Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If one doesn't give the god claims any credit, you escape it totally and immediately.
Assuming that was a response to my post ... Okay.
My posts were from the perspective of reaching those who did/do believe in God/gods.
I suppose your point is that it's better to simply demolish that belief, because it solves the problem of their fear of God/gods. The person/people who wrote the Jesus narrative approached it in a different way. I'm not going to argue with you about whose way is better, or more feasible. I'm simply saying that the kernel of "love" within the Jesus narrative has had a positive impact.
My posts were from the perspective of reaching those who did/do believe in God/gods.
I suppose your point is that it's better to simply demolish that belief, because it solves the problem of their fear of God/gods. The person/people who wrote the Jesus narrative approached it in a different way. I'm not going to argue with you about whose way is better, or more feasible. I'm simply saying that the kernel of "love" within the Jesus narrative has had a positive impact.
I took the point. I suppose my approach is not which was is better, but which one accords with what we can learn about how much we can rely on the book being true.
I took the point. I suppose my approach is not which was is better, but which one accords with what we can learn about how much we can rely on the book being true.
Why does the historical veracity matter in terms of the positive impact that the kernel of love/truth within it had?
Why does the historical veracity matter in terms of the positive impact that the kernel of love/truth within it had?
It matters not a whit if you're not making a claim of historical veracity, nor basing your beliefs on these legends as historical fact, and if you are truly focusing on the loving and truthful bits at the expense of the small and false bits. In short, if you're not an inerrantist / literalist then you are free to cherry pick the good stuff from scripture (and it does exist) and run with it. A fundamentalist such as Transponder is engaging with, is not free to do that.
Personally I prefer to ditch the whole thing and start over from scratch for the sake of clarity, but I have no problem with people who want to salvage something useful from scripture and who aren't attempting to make that effort binding on people outside their religious group.
It matters not a whit if you're not making a claim of historical veracity, nor basing your beliefs on these legends as historical fact, and if you are truly focusing on the loving and truthful bits at the expense of the small and false bits. In short, if you're not an inerrantist / literalist then you are free to cherry pick the good stuff from scripture (and it does exist) and run with it. A fundamentalist such as Transponder is engaging with, is not free to do that.
Personally I prefer to ditch the whole thing and start over from scratch for the sake of clarity, but I have no problem with people who want to salvage something useful from scripture and who aren't attempting to make that effort binding on people outside their religious group.
Wait, you mean me? Please tell me I don't exude fundamentalism still!
I'm not particularly focused on whether or not anyone chooses to salvage anything from the bible in the here and now. The impact the Jesus story has had on humanity is a done deal -- it is a part of us -- and I was just pointing out a positive aspect of that impact.
Wait, you mean me? Please tell me I don't exude fundamentalism still!
I'm not particularly focused on whether or not anyone chooses to salvage anything from the bible in the here and now. The impact the Jesus story has had on humanity is a done deal -- it is a part of us -- and I was just pointing out a positive aspect of that impact.
No, I thought TP was responding to someone else and you were just in the commenting mix. You don't exude fundamentalism or indeed anything unsavory :-)
Why does the historical veracity matter in terms of the positive impact that the kernel of love/truth within it had?
I suppose it comes down to this business of "Good things in the Bible". Which is an argument for having Bible/Christianity as central to our society. Good things in themselves, even unusually good things, don't justify any such thing, since you can find them in all sorts of books.
So for me, the only thing that can make the Bible and Christianity any more important than Zoroastrianism is if it is true. And that depends on whether we can trust the Bible.
A good deal of effort has been put into assuring us that the Bible and particular the Jesus story is substantially true, and never mind the supernatural elements. In fact that in itself doesn't logically make it untrue, as Jesus was a one -off and did things (according to the gospels) that others can't do.
It was for me, at first seeing things that didn't make story -sense that made me doubt and some other reading made a few things click and finally comparing the discrepancies answered (pretty much) all the questions. What happened to the ending of Mark, why the Great Omission? Why did Jesus ask to be let off and protest on the cross? Why is the healing of the Centurion's servant in John but looks very different?
Believers can dismiss this and I don't need to rehearse the excuses, but there are a couple of touchstone cases of fabrication, Luke .18 - on is one and it was discussed here recently and the refusal to accept what was courtcase winningly obvious convinces me that I have a case and the only answer believers have is denial.
So that puts the tin lid on Gospel truth for me. So what about the good stuff, like for instance your suggestion that the loving father idea (no matter where it came from) was an improvement on the angry gods? Very well, point taken. So Ptolemy was a genius in replacing the snowdome cosmos with a planetary system, but I only recently gave him credit for that because we mock the Geocentric system. So even great leaps forwards, good though they are, don't last forever and that a loving father was an improvement on Angry gods is a matter of history, really.
That is, it isn't important now and certainly not a reason to keep Christianity going. I'd say the only reason for that is if it is true. And, if my hypothesis is right, I can prove that the document supposed to prove that it is true is a fabrication.
There is still agnostic -god and the God of Einstein and ingenious theories like Mystic's, which seems to make the Gospels true even if they aren't. That is really another argument altogether.
P.s Mordant is sooth, there is nothing of the Christian Fundamentalist about you.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-22-2016 at 04:06 PM..
