So, Polycarp, what do you wear under your kilt?
Paging Monty…Monty, please pick up the white courtesy phone…
Regards,
Shodan
Daniel(right above me there) is right.I have been involved in some pretty nifty existential debates about God/gods adn such but never any that involved ME defining “all christians” for them!
Anyways, wanted to respond to this:
**
This is tricky because, employing Occam’s Razor we can critically examine so-called “mystical experiences”(or the anecdotal claism of such anyway) and conclude that what the believer accepts as “true” is not rationally justifiable.If one understands the human belief mechanism well enough, it is easy to see that there are much better expalnations for alleged “mystical experience” than what the believer assents to.
**
We DO have factual evidence of Alexander the Great…we just don’t have empirical evidence.The issue here is the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary claims.One does not have to cough up DNA and videotape of a specific bi-sexual macedonian conqueror to say that his existence was plausible.Historical texts and volumes of anecdotes will suffice.
However, the same is not true for ‘God’ or psychics or ghosts.For these claims one must cough up extraordinary evidence else they be regarded as FALSE.
I’m not trying to be awkward, but the distinction seems a little arbitrary as stated above, perhaps it just needs fleshing out with a bit more explanation.
just a quick note to Artemius-
What Presbyterian Church do you attend? There are two main Preb denominations in the US- the PCUSA, the larger moderate-to-liberal one, and the PC of America (the staunchly conservative
one- D. James Kennedy is a leading pastor in that one). I’d be suprised if you heard the “believe or burn message” in a PCUSA body tho I suppose there are some.
Look up Cecil’s answer to the Holy Blood, Holy Grail thing. I don’t know about the above claim that Baigent is financed by a supposed descendant of Jesus (I do know that Laurence Gardner author of BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL is financed by the Scottish aristocratic Sinclair/StClair family which also claims descent.)
RE the Church Fathers- there are two you might look into- Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. They taught that all will eventually be saved thru Christ. So those who don’t believe in the Risen Jesus in this life will eventually come to trust Him as they find that He indeed is Lord & Savior in the Afterlife (in other words, those who die as non-Christians may well come to Heaven but they will be Christians by the time they get there). I hope that is the case- however, I do believe it’s safest & prevents a lot of unnecessary turmoil if one can trust Christ in this life.
Finally- what about the Jews who were there at the time of Christ who didn’t believe? well, they accused Christ & the disciples of sorcery & heresy. But there were many Jews who did believe in Jesus, they became Christians. Alas, as the Jewish believers were
outnumbered by the Gentile believers after 70AD (fall of Jerusalem) & the 90sAD expulsion of Jewish Christians from the Synagogues, the Christian Church became de-Judaized & ultra-Hellenized; and with Constantine in the 300s, it became ultra-Romanized. Fortunately, in this past century, the Jewish roots of the Christian faith are getting more attention, more Jewish people are finding a home in the Christian faith & hopefully in the next century, they will have a greater impact on the Church as a whole.
I wonder too. There are corresponding factoids about what constitutes mainstream Muslim beliefs.
I don’t want to hijack this perfectly good thread, nor make hyperbolic comparisons, but I was dismayed that moderate Muslims failed to make their voice heard above those of the “Muslim” extremists – it seems to me that if it was incumbent on anyone to speak out about atrocities carried out in the name of Allah, it was the moderate Muslims (who had both the motivation and the authority to do so). This seemed not to happen (I am quite prepared to believe that the media played a role in this – “Moderate Muslim Condemns Atrocities” is not a “great” headline).
Correspondingly, I thought that Judith Hayes missed a real opportunity by choosing to discontinue her debate with you – presumably she did want to further her “cause” that fundamentalist “Chistians” practise a debased kind of thought (that hardly seems Christian at all) – your well-rounded, sceptical beliefs should have been grist to her mill. Her mileage, obviously, varied.
