I don’t understand your categories. Why reject Acts, but not Joshua or Samuel? There’s no extrabiblical evidence that Joshua ever existed, and the stories of him parting the Jordan, or making the sun stand still, are as ridiculous as anything in Exodus.
To be honest? I was done sitting on the toilet with my laptop and my legs had fallen asleep. I figured any book with a 50%+ fictional narrative should go in the fiction section anyways. Of course, oddly enough, those who claim that there is historical evidence in the Bible are starting from an opinion and working backwards anyways.
I knew it. I knew that you would insist on continuing with this irrelevant digression of yours.
It doesn’t matter what you think. We’re not talking about your opinion as an uninformed layman, after all. Rather, we are talking about what professional historians have to say about the Bible. They may not necessarily believe that the Bible is God’s Word, and depending on their viewpoint, they may be skeptical of large portions of its text. Nevertheless, they DO treat it as a source of legitimate historical accounts. This does not mean that they accept every detail unconditionally; rather, their task is to discern which aspects are reliable and which ones are less so, as any historian would. (Again, I refer you to the classic text, Justifying Historical Descriptions by C Behan McCullagh.)
Heck, even if we were to grant your claim that most of the Bible is “historically inaccurate or just bullshit,” the fact remains that historians do NOT disregard it outright. They certainly don’t treat it in the same manner as they would the Iliad. Quite the contrary; there is a tremendous amount of scholarship which discusses the historicity of both Old and New Testament events, with historians arguing with various degrees of acceptance or skepticism.
You may be familiar with various attempts to explain the Resurrection belief, for example. An uninformed layman might declare that the gospel accounts are all just “bullshit,” to use your term. Informed historians, on the other hand, do not take that approach. Even the skeptical historians accept certain core beliefs, such as the crucifixion of Jesus and his disciples’ ardent belief that he rose from the dead. That is why they have postulated various theories to account for the Resurrection belief – the now-discredited “Passover Plot,” for example, or the belief that the disciples experienced some sort of mass vision or hallucination.
Now, I’m not about to argue about whether Jesus really rose from the dead or not. That’s a valuable question, but it’s unimportant for this particular thread. Rather, the salient point is that actually historians do NOT take your approach. Rather, they seek to recognize which aspects of the text are reliable and which are not – and even the ones who are hostile to Christanity do generally accept certain core tenets.
No they don’t.
At best secular historians might write on the history of Christianity.
Secular historians will be extremely skeptical on accepting anything from the gospels as historical truth.
Even if they, personally, might believe that some aspects of the stories might actually have happened, like the crucifxion, there is no other proof for any of it.
Therefore, as good scientists, they will either leave it alone or concede that they are just speculating.
Outside of the Bible, there is no historical proof that Jesus existed much less was crucified. If that’s the fallacy you’re going to return and offer as proof again, this is a wasted argument. Michael Martin said in the book “The case against Christianity” that there was insufficient evidence that Jesus ever existed at all. The Bible claiming itself to be valid is as relevant as “my cite is my post”.
I’ve asked you to defend you assertions by answering certain questions. From this sentence, I conclude that you’re afraid to answer any of my questions. Which, frankly, I do not find surprising.
Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?
Surely you would agree that (a) it’s highly unusual for someone to very badly want their President to be dishonest and (b) there’s zero reason to believe that Obama is lying. Hence you response doesn’t really answer the question.
If you advance the thesis that religious people are crazy, then to be consistent you have to apply the thesis to all religious people. Here I’ve pointed out an obvious example that disproves your claim: Barack Obama, who is neither crazy, nor ignorant, nor was indoctrinated as a child. As we see, there are two basic responses among those who think that religious people are crazy. First, one can run away from the question, as Brock has done. Second, one can construct an imaginary reality in which Obama is not religious, as you have done. Both approaches would point to the conclusion that the ‘religious people are crazy’ thesis cannot be matched up with reality.
From the second paper:
Sociology was thus “from its inception . . . committed to the positivist view that religion in the modern world is merely a survival from man’s primitive past, and doomed to disappear in an era of science and general enlightenment.” Never mind that the secularization thesis is wrong (Andrew Greeley 1989; R. Stephen Warner 1993); it has spawned a body of stylized facts that few dare question. For example: that religion must inevitably decline as science and technology advance; that individuals become less religious and more skeptical of faith-based claims as they acquire more education, particularly more familiarity with science; and that membership in deviant religious groups is usually the consequence of indoctrination leading to aberrant values, or abnormal psychology due to trauma, neurosis, or unmet needs. Most people “know” these statements to be true, even though decades of research have repeatedly proved them false.
That’s from section 2; later sections of the paper flesh out all of the points with detailed data and citations. Try reading it; I guarantee that reading an article won’t kill you.
