the "end times"

Great Debates
81

I’ve always wondered how Jews could fight for the Confederacy. Examining slavery through the culture of the time explains why a moral Christian could support it(Yes, I know the Civil War involved issues besides slavery. I’m simplifying to make this post more concise and coherent). But each Passover, Jews commemorate our slavery and our liberation. The Passover seder(a ritual meal), includes several expicit mentions of how harsh and sad it is to be a slave and how wonderful a thing freedom is.

I always wondered how a Jew could reconcile the two.

Now I see.

 The Jews of the Confederacy were not fighting for state's rights. They were not fighting to defend a Southern way of life.

They were fighting to preserve their casual sex!

Freyr
I’m not trying to compare Ragnarok to Revelation. I asked about it because I’m fascinated by Norse/Teutonic mythology and culture. And hijacking the thread from a discussion of the Second Coming to a discussion of the Twilight Of The Gods would have been quite a feather in my cap.

82

The “end of time” is pure fantasy. It might happen tomorrow, but I certainly wouldn’t look to the Bible for an accurate prediction.

I’ve been hearing Christians use modern events to indicate that the end is nigh, usually by drawing parallels with The Book of Revelations. The thing is, I’ve been hearing this stuff for 30 years. Obviously they were wrong then.

I’d put equal faith in tea-leaf readers, and afficianados of Nostradamus or Jim Jones.

83

Diogenes the Cynic:

I don’t see how my original quote had anything to do with extraordinary claims or any quality of evidence. It’s not really a matter of dispute either that the phrase “Son of Man” meant “human being” in Hebrew and Aramaic or that that the synoptic gospels show dependency. Luke and Matthew are both dependent on Mark. That’s not really even debated by most Christian scholars anymore. What is “claptrap” about the suggestion that a particular idiom was misinterpreted (or reinterpreted) by religiously motivated writers, long after the fact, who were dealing with sayings translated from a language they didn’t speak?

When I said that “It all sounds like claptrap” I was referring to the whole end times thing and belief in this whole religion thing in general. I thought I had clarified that, sorry if I didn’t.

He was making a point about sacrifice. He wasn’t saying, “look, she’s giving all her money to the temple, how wonderful,” he was saying look she’s giving away all her money to the temple." It wasn’t about the temple it was about piercing perceptions about the virtue of giving large sums of money when the gift of that money was not a real sacrifice. Jesus was making a point about the woman’s heart, not about the importance of giving money to the temple.

Yes, I gather that it was important that she gave ALL her money. But if he was much in favor of giving to the poor instead of the temple he could have made the point that he appreciated her sentiment but that rather than give to the temple she should give to the poor instead.

Jesus did say that anyone who wanted to follow him had to first give all his money to the poor. not the temple.

I got you. If it’s a false prophesy then it’s Matthew’s screw up, however if it sounds nice then we attribute it to Jesus. Are you sure your agnostic?

You can find worse than that in Hebrew scripture. For instance, if a man raped a virgin, he then had to marry her. The OT also endorses polygamy and the use of concubines. There’s all kinds of blood and guts stuff too. You can even find passages where God orders the murder of infants. I think passages like that are a real problem for Christians (and Jews), but I also think it’s sophist to try to extropolate that Jesus, because he told Jews to follow the law, therefore must have approved of every violent or morally contradictory word in Hebrew scripture.

If Jesus thought that the OT was the word of god and Jesus followed god then I don’t think it is unfair to say that he approved of what he thought god said to do. It’s not like Jesus didn’t say any nasty stuff on his own. If we take Christianity at face value with all that trinity stuff then it was Jesus himself who was drowning the whole planet.

I’m not sure why I feeled compelled to argue with you. I’m not a Christian and I don’t even believe in God (or any other paranormal phenomenon). I’m as hardcore a skeptic as it gets but I don’t feel the need to take potshots at the religious views of others (unless they’re really out there), and some of the people you’re talking to are not exactly fundamentalist bigots. Most of the Christians on this board are petty rational.