No, I thought TP was responding to someone else and you were just in the commenting mix. You don't exude fundamentalism or indeed anything unsavory :-)
Whew! I'm relieved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I suppose it comes down to this business of "Good things in the Bible". Which is an argument for having Bible/Christianity as central to our society. Good things in themselves, even unusually good things, don't justify any such thing, since you can find them in all sorts of books.
So for me, the only thing that can make the Bible and Christianity any more important than Zoroastrianism is if it is true. And that depends on whether we can trust the Bible.
A good deal of effort has been put into assuring us that the Bible and particular the Jesus story is substantially true, and never mind the supernatural elements. In fact that in itself doesn't logically make it untrue, as Jesus was a one -off and did things (according to the gospels) that others can't do.
It was for me, at first seeing things that didn't make story -sense that made me doubt and some other reading made a few things click and finally comparing the discrepancies answered (pretty much) all the questions. What happened to the ending of Mark, why the Great Omission? Why did Jesus ask to be let off and protest on the cross? Why is the healing of the Centurion's servant in John but looks very different?
Believers can dismiss this and I don't need to rehearse the excuses, but there are a couple of touchstone cases of fabrication, Luke .18 - on is one and it was discussed here recently and the refusal to accept what was courtcase winningly obvious convinces me that I have a case and the only answer believers have is denial.
So that puts the tin lid on Gospel truth for me. So what about the good stuff, like for instance your suggestion that the loving father idea (no matter where it came from) was an improvement on the angry gods? Very well, point taken. So Ptolemy was a genius in replacing the snowdome cosmos with a planetary system, but I only recently gave him credit for that because we mock the Geocentric system. So even great leaps forwards, good though they are, don't last forever and that a loving father was an improvement on Angry gods is a matter of history, really.
That is, it isn't important now and certainly not a reason to keep Christianity going. I'd say the only reason for that is if it is true. And, if my hypothesis is right, I can prove that the document supposed to prove that it is true is a fabrication.
There is still agnostic -god and the God of Einstein and ingenious theories like Mystic's, which seems to make the Gospels true even if they aren't. That is really another argument altogether.
P.s Mordant is sooth, there is nothing of the Christian Fundamentalist about you.
Christianity is a mixed bag, good and bad, and I understand your contention that truth matters*. But if you took all the holy books away, it would just create a vacuum, I think. Many people would continue to believe there is a God, yeah? And many people would still crave black and white answers to the philosophical and ontological (I hope I'm using that word correctly ) questions that bother them. There would rise up people who would fill the gap, and come up with new religions. I can't imagine a purely secular (atheist) society would ever be the norm. And, even if it was ... there's no guarantee that society would be better for it, simply because of the nature of people.
As for the loving father concept of God not mattering NOW, I couldn't disagree more. When I was still a Christian, it was that concept that kept niggling at the back of my mind, causing me to dig deeper, to question things within my religion that contradicted it. It was that concept that gave me the courage to face up to the inconsistencies within fundamentalist Christian doctrines and to eventually discard what I consider to be one of the most harmful: eternal torment. That in turn gave me the courage to face up to the flaws in the very foundation of fundamentalist Christianity: an inerrant, infallible bible which was touted as God's definitive communication to humanity. The "loving Father" concept was absolutely necessary and instrumental to my becoming free of that. And because of that, I don't think I could ever be hoodwinked again into accepting any religious dogma as authoritative. So, I can't agree with you that it doesn't matter. Too many people still believe in Angry God; too many people still are fearful and imprisoned, in my opinion.
*I'm afraid that I can't just hand to you an agreement that there is no truth in the bible that can be trusted. Is there a God? Is God's nature in any way equivalent to that of a loving father? I simply don't know, and I think you would agree that you don't know the answers to those questions either. So, if there is a God, and if the foundation of God's nature as it pertains to us IS love, then the bible actually does contain truth. I'm simply not prepared to dismiss that possibility When the bible is seen as I believe it is -- a snapshot of the progression of spiritual thought within one culture, that is actually rather symbolic of the progression that individuals may go through -- and not as "God's Word", I think it is very worthwhile.
Well maybe this is where we can agree to differ. I don't know whether there is a god or not and therefore nothing about it. The spiritual progression is Ok, but I think we can and are about to move on from there. I don't need ny of that and so don't see why anyone else should, but that it just how I feel about it and others have a right to feel otherwise.
As to the Bible,I do reckon it can be shown to be unreliable to a greater or lesser degree, and it is of course up to me to make the case for that view. I think the case is sound but I could be wrong.
Our posting pal Eusebius has debated me on this quite a bit and I may think contradiction is weighty evidence of fabrication. Eusebius thinks it is understandable witness error.I suppose people must make up their own minds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) questions that bother them. There would rise up people who would fill the gap, and come up with new religions. I can't imagine a purely secular (atheist) society would ever be the norm. And, even if it was ... there's no guarantee that society would be better for it, simply because of the nature of people. 
Well maybe this is where we can agree to differ. I don't know whether there is a god or not and therefore nothing about it. The spiritual progression is Ok, but I think we can and are about to move on from there. I don't need ny of that and so don't see why anyone else should, but that it just how I feel about it and others have a right to feel otherwise. 