The problem, of course, highlights the obvious contradiction in the position taken by you, brock, and others. You’re constantly insisting that religious people don’t have evidence, but it’s you who has no evidence. If you assert that religious people are crazy, obviously the first thing you’d be expected to do is link to a real paper which backs you up. You can’t do that, though, because no such paper exists. There are a great many papers on the conditions of mental health among religious believers but they all point the exact opposite of the way you want. If the above cites aren’t adequate, then others are easy to find. For example:
Yeung, W. J & Chan Y. (2007). The positive effects of religiousness on mental health in physically vulnerable populations: A review on recent empirical studies and related theories. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 11 (2), pages 37-52
Abstract:
Since Freud and other famous mental health scholars have put forth their postulations concerning the neurotic influences of religion in mental health, many of the 20th century mental health professionals have been influenced to hold skeptical and even hostile attitudes toward religion. However, the past two decades have increasingly found more empirical evidence supporting the beneficial effects of religiousness on mental health that apparently contrasts with the postulations of Freud. Evidence in research was nonetheless mainly based on physically healthy populations. Studies addressing the relationship between religiousness and mental health in physically vulnerable populations, such as the aged, ill and disabled, have been insufficient. For this reason, this paper reviews recent empirical studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals concerning these relatively neglected populations. Consequently, although the number of studies concerning these vulnerable populations is less than research on the general healthy populations, well-conducted studies did point out the beneficial effects of religiousness on physically vulnerable people. Apparently, religion is an important aspect of life in these populations during the times of suffering and stress. Finally, relevant theories explicating the relationship are reviewed and some theoretical implications are also addressed.
Abdel-Khalek, Ahmed M.; Lester, David. *Religiosity, health, and psychopathology in two cultures: Kuwait and USA *Mental Health, Religion & Culture, Volume 10, Number 5, September 2007 , pages 537-550(14)
Abstract:
To explore the associations between religiosity, health, and psychopathology, samples of 460 Kuwaiti and 274 American college students were recruited. Religiosity, pessimism, anxiety, obsession-compulsion, death obsession, and ego-grasping were significantly higher among the Kuwaitis than among their American counterparts. On the other hand, self-ratings of mental health and optimism were significantly higher among the Americans than their Kuwaiti counterparts. Religiosity was significantly and positively associated with ratings of physical health, mental health, and optimism (both countries), and negatively with pessimism, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and ego-grasping (Kuwaitis), and pessimism and suicidal ideation (Americans). A factor analysis of the correlational matrix yielded in both countries two independent factors labeled “Normality vs. psychopathology”, and “Religiosity, health, and optimism”. Backward multiple regressions revealed that the main predictors of religiosity were mental health, optimism and physical health positively, and obsession-compulsion and ego-grasping negatively in Kuwaitis; and optimism positively and anxiety, and suicidal ideation negatively in Americans. By and large, those who consider themselves as religious were more healthy and optimistic, and obtained lower scores on psychopathology in both countries.
So while you complain about the fact that religious people supposedly ignore scientific findings, it’s actually you who ignore scientific findings.
Dang, you see right through me. I simply haven’t got the balls to stand up to your towering intellect. Either that, or I’m not interested in debating someone whose favorite tactic seems to be total mischaracterization, such as “calling everyone who disagrees with me crazy.” That has already been refuted several times by several people in this thread, so the only excuse for that accusation, implication, innuendo, or whatever you want to call it, is dishonesty. Which should also answer your second question about what I mean by false accusations.
But for the sake of others who might not be familiar enough with Matthew to know what I was referring to:
Matthew claims that King Herod sent soldiers to kill the infant Jesus, and that they “slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under” (2:16, KJV)
Josephus, for one, recorded Herod’s reign in some detail, including the murders of some of his children, which shows that he was not afraid of saying bad things about him, and that his sources were good enough that he knew about things that happened in the privacy of the royal palace, with only a single assassin involved.
It is impossible to believe that the slaughter of infants of a city “and all the coasts thereof,” by probably dozens of soldiers in broad daylight, would not have been noticed and recorded. But nobody, not even the other Gospel writers, mentions it.
And at the crucifixion of Jesus, Matthew claims that there was three hours of darkness over the land in the middle of the day, which nobody could have missed, and which no secular historians recorded. But wait, there’s more! He also says, “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (27:52-3)
If Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, and the other Jewish saints had walked around Jerusalem and “appeared to many,” someone other than Matthew have recorded it, but as with Herod’s slaughter, not even the other Gospel writers mention it. This is far and away the greatest miracle of the Bible, and yet most people have never heard of it, because it is so preposterous that even Christian preachers know they will be laughed out of the pulpit if they claim it’s true.
If it WERE true, there wouldn’t have been any Jews in Israel after the word spread; they would all have become Christians. But strangely enough, the more people knew about Jesus, the less they thought he was divine. Asia Minor, or Greece, or Rome, where people knew nothing about Jewish prophecy and had never seen Jesus, was where Christianity got going. The people of Israel, who were aching for a Messiah, and who supposedly saw all of Jesus’s miracles, culminating in the personal endorsement of Moses and Elijah, were not impressed, and Jesus had only 11 followers when he died, far less than Joseph Smith, or David Koresh, or Jim Jones.