I will agree that many people are able to compartmentalize their irrational beliefs and seem fairly rational on the whole. What you call a pot shot is in my opinion taking ones irrational view and trying to juxtapose it with the rational brain. No one thinks it’s particularly polite when you mention that their prayers didn’t work or their god fell short of his promises but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pointed out from time to time. They obviously aren’t getting it on their own.

Where physical evidence contradicts the Bible, they tend to believe the physical evidence.

Not really. When they pray for something and it doesn’t happen, instead of accepting the reality that their prayer didn’t work they say that it may come true later or that they asked with an impure heart. In this thread the reply was that the prophesy was not incorrect but that they just don’t understand it well enough. Otherwise it’s the general “we can’t understand gods ways” or “it wasn’t meant to be taken literally” or “you just have to have faith…”

You seem to have an issue with any religious belief at all or with any view of the Bible as a source of spiritual wisdom.

I’m not saying the bible is a bad read, but I certainly don’t think it’s a good source of wisdom, spiritual or otherwise.

To put it another way, If you don’t believe in god, then it seems clear that the Bible is an ancient collection of books written by shepherds in the desert. If you do believe in God, then there’s no reason the Bible can’t contain some information about him.

If the former is the case (and I think it is) then I don’t have much of an argument, I could care less whether it was a guy named Jesus at all or whether he was the figment of someone’s imagination. If the latter is the case, then I see no reason to think that info on that god can be more found in the bible than in the Iliad, actually I prefer the Iliad as I don’t recall it being so contradictory. And this “some information” talk comes down to the crux, which some? If it’s half written by god and half the devil, we have know way of knowing other than using our own judgment. If we can use our own judgment then we don’t need the bible as a guide.

What is it that you’re hoping o accomplish here exactly?

Fight ignorance.

84

How do you know he didn’t? The Gospels don’t purport to contain every word uttered bt Jesus, and he made his position clear on the poor in other sayings.

It’s not that arbitrary. There is a core of sayings (about a quarter of what’s in the gospels) which have a high probablilty of being original to a historical Jesus. This conclusion is based on a number of factors, including multiple independent attestation, internal philosophical consistency and, frankly, historical plausibility. Anything which connotates a supernatural aspect to Jesus (e.g. his prophesy in Matthew of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE) is presumed to be fiction. Maybe you think Jesus actually did prophesy an event that would take place forty years after his death, because that’s the only way you can attribute those words to him. Personally, I prefer to stay grounded in reality. That doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate, though, to form an educated guess about other sayings that may be authentic, just as it’s legitimate to try to figure out what Socrates really said as opposed to what Plato had him say.

And yes, I’m sure I’m agnostic, but occasionally I flirt with atheism.

You’re assuming an awful lot here. Jesus always made it a point to place compassion above the law. Even his healings violated the letter of the law. I don’t know what “nasty stuff” you think he said. Jesus had no part in formulating the trinity theology. The trinity’s not even in the Bible. So I don’t know what you mean by taking Christianty at “face value.”

Except it not irrational, per se, to believe in God. Beliefs are only irrational when they conflict with reality. As for whether prayer “works,” that depends on what you expect to get out of prayer. It doesn’t have to be petitional.

See above, prayer doesn’t have be petitional. Polycarp would be better equipped to field this issue, though. We’ve had other threads on the efficacy of prayer (in which I took the skeptical position) where Poly acquitted himself very well. I feel a little funny defending a practice that I don’t…well…practice, but i know that others on the board woukd find your position overly simplistic.

Really? There’s no wisdom at all in the Bible? Not one kernel of insight? None of the parables are worthwhile? None of the Beatitudes? Not even the Golden Rule? What book would you say does contain wisdom?

I’m not saying God is any more present in the Bible than in the Illiad, just that it’s written by people who were trying to tackle Big Questions, and tht some of those people had insights into the human condition.

The Illiad is one contiguous work, btw. The Bible is a library of books,. That’s why it’s self-contradictory. It’s the collected wisdom of a thousand years of history. The Illiad is just one story. Homer’s version of the Trojan War does contradict other ancient accounts, btw.