Polycarp wrote:
<<My belief/value system, if you’re interested, centers on Jesus’s teachings about the two primary responsibilities – love God and love your fellow man, on non-judgmental, compassionate behavior, and on the evil inherent in arrogating to oneself the right to judge and regulate the behavior of others – all borne out by Jesus’s recorded teachings and most by particular passages in Paul and the O.T. as well.>>
Thanks for the reply. Your beliefs, as stated above, pretty much mirror mine. Somehow a physical resurrection got thrown in there when, IMHO, it was a figurative one. People were so uneducated back then that Jesus realized his radical teachings would have to be primarily in parable form.
Paco,
From one long-winder to another…
Don’t need to feel remorse over your position. I grew up Church of Christ. Was dragged to church 3 times a week until about 17 when I rebelled. I’ve heard all the arguments and brow-beating you described. Then years of looking into other cultures/religions/beliefs, deep reflection, pondering, and much thinking and even more reading, I’ve arrived where I currently am. But the true litmus test of whether you are on the right track or not is…are you happy? If so, then who cares what your belief paradigm is.
“Christians” (as pointed out, who or what a Christian exactly is is open to debate) seem to lose all sense of objectivity from what I’ve seen. Not all, but most. Jesus must be figuratively weeping tears of sorrow over how his disciples and Saul screwed things up so badly. And, please, you fundies out there, I’ve no wish to explain or debate my position. I can’t prove my position any more than you can.
Tomndebb:
All these rebuttals are becoming a little tiring so I’ll just briefly respond.
I’ve heard all the arguments against Baigent which is why I specifically suggested ignoring the first half of HBHG pertaining to the lineage and such. However, no one will ever convince me there’s not something fishy going on regarding the church and the suspicious behavior of the Knight’s Templars. Enough said on that subject.
Regarding the section on the crucifixion and such. I don’t care who financed him, he simply organizes the pieces of the crucifixion/resurrection puzzle into a plausible alternate scenario. You have to ask yourself which is more plausible: Baigent’s scenario or someone coming back alive after rotting for 3 days in a burial chamber? From that point of view you (Christians) appear pretty silly, naive, and gullible. Like Paco pointed out. Chrisitians love to use science when it suits their needs but are the first to ignore it when it is contradictory.
Regarding celibacy and the priesthood. You don’t get it, do you? IT AIN’T NATURAL for chris’sakes. It all goes back to the position of Christianity being based on man being born into sin, we’re basically sinful beings, and that we must suffer, and Christ literally died for our sins so we can be saved. A real kindegarten mentality. Sheesh. Man wasn’t designed to be celibate. And all the pedophilia in the news is just the tip of the iceberg, IMO. What we’ve seen is just recent history. How long has the Catholic religion been around? I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly quote the studies that say it’s no more prevalent than in other denominations but just because they say it doesn’t mean it’s true. They are general studies based probably on questionnaires and such. We only know about those who have come forward. It’s like rape statistics. There’s a lot we don’t know about because of shame/guilt. Just what Catholocism is based on.
Artemius, you’re arguing with assertions, not with evidence. And you’re stereotyping Christians over and over. Please don’t. Please back up your claims with citations, so that we can evaluate their truth rather than just accepting them on faith. Frankly, your views come across as founded on ignorance and bigotry, just the sort of thing I hate about fundamentalism. If I’m wrong about the foundation of your beliefs, I’d love you to show me so.
Daniel
Artemius wrote:
<But are you so desparate now that you have to resort to word play? Jews and Christians were both there. Why is there a conflicting story if they all saw the same thing so spectacular?>
Neurotik wrote:
<<Who’s desperate? I’ve pointed out several instances of your ignorance. You have yet to make a valid point. >>
I feel I’ve made several valid points. Don’t blame me for your shortcomings.
