[Ding ding ding] Give NaSultainne a cigar!
I believe Einstein would have agreed with you.
Einstein was an agnostic.
Einstein, in a letter dated March 24, 1954:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein - The Human Side ,Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979
Actually Diogenes, Mark didn’t mention Jesus’ birth at all, and he created the transfiguration to replace the resurrection, because Mark believed that Christ would return in a few years. Thereby His resurrection would occur later. Mark used the transfiguration in his Gospel instead.
The resurrection was already a part of what you might call the Christian heresay, as were the miracles. If you examine the non-canonized early Christian writings and Gospels, you find even more.
I’m not going to be able to offer you the proof you would need not to ruin your reputation Diogenes the Cynic, but I do attempt to make the point that any Biblical scholar who believes is not necessarily a foolish person. That’s actually the extent of my claim, so anyone who was expecting a Revelation of Holy Truth today may continue with their dissappointment. 
NaS said…
It is clear to you, because you believe what the book has to say, my question is simply, what if the book is wrong? What if it isn’t Christianity that is the ‘way’ ? What if one of the others, or a path yet to be discovered is the ‘way’ to eternal reward?
I agree with you about the existance of the ‘empty spot’ Yet that empty spot you speak of is often filled by other spiritual things. Things such as meditation, chanting, ritual, all a manner of conduit to a higher spiritual connection, I’ll admit, but directly to God as YOU know it? That’s what I doubt, or at least question.
Here’s my take on all of it…
Religion is indeed the opiate of the masses, because it makes true everything that either science cannot obviously explain, or makes simple overly complex scientific explanations of things, many non-scientific minds would have trouble wrapping themselves around. That being said, I think that religion is a necessary evil, as humans, left to their own devices will eventually do more harm than good. The vehemently religious have proven that directly.
It really is that simple, this is an observation, stemming from my 13 years of experience in public safety (police/fire), I don’t have a think tank cite, or other scientifically gathered numbers, it’s only personal experience, this does not negate the truth, however.
I think all religions are valid for those who believe righteously in them. Even Satanism is valid if you truly believe, though many may not agree, it is, again, my opinion. It is my belief that all religions, no matter their stripe, are merely hopeful human conduits to the eagerly awaited potential. One hopes, when one believes in a religion, that there will be something unseen awaiting his or her soul after death, and we romanticize the idea of death in books and television and movies.
We hope, that we will still be able to see our family and friends when we die, and that we will retain our form and shape, and wear similar clothing. The fact is, no one knows the truth. Everyone THINKS they do, but no one actually does, and that is the problem with religion. We could go to either heaven or hell, and walk on clouds or bathe in a lake of fire. We could go to summerland and walk forever among the tall trees. We could go to valhalla, and feast at the large table. Or, we could vaporize as unseeable energy, and rise back into a giant collective. Or, we could merely die, and decompose, with nothing else ever. The truth is, we do not, and we can not know what happens.
As humans, we have taken our logic, and applied it to something that on its’ face defies all logic. This application has caused more strife, and more conflict than anything else in the course of human history. It becomes an exercise in futility when people of one belief, clash, whether peacefully or violently, with those of another, and the deeper reality is that neither will ever sway the whole of the other, no matter how convincing the argument.
The result is, hopefully this;
-
Leave your brothers and sisters alone, ignore your churches teachings about bringing more people into the fold, for all you know, you may be leading innocents to the slaughter.
-
Do not mock or trivialize the beliefs of another, it is beneath your authority to do so, and it causes more harm than good.
-
Choosing not to believe is just as valid a course as belief.
-
Decry any attempts to inject logic into your religion. It will defy logic every time.
-
One is not right, nor wrong, about their beliefs, at least it is not up to you to judge, no matter what your book, your leader, or your church has to say about it.
-
If you live as your conscience demands, and endeavour never to harm another when not in defense of your life, and allow love to lead you, there is no doubt you will be happy.
If religions are valid to those who believe in them, then they must be false. If they accurately describe the world in which we exist, human belief would have nothing to do with their validity.
If all are equally correct, all are equally wrong.