The Bible is written neither by god, nor the devil, just people. We can decide what we like or don’t like in it just like any other book. Cherry picking is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate way to read the Bible (or any other book). No, you don’t need the Bible as a guide but there’s nothing wrong with reading it to stimulate your mind a little bit. It’s a fairly significant document from a historical standpoint. I read it the same way I read Beowolf or The Epic of Gilgamesh. It’s a fascinating record of a remote time and place.

splinter-eye-plank.

85

OH! Thank you SO much! I don’t know HOW anyone understood the Bible until YOU came along!
You obviously have more authority than the Bible itself and know EXACTLY when its allegory and what the allegory even MEANS!
I have seen the Light!
Thank you Again!!!

86

You’re welcome. :wink:

Seriously, though, that’s not my interpretation, it’s the standard historical and traditional understanding. I haven’t said anything radical. The Catholic Church has been saying the same thing for centuries. The millenialist view is the deviant view, and it doesn’t really hold up to to historical and literary analysis.

87

Okay.
So, maybe it’ll be Feb. 30th then?
:wink:

88

Diogenes the Cynic:

Me:

Yes, I gather that it was important that she gave ALL her money. But if he was much in favor of giving to the poor instead of the temple he could have made the point that he appreciated her sentiment but that rather than give to the temple she should give to the poor instead.

How do you know he didn’t? The Gospels don’t purport to contain every word uttered bt Jesus, and he made his position clear on the poor in other sayings.

Please Diogenes, you can do better than that. How do you know Jesus didn’t walk up and slap a little girl. The woman gave all her money to the temple, and according to anything written Jesus approved.

It’s not that arbitrary. There is a core of sayings (about a quarter of what’s in the gospels) which have a high probability of being original to a historical Jesus. This conclusion is based on a number of factors, including multiple independent attestation, internal philosophical consistency and, frankly, historical plausibility.

Considering none of these core sayings were recorded until 30 plus years after Jesus’ death, (assuming no divine intervention) I would guess that regular sayings have a probability of being true of maybe 10%, perhaps your “core sayings” bump it up to 15% but maybe I’m being too generous. I think the most truthful statement you could make is that we really have little to no idea what the “historical Jesus” actually said.

  • Jesus always made it a point to place compassion above the law. Even his healings violated the letter of the law. I don’t know what “nasty stuff” you think he said. Jesus had no part in formulating the trinity theology. The trinity’s not even in the Bible. So I don’t know what you mean by taking Christianity at “face value.”*

Matthew 10: 34-36
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

Luke 14: 26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple.

John 15: 6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Your right Diogenes, I don’t know how I missed all that compassion.:wink: Regarding the trinity and Christianity, I think you know what I’m talking about.

See above, prayer doesn’t have be petitional.

I never said prayer had to be petitional. The point is that it frequently is and that is where we can measure whether it works or not. And we both know it works about as often whether you pray to said god or invisible pink dragons.

Polycarp would be better equipped to field this issue, though. We’ve had other threads on the efficacy of prayer (in which I took the skeptical position) where Poly acquitted himself very well.

Polycarp can jump in anytime and say that he prays to praise or be closer to god or whatever. I’d just say that was rationalizing after the fact to prevent himself from having to face the fact that all the measurable prayers didn’t work any better than probability would suggest, even though the Jesus says they should. He’d probably disagree and then I wouldn’t believe him.

I feel a little funny defending a practice that I don’t…well…practice, but i know that others on the board woukd find your position overly simplistic.

Would you call it overly simplistic?

Me:
quote:

I’m not saying the bible is a bad read, but I certainly don’t think it’s a good source of wisdom, spiritual or otherwise.

Diogenes
Really? There’s no wisdom at all in the Bible? Not one kernel of insight? None of the parables are worthwhile? None of the Beatitudes? Not even the Golden Rule? What book would you say does contain wisdom?