Artermius wrote:
<Since you can’t seem to read like you accused me, I said heaven or hell is here and now, not some mythical afterlife, IMHO. I don’t except Christianity in its current form because I think Jesus’s teachings were subverted.>
Neurotik replied:
<<Fair enough. Of course, you’re now claiming heaven or hell is here and now. Please provide proof. Since you are the one making the claim.>>
I’m not “just now” claiming heaven or hell is here or now. I said it in my post of 6-24-03 at 8:24PM. Reading and comprehension a problem for you? Did I not add to the statement above-IMHO, which stands for In My Humble Opinion, which requires no proof, that’s why they call it “opiinion”? Perhaps a debating forum is not the place for you.
Artemius wrote:
<I don’t accept Chrisitianity if it relies on the crucifixion/resurrection as it’s foundation, as it does. Without it, why not be a Buddhist or a Muslim?>
Neurotik replied:
<<I dunno, why not? I have no problem with that.>>
Then you are misinformed as well. In case you haven’t heard, the crucifixion/resurrection is the bedrock that Christianity rests on. That’s what makes it “Christianity”.
Artemius wrote:
<Yawn…unless you can come up with something better, your boring repitition is, well, boring. Why don’t you propogate some of your atheist ignorance?>
Neurotik replied:
<<Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So far you’ve made claims about what Christianity believes. I then pointed out your error. You then made the claim even more emphatically. I then continued to point out your error. See the need for repitition? Had you simply accepted that not all Christians believe that you need to believe in the resurrection in order to go to heaven, we could have been done with this yesterday.>>
Wrrrrrrrrrrrrrong. You haven’t pointed out squat except that you appear to be rude. Then you really miss the point by stating that not all Christians believe the core issues which makes my point for me. That is, if Christians can’t even agree on the Crucifixion/resurrection, its ramifications, and who goes to heaven and hell, what a “Christian” is, then what exactly is “Christianity” other than a way to live pretty much the same as a good Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, or Hindu. My brother, a fundie, regards anyone not believing in the resurrection a non-Christian and specifically cannot enter heaven. Other so-called “Christians” do not agree. Go figure. And no one asked for your poison pen posts and I don’t like your tone and do not care to respond to any more of your posts. This is a debating forum.
lol…This looks interesting… *Nomadic_One ponders debating…
Remember, my child, the parable of the pot and the kettle.
Personally, I have no trouble with folks who don’t believe in the literal truth of the crucifixion-resurrection story calling themselves Christians. Why should I?
And why does Christianity need to be in a class apart from Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, et al? With the dying-ressurection deity story, it’s in a class with Celtic Paganism and Mithraism. Ain’t nothing unique under the Son.
Daniel
Good. We’re supposed to be fighting ignorance, here, not promulgating it.
As to the rest:
- Of course the resurrection is implausible. It would hardly be miraculous or singular if it was a common event. Did it really happen? There is no way to prove it. A skeptic must disbelieve it, a person of faith may find themselves compelled to believe it. Since I do not argue that it must have occurred, looking at any of a dozen alternative scenarios, each lacking in evidence, is a bit silly. I can invent plausible scenarios; that will not make them true.
And I did confuse Baigent and Gardner in my earlier post. Baignet is a little less of a loon than Gardner, but they rely on some of the same rather silly reconstructions.) - Catholicism is not the only tradition that supports celibacy. Claims that it is “not natural” are simply opinions based on one’s own predispositions. It is equally true to claim that monogamy is unnatural (yet, in a polygynous society, some males would be celibate whether they wished to be or not). It can be claimed with equal fervor (and a similar lack of evidence) that marriage of any sort is “not natural.” Attacking celibacy as “not natural” is simply a way of expressing a personal rejection of others’ values, not a legitimate criticism of a way of life.
(And, of course, your “tip of the iceberg” comment is simply a way of saying that you will hold onto your cherished beliefs despite a lack of evidence, just the way that Christians will continue to believe in the resurrection, despite a lack of evidence.)
FriarTed,
Thanks for the interest.