Copasthetic,
You’re right that Mark doesn’t include any nativity narrative at all, but it is (to me at least) interesting that Mark did not think the virgin birth important enough to write about. The virgin birth isn’t really mentioned anywhere in Christian literature until Matthew (Paul never mentioned it either). For this reason, many scholars consider it to be a later tradition.
The transfiguration in Mark has more than one interpretation. I don’t think it’s important to debate it here, but I’ll just say it’s not a slam-dunk that Mark was referring to the resurrection of Jesus with his allusion to “the son of man coming back from the dead.” This phrase has a different meaning when read from a Jewish perspective than from a Christian one.
I hope I haven’t given the impression that I don’t respect the scholarship of believers, or that anything I say is an attempt to debunk or disprove Christianity. I’m trying to offer some objecive historical perspective on early Christianity, but trust me, I have no hostile agenda here. I have a longstanding fascination with this subject matter and a lot of respect for it. Some of the best scholarship and insights I’ve heard have come from people of faith. Two of my best religion professors in college were Catholic priests. I don’t think believers are fools at all. I like and respect people who are thoughtfu about the big questions. I gravitate to them. I would much rather have a conversation with a contemplative Christian than with an incurious atheist.
I’d also like to assure you that I don’t think there’s anything foolish about any of your posts, Copa, I’ve come to quite enjoy reading them. 
(I also like your nick, btw)
I wasn’t indicating that you were Diogenes, just that the evidence I might provide would cause you to ruin your namesake if you bought it. I’m not digging in Jerusalem or Syria, so that odds that I’ll discover the infallible proof of the validity of the Bible is highly unlikely.
The best I can forward is that it goes a hair beyond Rapunzel. That’s all you can hope for in the space of a post on a forum.
For someone who wants to know the truth, you really should seek it out, rather than accepting someone else’s. I’m sure we all have libraries in our neighborhoods, right?
Not that I dislike debate(I’m here aren’t I?), but on these kinds of matters, a discussion can only take you so far, and often people apply strange logics to euations that haven’t been presented. The Abomination that is Original Sin, and How do Christians Explain Evolution are great examples.
If you have already formed your mind around these concepts they are hard enough to present. Here, on this thread, one would presumably expect me to give an analysis of Greek and Hebrew texts, and their historical significance. That’s at least a few semesters. So, elevating the Bible above Rapunzel is about all I can do.
I love you anyways Diogenes, where would we be without Cynics and Visionaries?
I’m not sure if this is pointed suggestion for me, but just in case it is, I’d like to offer the defense that I’ve spent many years seeking out the answer myself, including going back to college in my late twenties to get a degree in religious studies (with minors in classical languages and history). I’ve binge-studied pretty much every major world religion along with some minor ones, and I’ve drawn some personal conclusions about them which are not completely cynical.
I think the Bible is more than a little above the level of “Rapunzel,” and deserves to be taken seriously. FWIW, I think that Jesus was a real person, was a “prophet” in the sense that he tapped into transcendent psychological truths. I think he was probably an ecstatic mystic. I think he was a great and probably very charismatic teacher. I believe that he was crucified and that it’s possible that some of the apostles had visionary experiences of him after his death.
As an empiricist, I find it difficult to accept claims of supernatural events without proof. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect people who do believe it or that I dismiss these accounts as fairy tales. I think they covey truthful messages regardless of their literal historicity.
To get way back to the OP. I think the Bible is relevant because it is the most important and influential work of literature in world history. It contains the very best and worst that human thought has to offer. Even if God does not exist, the historical importance and relevance of the Bible cannot be questioned.
What I have always wondered is even if you accept the bible to be 100% inspired and the word of God, how do you know she is telling the truth? I mean if I tell you I am all good and all loving I would expect you to be skeptical and judge by my actions. If we do this with God, he seems to act quite differently from how he describes himself. All good and loving, sure, except when he gets some sand in his vagina and wipes out a few cities, or slaughters a bunch of firstborn, or drowns all of humanity. Frankly I just don’t trust him.
(Sorry about the sand crack, I just saw a South Park episode.)
Relax Diogenes, I’m just overtired. Someone had mentioned Rapunzel earlier. I’m so tired it might not have been in this thread. Anyhow, I said I loved you and gave you a smiley, what more can a guy do?