You might try arguing with what I actually said, instead of what you want me to have said. I didn’t say there was no wisdom in the bible, just that it was a poor source. YMMV but I didn’t get anything out of your particular examples. I suppose that we could consider a poor source being one that has a less than average wisdom per crap ratio. As such I really don’t think the bible is above average in this regard. Now if you’ll accept my working definition of wisdom (useful knowledge) then I can give you an extensive list of books I consider better sources. Let me know.

I’m not saying God is any more present in the Bible than in the Illiad, just that it’s written by people who were trying to tackle Big Questions, and tht some of those people had insights into the human condition.

I would say they did a poor job of answering those Big Questions, that their insight was generally poor and we have far better sources today. I don’t necessarily fault them, they had poor tools for discerning reality back then.

The Illiad is one contiguous work, btw. The Bible is a library of books,. That’s why it’s self-contradictory.

I was referring to the bigger contradictions that hold true regardless of the number of books. Stuff like an all powerful all loving god who made a world that is so screwed, and then punishes us for his mistakes. At least Zeus wasn’t claiming to be all powerful or all loving. The gods screwing with people for their own selfish interests as in the Iliad, is a lot more consistent with a screwed world.

splinter-eye-plank.

Pot-kettle-black. You had to see that coming.:slight_smile:

89

Diogenes, to some extent, I sympathise with badchad’s argument as he has little regard for Jesus & thus is quite willing to accept that Jesus said what he considers rather nasty stuff & that he also approved of the OT’s nasty stuff. You however do like Jesus & thus would edit down his harsh words & put him at odds with OT harshness. I revere Jesus & the OT & accept but struggle with their harshness, sometimes fully adopting it, sometimes reinterpreting it as nicely as possible (hence for example, my belief in a Hell which either brings rebel souls into reconciliation with God or annihilates them).

90

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I am uncomfortable with the popularity of Rapture and Tribulation teachings–and find it odd that the most literal and fundamental interpreters of the Bible are the most vocal on the subject:

http://www.orthodoxonline.com/leftbehind.htm

(Emphases mine.)

There isn’t a great deal I can add to what the author of the above wrote, but I thought I’d contribute since many people (Christian or otherwise) I’ve encountered online assume that most Christians believe in the recent, rather ecclesiastical (and dare I say profitable?) descriptions of the end times.

91

I just finished reading The Da Vinci Code in which they say that the term “end times” refers to the end of the Age of Pisces, rather than the apocalypse. Now, I realize that this book is fiction, but much of it is pretty well researched. Is there a school of thought that subscribes to this idea?

92

I understand what you’re saying, and badchad’s perspective is consistent, if contemptuous. Personally, I feel constrained neither by necessity of faith, nor hostility towards Christianity to pick and choose what I like from the Bible. Absolute dismissal of religious texts is, IMO, just as irrational and silly as fanatic inerrantism.

93

Diogenes the Cynic:

Are you making the argument that I am absolutely dismissing the bible? If so what do you mean by that? I recall writing that it wasn’t a bad read. While I think the philosophy of Jesus (as god or a historical figure) leaves a lot to be desired, I still think it’s a good book to read. If for no other reason than for people to find out how screwed up it is in it’s entirety rather than having them hear the same sound bites of “god’s love and forgiveness” from their local preacher, or country music singer.:wink:

I don’t see what is irrational about that. I do think it is irrational to talk up all the good stuff a person (Jesus in this case) said or did, while ignoring or minimizing the bad stuff that they said or did. By doing so you could make any villain look good.

94

Well, that’s a pretty back-handed “compliment” and doesn’t really refute my suggestion that you’ve been dismissive and contemptuous of the Bible.

Here’s the thing, Chad. I don’t care bout the consistency of the Character of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. I like the beatitudes, I like the parables, I like many of the sayings. I also like the Gospel of Thomas quite a bit. It doesn’t matter a whit to me if Jesus said them or not, or if he said other “nasty” stuff or if he didn’t. I do have some considered (and studied) opinions about it though.

