life force lives on. In the same way energy cannot die, only change form.

I may be right. I may be wrong. I won’t be killing anyone over it.

 

[Nobby]

Who is Jordan Peterson?

Is he something to do with Groundhog Day?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Is that what's happening? Maybe I'm the stupid one, I seem to have missed it

Yep. He’s literally posting with missionary zeal. It’s the internet equivalent of the JWs knocking on your door. He obviously won’t persuade you (or me) but he’s not trying to. He’s after a tiny percentage of the rest of the readership. Otherwise why bother? The two of you could have your intellectual arguments via PM.

 

[BadFish]

Who is Jordan Peterson?

Is he something to do with Groundhog Day?

Did he kill the Zutons?

 

[Triggaaar]

Yep. He’s literally posting with missionary zeal. It’s the internet equivalent of the JWs knocking on your door. He obviously won’t persuade you (or me) but he’s not trying to. He’s after a tiny percentage of the rest of the readership.

Fair enough.

Otherwise why bother?

Why are any of us bothering? I assumed some people found it interesting (those who don't wouldn't read it), but if he's only here in the hope of converting people I'd assume he's wasting his time. None of what he says makes any sense.

The two of you could have your intellectual arguments via PM.

I think it's more than two of us isn't it?

 

[Triggaaar]

I believe in a life force that works for the good of all life on earth but I don’t believe there is a God in the traditional sense, or a place called heaven.

I believe we all get cycled back into nature and our life force lives on. In the same way energy cannot die, only change form.

I'd never heard of this 'life force' until about a week ago when someone at a bbq was telling me that was all had it, and when we ate meat we were getting the animals life force. Can't say I agree with any of it.

 

[Triggaaar]

What I've found is that people have tried to ridicule me for holding the view that Jesus lived, was crucified and had disciples who believed that he rose from the dead, even though this is the view of scholars who are experts in the field, and yet you are trying to paint me as the arrogant one. Surely it's more arrogant to mock someone (not saying you have, you might have done but I've lost track of exactly who has) where you are the one in the wrong

You say 'you are the one in the wrong' as if it's a fact. It is not a fact that the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead. For a start, doubting Thomas didn't did he? And I expect the others didn't either, but they had reason to lie.

And if we're going to take your adamant line: Jesus was very clearly not the son of god, yet you carry on as if he was, but you are the one in wrong.

but don't mock the one who is holding the correct (in terms of expert consensus) opinion on the matter

No, you are mistaken. Expert concensus is not that Jesus's disciples believed he was resurrected. That is the opinion of some scholars you've cherry picked. I haven't looked it up, but I'm sure most experts around the world do not agree with that.

 

[The Clamp]

I'd never heard of this 'life force' until about a week ago when someone at a bbq was telling me that was all had it, and when we ate meat we were getting the animals life force. Can't say I agree with any of it.

No, we are not talking about the same thing. Life force as in the “spirit” of all living things.

We don’t consume the spirit of a cow by eating a steak.

Not to my understanding anyway.

 

[Nobby]

Did he kill the Zutons?

. I think so

 

[Guinness Boy]

Why are any of us bothering? I assumed some people found it interesting (those who don't wouldn't read it), but if he's only here in the hope of converting people I'd assume he's wasting his time. None of what he says makes any sense.



I think it's more than two of us isn't it?

A few more than two and I'm in around the edges, I'll admit.

I guess this feels like the Brexit thread to me. Two binary positions from which most people won't shift. It's interesting for a while but it soon repeats the same themes and the point of "winning" is to convert a very small number of undecideds.

 

[Baldseagull]

A few more than two and I'm in around the edges, I'll admit.

I guess this feels like the Brexit thread to me. Two binary positions from which most people won't shift. It's interesting for a while but it soon repeats the same themes and the point of "winning" is to convert a very small number of undecideds.

A bit like the Brexit thread yes, but with less abuse, other parallels I shall keep to myself.

 

[BadFish]

Fair enough.



Why are any of us bothering? I assumed some people found it interesting (those who don't wouldn't read it), but if he's only here in the hope of converting people I'd assume he's wasting his time. None of what he says makes any sense.



I think it's more than two of us isn't it?

Yeah I have been quite enjoying the conversation. I have no expectation of changing Kuzushi's mind.
It is very made up. But I am interested in his thoughts on religion and how on earth he can be so sure about his opinion.

I'm not sure a mod should be digging too deep about why anyone bothers with threads on NSC. We might all realise it's a waste of time and stop posting. And then what will Bozza do with all the time he'll save.

Fwiw these threads scratch my itch for pointless and tedious arguments. Something I have a penchant for in the real world too. Think of it as saving my wife and kids from pointless nonsense. Although my son has seemingly inherited it

 

[kuzushi]

A few more than two and I'm in around the edges, I'll admit.