See you tomorrow.
BTW flight if you accepted the Bible as 100% true, what difference would it make if you trusted Him? I once posted that if Saddam Hussein were God I might disagree, and then celebrate with my own little party in the corner of Hell for all eternity. If God is real, and you wanna pick a fight, you may as well light the candles now, and have a few beers, man.
Oh, and I know full well you’ve been to the library more than once Diogenes
I’m not at all sure that I want the lot of you over in the Great Debates thread titled, "The Abomination that is Original Sin.
That said, those of you in this thread who’ve taken the time to post over there are to be thanked.
Those of you in this thread who have avoided taking some sort of stand about Original Sin should either be ashamed or feel negligent. I’m not entirely confident about being grateful for your absence but neither am I sad …
I’m not at all sure that I want the lot of you over in the Great Debates thread, titled "The Abomination that is Original Sin.
That said, those of you in this thread who’ve taken the time to post over there are to be thanked.
Those of you in this thread who have avoided taking some sort of stand about Original Sin should either be ashamed or feel negligent. I’m not entirely confident about being grateful for your absence but neither am I sad …
Not in the same manner, they don’t. Matthew says he hanged himself, Acts (Luke) says he fell down, yada yada. Does not say that this was the cause of death. If you say it does, then you’re adding into the verse.
Again, slight correction. Matthew says he threw the money into the temple after the chief priests rejected him. They picked it up, but specifically state they cannot accept it. They purchased the field with “his” money, not their own. If Luke refers to that as Judas’ purchase, is that not conceivably, possibly, potentially, in any way irony? Or even direct truth, as the temple priests were not accepting the money, considering it tainted, as Matthew notes.
So far, so good. But see above; death by hanging is clearly indicated. Death by falling in a field and bursting open your bodyin a field? And in what universe does this sort of thing happen? Why is this explanation more logical than mine?
That’s your interpretation. I look at it this way (logically); 1. both name Judas;
2. both specify Judas as the apostle who betrayed Jesus;
3. both note that he dies (Matthew directly - “hanged”, Luke indirectly - “body burst open and intestines spilled out”);
4. both note the source of the money being used to buy the potter’s field;
5. both record the name of the field, and attribute it to Judas.
Clearly we’re talking about the same person and event. Now, if Matthew is recording part of the story and Luke another, do the two combine in a manner that fits the known facts?
I submit that they do. There are certainly no inconsistencies here; at most they do not dictate the exact same points. Is this to be totally unexpected? I’d love to have a police detective come in right about now and confirm that two witnesses to the same series of events can give differing versions, both of which can be true.
You can’t make that argument. We’re dealing with incomplete historical records. It would be a stretch to infer that because we don’t have letters dated within days or weeks of the event that they didn’t at that time exist. We don’t have anyone specifically claiming to be an on-site eyewitness to this event, we don’t have copies of other letters that must have been written at the time of Jesus’ ministry, both by the apostles, disciples and at least some of the other tens of thousands of people in the city for Passover. If these two letters were the sum total of eyewitness testimony, we would still be unable to fill the gaps with complete confidence, because neither claims to be the exhaustive report of the event. A short paragraph is hardly sufficient to claim that we know everything we need to know, and can make a certain judgment based on this bit of information.
Not exactly. I submit that the two, as part of the whole, can reasonably be reconciled. You claim they cannot.
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeidama, that is, Field of Blood. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
Matthew, Acts
Works for me. If you choose not to see the complementary nature of the two passages, you’re doing so out of sheer obstinence.
Those passages don’t make any sense together. First, Judas rejects the money and hangs himself. Then the priests decide to use the money to buy burial ground. Then Judas buys a field with the money he received and his body bursts open.
I will waste no more time on you.
Matthew says that Judas hung himself. It doesn’t say where, but it clearly implies that he did before the priests bought the potter’s field. The cause of death in Acts is that his guts exploded. It says nothing about hanging. Matthew says the priests bought the field, Acts says that Judas bought it. These are contradictions. I find your attempts to reconcile them to be reaching and unconvincing. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with this, so let’s agree to disagree. I’m sorry, but I am utterly unpersuaded by what I feel is a largely eisegetic apologia.