WRT religious indoctrination and this paper, what exactly is a ‘deviant group’? For the purposes of the discussion on indoctrination that has been going on in this thread, this is not the group that is typically claimed to be indoctrinated. In other words, most people would not consider Christians to be a ‘deviant group’, they would consider David Koresh’s followers a deviant group.
I don’t think that religious people are crazy, so the rest of your post doesn’t apply to me. Well, I would say that I don’t think most religious people are crazy. I can envision a situation where someone is ‘hearing voices’ and believes those voices are from God. That’s a special sort of circumstance though.
That is your opinion, not a fact. I’m sure he is ignorant of many things, as are all people; I know he was indoctrinated as a child, since he attended an Islamic school in IIRC Indonesia; and to the extent that he believes Christian dogma, IMO he’s crazy. But I doubt that he does; I think he joined his church for social and political reasons.
I’d guess that the percentage of atheists and agnostics in Congress is much higher than in the general public, but they know that it would be the end of their careers to admit it.
No, I don’t have a cite for any of the above. But an angel told me.
See, this is what I don’t understand. The whole point of the New Testament is that God loves us and wants to be our pal. Jesus says on several occasions that whatever you pray for will be granted.
But if anyone actually claims that God really did take a personal interest in him, then even other Christians think he’s crazy.
What kind of screwed-up religion thinks that you have to believe that God watches over us and answers our prayers, but anyone who says he KNOWS it is true, because God actually communicated by words rather than ambiguous “signs,” is not believed?
And if Michael Martin were an actual historian or had demonstrated any relevant scholarship in this field, your objection might have some weight. He is a philosopher though, not an historian. Now, I’m not saying that philosophers cannot have any legitimate views on this topic; far from it. The point remains, however, that Michael Martin is NOT an historian, and his statements goes against the overwhelming opinion of actual historians. What’s more, his arguments demonstrate his unfamiliarity with historical methods.
Earlier, you cited Cecil Adams (in a way that did not actually support your point, I might add). Well, Cecil himself said, “In short, whether or not [Jesus Christ] was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody.” As I said, historians almost unanimously accept that he existed, Richard Carrier being the sole modern exception of note.
And if I had been basing my argument on the validity of Bible, then that response might have some validity. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you though, one need not accept that the Bible is God’s Word in order to acknowledge that scholars do treat it as a source of history – even the ones who reject sizeable portions thereof.
Of course, this will not stop you from continuing down that irrelevant path. After all, when someone is committed to the preconceived notion that religious people must be mentally defective, then the facts don’t really matter. What matters is finding some way to justify that preconceived notion, regardless of what it takes.
Is there a clinical definition of “crazy” that we should be using? Please see my post here where I chose the definition of crazy to mean **
senseless; impractical.** I am sorry, I won’t be able to produce any peer reviewed papers regarding the practicality or impracticality of religion which would either support or refute my claim. There aren’t a lot of papers on common sense.
JThunder, instead of continuing to hijack this thread about a historical Jesus, let’s move that discussion over here.
To me, the most convincing evidence that Jesus existed are the preposterous, mutually contradictory stories that Matthew and Luke make up to explain why the Messiah was “Jesus of Nazareth,” rather than “Jesus of Bethlehem.” If there wasn’t a real “Jesus of Nazareth,” they wouldn’t have had to do that.
No, because we’re laymen. IMO “irrational and delusional” fits the bill just fine.
The latter books of what you call the OT were written close to the time of the events given, so they are clearly more historical than ones written long after the events, like Exodus. That the accuracy of the books declines proportionately to the distance from the events argues strongly against any supernatural inspiration. Any primary source is of value historically in at least telling us something about the conditions when it was written. Chaucer’s “The Knight’s Tale” isn’t very useful in telling us what ancient Greece was like, but good in telling us about jousting during Chaucer’s time.
It is also telling that direct intervention by God also drops off precipitously as we get closer to the events. Sure the later prophets claim that God caused this or that to happen, but that is about as credible as the average football player’s claim that God helped him win the game.
So, your claims of historical accuracy are trivial when true. The Bible isn’t historically accurate where such would be interesting in support of it.
But shouldn’t there be a place for “dysfunctional” in there? I mean, if a guy puts himself through school to become a heart surgeon or a patent attorney or whatever, marrying and raising a family while investing wisely and staying out of trouble with the law, does it matter that he believes Zorgo the frog god lives in a nearby lake?
(I’d be on board for “it matters to the extent that it keeps him from being a productive member of society” – but not for “no, it’s a one-size-fits-all deal, such that a law-abiding citizen who lives well and does right by his neighbors is exactly as crazy as one who gets executed for sacrificing innocents on a sinister altar”.)
I don’t see why anyone would care about historical accuracy anyway, at least as proof of anything other than the authors had eyes and ears. You don’t need divine inspiration to know the names of the major cities and rulers of a given time and place.
Scientific accuracy would be much more impressive, and the Bible fails miserably in that. It still amazes me how many people think that “a day is like a thousand years” renders Genesis compatible with science, when Genesis has fruit trees growing before the sun was created.