I guess this feels like the Brexit thread to me. Two binary positions from which most people won't shift. It's interesting for a while but it soon repeats the same themes and the point of "winning" is to convert a very small number of undecideds.

Of course I would like it if you all started believing in Jesus and decided to follow him, but even if you don't, even if you reject Jesus, I'll accept that as long as you do so based on the established facts, ie. the facts that most scholars agree on. I've mentioned Bart Ehrman quite a bit in this thread. That's because he's an example of someone who knows the New Testament very well (he is one of the leading NT scholars in the world), and accepts the facts relating to the resurrection for which we have clear evidence. He does not however believe that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, since he has his own explanation of the facts. I'd say there are two reasons that lead me to disagree with him. That's where I stand on it.

I agree that we don't want to be going round in circles, but if we are to progress, we have to establish what we can of what is true and what is not. Once we've done that, we can discuss what remains of where we do not agree.

What are we agreed on so far?
To establish where we are, I'd like to ask everyone if I may the following questions:

1. Do you agree that Jesus was a real person?
(I think we are pretty much agreed on that)

2. Do you agree that he was crucified?
(I think we are all pretty much agreed on that, too)

3. Do you agree that his disciples believe that he rose from the dead? (I'm not asking whether you believe that they were right in this belief, just whether you accept that this is what they believed)

IF we can agree on all of the above, then it boils down to how we explain the fact of the third point.
I think we all agree on the first two anyway. Some people might not know enough to be able to have a strong opinion about the third point, and that's okay, too. They can do some research on it, but it's worth being aware that scholars, who do know a lot about it, broadly speaking accept the third point, too.









'The sincere belief of the Twelve that Jesus appeared to them alive after his death is widely accepted as historical bedrock by almost all scholars and is a key fact in what Gary Habermas calls a “minimal facts argument” for the resurrection of Jesus.' https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/62/62-2/JETS_62.2_341-51_Breitenbach.pdf Dr. Zach Breitenbach is the Director of the Worldview Center at Connection Pointe in Brownsburg, IN and the former Associate Director of Room For Doubt.

 

[BadFish]

A few more than two and I'm in around the edges, I'll admit.

I guess this feels like the Brexit thread to me. Two binary positions from which most people won't shift. It's interesting for a while but it soon repeats the same themes and the point of "winning" is to convert a very small number of undecideds.

I don't think anyone is expecting any minds to change (do we ever).

I have found it quite interesting though. I guess trawling through threads you find tedious is an occupational hazard for you mods.

Sorry for subjecting you to that and feel free to thread ban me so I can actually get some work done in the mornings

 

[kuzushi]

I don't think anyone is expecting any minds to change (do we ever).

I have found it quite interesting though. I guess trawling through threads you find tedious is an occupational hazard for you mods.

Sorry for subjecting you to that and feel free to thread ban me so I can actually get some work done in the mornings

NO, don't ban him!

 

[BadFish]

Of course I would like it if you all started believing in Jesus and decided to follow him, but even if you don't, even if you reject Jesus, I'll accept that as long as you do so based on the established facts, ie. the facts that most scholars agree on. I've mentioned Bart Ehrman quite a bit in this thread. That's because he's an example of someone who knows the New Testament very well (he is one of the leading NT scholars in the world), and accepts the facts relating to the resurrection for which we have clear evidence. He does not however believe that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, since he has his own explanation of the facts. I'd say there are two reasons that lead me to disagree with him. That's where I stand on it.

I agree that we don't want to be going round in circles, but if we are to progress, we have to establish what we can of what is true and what is not. Once we've done that, we can discuss what remains of where we do not agree.

What are we agreed on so far?
To establish where we are, I'd like to ask everyone if I may the following questions:

1. Do you agree that Jesus was a real person?
(I think we are pretty much agreed on that)

2. Do you agree that he was crucified?
(I think we are all pretty much agreed on that, too)

3. Do you agree that his disciples believe that he rose from the dead? 'The sincere belief of the Twelve that Jesus appeared to them alive after his death is widely accepted as historical bedrock by almost all scholars and is a key fact in what Gary Habermas calls a “minimal facts argument” for the resurrection of Jesus.' https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/62/62-2/JETS_62.2_341-51_Breitenbach.pdf (I'm not asking whether you believe that they were right in this belief, just whether you accept that this is what they believed)

IF we can agree on all of the above, then it boils down to how we explain the fact of the third point.
I think we all agree on the first two anyway. Some people might not know enough to be able to have a strong opinion about the third point, and that's okay, too. They can do some research on it, but it's worth being aware that scholars, who do know a lot about it, broadly speaking accept the third point, too.

This is one of the most astonishing posts I have ever read on NSC.

Stunning!

You don't get to frame the discussion in his manner.

This part of the discussion has been done to death. Surely we can move on.