I happen to think that there is a core of logia which stems from a historical mystic teacher. I also happen to think that this core is buried under a lot of mythology and misattributed sayings. Contrary to your own imprecations it is possible to remove at least some of these layers. I think one tactic you would agree with is the a priori assumption that anything paranormal or supernatural associated with the character is fiction. This would include prophesies or predictions that the historical figure could not have made while alive. It is also possible to extract shared written sources from multiple gospels (Q) and to determine if some sayings derive from more than one source (thus making them more likely to be authentic, but nothing is ever said to be known for sure). Another strategy is to recognize “editorial” type passages which accompany embedded pericopes. Other aspects are considered as well, such as internal phiosophical consistency and historical and cultural plausibility and context.

You may be familiar with the Jesus Seminar which has used these and other techniques extensively to try and determine what can be known with certainty about historical Jesus (the answer is not much). This is purely a historical enterprise, not a religious one and the have been excoriated for their presumptuous by conservative Christian groups.

The relative merit of the stuff I like in the Bible is not, for me, tied to the need for any agreement or consistency with anything else in the Bible. You say the philosophy of Jesus is “screwed up,” but that’s because you read it as a contiguous philosophical statement and I don’t. I see it as a bunch of sayings attributed to a guy who probably did exist, but who we know virtually nothing about. We don’t know how much, if anything, of what is attributed to him is authentic, but we do know that some of it is pretty cool. I like the stuff that’s cool. I discard the other stuff. I’m not looking for a spiritual guide or a divine source, I’m just looking for stuff I think is cool.

Think of it this way. What if we discovered a joke book attributed to some long deceased comic. We suspect that the deceased comic did not write all of the jokes because they’re all over the place in quality and style, but a few of the jokes are funny as hell. Can’t we just say, well at least those jokes are funny, or do we say that because some of the jokes suck that we can’t laugh at any of them? Can we say that the person who wrote the funny jokes wasn’t really funny because he wrote crap jokes too? Maybe the old comic never existed and the jokes were all just written by other people at different times. No matter, the funny jokes are still funny and the bad jokes still suck.
That’s what it gets down to for me. The gospels contain a bunch of sayings attributed to Jesus. Some of those sayings I like. Some I don’t. I find the historical and religious conjectures interesting, but the conclusions of those conjectures don’t have any bearing on what whether I like the parable of the sheeps and goats or not.

I’m an empiricist, I’m interested in the truth, not faith, and I also have an intense curiosty about the historical founders of the great world religions (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) I just really, really wonder what they were like and what they actually taught, so I pursued religious history in college. It was pure curiosity. I find some of the teachings attributed to them quite intriguing but I don’t, for an instant, attach any credibility to supernatural claims made about them, or even necessarily assume that they said everything attributed to them. I don’t even dismiss the possibility that they were raving, delusional schizophrenics who talking to angels one second and devils the next. They said some things that were cool. That’s all that really matters to me.

95

Diogenes the Cynic

Well, that’s a pretty back-handed “compliment” and doesn’t really refute my suggestion that you’ve been dismissive and contemptuous of the Bible.

Dismissive, I spent better than a month reading that god damn thing:). As literature I still think it’s a good read but I will admit I am very compemptuous of anyone who would use it to guide their lives. I think it has real costs and often causes objective damage.

*You may be familiar with the Jesus Seminar which has used these and other techniques extensively to try and determine what can be known with certainty about historical Jesus (the answer is not much). *

I’ll agree with that.

Think of it this way. What if we discovered a joke book attributed to some long deceased comic. We suspect that the deceased comic did not write all of the jokes because they’re all over the place in quality and style, but a few of the jokes are funny as hell. Can’t we just say, well at least those jokes are funny, or do we say that because some of the jokes suck that we can’t laugh at any of them? Can we say that the person who wrote the funny jokes wasn’t really funny because he wrote crap jokes too? Maybe the old comic never existed and the jokes were all just written by other people at different times. No matter, the funny jokes are still funny and the bad jokes still suck.