I’ve really no desire to research Presbyterianism or any Christian denomination for that matter. I enjoy my particular church for personal reasons. Salvation and all that, as defined by Christianity (mainstream) is just a bunch of nonsense, IMHO. What matters to me are taking those actions that make me happy, which, again IMHO, is our true purpose for being. And true happiness, IMHO, can only come by way of the teachings of Jesus (as interpreted by me and my filter system), Buddha, and Krishna (as examples). If Christianity, as defined by whatever denomination you belong to, makes you happy then I say more power to you. You don’t need to look outside of you to find god, happiness, or love, IMHO.
this is true to find god, but to find God you must look further. gods can be any number of things, but God is what counts.
DanielWithrow wrote:
<<Artemius, you’re arguing with assertions, not with evidence. And you’re stereotyping Christians over and over. Please don’t. Please back up your claims with citations, so that we can evaluate their truth rather than just accepting them on faith. Frankly, your views come across as founded on ignorance and bigotry, just the sort of thing I hate about fundamentalism. If I’m wrong about the foundation of your beliefs, I’d love you to show me so.>>
Uh…I believe that is the whole point Daniel…there is no evidence regarding the fundamental assertion of the crucifixion/resurrection. Then again, you weren’t clear on what you were referring to. But, O.K., here’s some evidence for you. Did you know it is scientifically impossible to resussitate someone who’s been dead for 3 days? Is that enough evidence for you?Where is your evidence that I am sterotyping Christians. Pointing out flaws in their paradigm is not stereotyping. To say they lose their objectivity is sterotyping? That’s a stretch. So, please don’t be so vague and imprecise. Truth is relative and once again, for you, these are my opinions. No so-called “evidence” is required on the part of those questioning the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Once again, for you, the onus is on them. Is this hard for you to understand? Ignorance is something you seem to be displaying by failing to grasp simple issues. You appear to be demanding from me what I’d like to see from Christians in order to back up their miraculous claims all the while knowing they can’t. And, I seriously doubt you’d love for me to show you anything. None so blind as those who cannot see…Daniel.
Please dont interpret this as meaning that I believe in other gods. I dont. Just God.
She mentioned that she had dismissed at least one other debator for similar reasons, perhaps if it happens often enough the penny will drop.
Tomndebb wrote?
<<And I did confuse Baigent and Gardner in my earlier post. Baignet is a little less of a loon than Gardner, but they rely on some of the same rather silly reconstructions.)>>
Let’s see now, Tom, would that be your opinion and perhaps others would disagree with you. But yours is the only opinion that counts, right? Oh, just so you don’t feel left out. Please provide evidence for their rather silly reconstructions, with citations.
<<- Catholicism is not the only tradition that supports celibacy. Claims that it is “not natural” are simply opinions based on one’s own predispositions.>>
No it’s not. It’s based on Biology 101. And to point out that it’s not the only tradition that supports it is no point in your favor. It just means more than one tradition has decided to go against mother nature.
<<It is equally true to claim that monogamy is unnatural (yet, in a polygynous society, some males would be celibate whether they wished to be or not).>>
Not necessarily. Some mammal species and birds are naturally monogamous and are mates for life.
<<It can be claimed with equal fervor (and a similar lack of evidence)>>
Wrong again, see above. Please continue
<<that marriage of any sort is “not natural.”>>
See above.
<<Attacking celibacy as “not natural” is simply a way of expressing a personal rejection of others’ values, not a legitimate criticism of a way of life.>>
No, and see above. Your opinion acknowledged. It’s merely Biology and objectivity. You are extremely prejudiced I’m noticing.
<<(And, of course, your “tip of the iceberg” comment is simply a way of saying that you will hold onto your cherished beliefs despite a lack of evidence,>>
Well, let’s see now. There is evidence Priests sexually molested children so I’m way out of line with my suggestion that there’s probably more we don’t even know about it based on the rape model. Gee, Tom. I’m becoming embarassed for you. Just how narrow-minded can you be?
<< just the way that Christians will continue to believe in the resurrection, despite a lack of evidence.)>>
Well, at least we can agree on something.
NomadicOne wrote:
<<this is true to find god, but to find God you must look further. gods can be any number of things, but God is what counts.>>
I respect your opinion. But, for me, I need look no further than within.