I like your analogy, but let me address it from my perspective. I don’t think Jesus’ jokes are very funny. A few are ok, and I might crack a smile but I never laugh out loud. I would say check out the Russell, Nietzsche and Voltaire, and you’ll get far more laughs for your money. All this is opinion of course and I can respect your right to differ. What I take issue on is that when I mention a real zonker of a joke told by Jesus you come back and say that that joke is out of character for him and was probably thrown in by his biographer as Jesus is way too funny to tell such a stupid joke. Perhaps I got it wrong but that is the impression I gathered from this thread.

I’m an empiricist, I’m interested in the truth, not faith, and I also have an intense curiosty about the historical founders of the great world religions (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) I just really, really wonder what they were like and what they actually taught, so I pursued religious history in college. It was pure curiosity.

I haven’t read the Quran yet but I figure it is only a matter of time. I’ve read a little on Buddhism and I thought some of Siddhartha’s jokes were pretty funny.

96

Personal taste. I’ve read Nietzsche and some of Voltaire (not Russell). I’ve also read a lot of Alan Watts, Thich Nhat Hanh, Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain, Eli Wiesel and Carl Sagan. They’re all pretty funny. I never said I limited myself to one book. As to Jesus, I think the parables and beatitudes are pretty damned subversive and intriguing. I also like the Gospel of thomas because I think the sayings are very Zen-like, they’re like little koans. Jesus didn’t speak in platitudes (at least not the stuff that I like). There’s a lot going on in what seems like some pretty simple adages.

No, that’s exactly right, but I would argue that it’s a perfectly valid approach based on perfectly valid analytical methods. Similar methods are used, for instance, to determine the authorship of disputed manuscripts by dead writers. Literary analysis can tell you if Shakespeare really wrote some newly discovered play or if Hemmingway wrote the manuscript found in a trunk somewhere. Literary analysis is not an arbitrary process and it is not prejudiced by any preordained conclusions. In the case of the Gospels, much can be learned from an anlaysis of certain patterns of speech, use of vocabulary and rhetorical style (there are computer programs that do this. They look for literary “fingerprints.”). This is obviously complicated when dealing with translated texts and no extant record of what was said in the original language) but even so, you can break down the text and say this is from one source, this is from another, etc, There is a body of sayings which are consistent with a single “voice” which can be abstracted from the overlying narratives, commentaries, quotes from the Pentateuch, etc. This body of sayings can be said to be linguistically and rhetorically discrete from other parts of the text. Now it can certainly be debated whether we have discovered historical Jesus at this point or whether we just have, at bottom, another layer of fabrication but that doesn’t really bother me personally. I have no emotional or religious investment in needing a belief that Jesus said those things. I just say that I like that layer, that it’s likely that it stems from a historical Jesus, and that even if it doesn’t, it;s still pretty cool no matter who said it. I can still refer to these sayings as the words of Jesus as a matter of convenience and as a literary convention similar to a discussion of the words or “motives” of Hamlet, even though, obviously, I know that Hamlet is only a character.

The Koran is pretty hard to get through. Try some Hindu stuff. The Ashtavakra Gita is pretty cool. It’s short and breezy and has a low bullshit content.

97

My problem with Armageddon is that it is portrayed as “good vs evil.”

What if it is “evil vs evil” and the two sides have been manipulated into being stupid. Where does the scriptures say one side is good? The Christians just assume they are.

98

Diogenes the Cynic:

Personal taste. I’ve read Nietzsche and some of Voltaire (not Russell).

I loved Voltaire in part because his stuff is funny not only as in our analogy funny but also laugh out loud funny, primarily Zadig and more so Candide. Call it a hunch but I think you would dig Bertrand Russell.
I’ve also read a lot of Alan Watts, Thich Nhat Hanh, Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain, Eli Wiesel and Carl Sagan. They’re all pretty funny. I never said I limited myself to one book. As to Jesus, I think the parables and beatitudes are pretty damned subversive and intriguing. I also like the Gospel of thomas because I think the sayings are very Zen-like, they’re like little koans. Jesus didn’t speak in platitudes (at least not the stuff that I like). There’s a lot going on in what seems like some pretty simple adages.