Raf

When I first came out as atheist, I started a thread you can probably still find here called "Are you more moral than Yahweh?" It took a look at a number of questionable OT positions (and I think one or two NT, but mostly OT) that are inconsistent with a God who is the author of morality. But if you are to take the position that morality is objective (spoiler alert, it's not) and that certain moral standards are absolute (like rape among humans is always wrong and the victim is the person who was raped), then you have to conclude that the God of the Old Testament is frankly not moral. Is it moral to prescribe the death penalty for picking up sticks between dusk Friday and dusk Saturday? No. Of course not. But Yahweh (allegedly) did that. It's sociopathic! "But it was another time." SO WHAT!?!?! So what you're describing here is a clash between what the Bible actually says about Yahweh (and by extension Jesus) and your own understanding of what actual morality is. And then you have to defend your own morality against the (absolutely and demonstrably false) premise that there is no such thing as morality without Yahweh because he is where we get morality from. HE MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT. Morality does not come from religion. Religion comes from morality. And it is not "objective," which is why our culture rejects a slew of Old Testament pronouncements as immoral. We may have once thought, incorrectly, that eating shellfish or mixing fabrics was immoral. We know better today.

Not interested in the video, but interested in sharing my thoughts on any questions you have about your journey. For instance, I would caution very much against allowing your faith to be undermined by whatever challenges your children or grandchildren are facing. My journey from faith coincided with the autism diagnosis of my son and the illness and death of my sister from ALS. To this day I struggle to explain to people that the coincidence of timing was just that, a coincidence. They think I'm angry at God for allowing my son to have autism or my sister to die. The truth is my rejection of faith had a lot more to do with the paucity of evidence for the claims of and about the first century church. Gonna stop here because I see a lot of posts have gone up since I started replying to the thread, so let me read them before I answer. But you are far from alone, Charity. I've walked this walk. Happy to discuss.

Ohhhh!!!!!! I'll never forget the feeling that came over me when I realized that the firmament was a giant glass wall, the sky is blue because it's holding back an ocean, and the sun, moon and stars are all in the firmament and not in outer space (because there's no such thing). It's batcrap insane, I tell you.

I think a lot more people would consider the position I am exploring in another thread - that the religion of Christianity was not founded by a historical Jesus. Jesus, as revealed by Paul, is a celestial figure. Paul mentions Jesus appearing to the 12 after his resurrection rather than the 11 because the story of Judas' betrayal hadn't been made up yet. Paul didn't get the Lord's Supper from the gospels. The gospels got the Last Supper from Paul! When Paul talks about the crucifixion in "spiritual" terms rather than temporal, he's not inventing a spiritual explanation for what happened on earth. He's reporting what actually happened in heaven, the only place Jesus existed in his eyes. Why doesn't Paul mention the empty tomb when he talks about the evidence for the resurrection? Because it didn't happen on earth. Why does Paul actually BRAG that he got his info about Jesus from Jesus himself and absolutely positively not from the Apostles? Because the Apostles didn't know a historical Jesus any more than Paul did. Those stories were made up later. Anyway, that just answers the question Penworks posted and has nothing specifically to do with actual errors in PFAL. Sorry. I'll report myself to the idiot who started the thread.

And I would say that he is entitled to how he feels, but his statements have been made before and corrected before, so after a certain point it's a matter of actual fact. I invite anyone and everyone to go through the threads in Doctrinal and Open and About the Way. "Christian" posts are everywhere, and the overwhelming majority are unchallenged. We do have one subforum where such challenges are the norm and not the exception. Spend a disproportionate amount of time in that forum and you may leave with a disproportionate understanding of what happens at GSC. [For anyone still unaware, modcat5 and Raf are the same person]

I wouldn't put much stock in what Muslims think is historical. They accept as historical that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Oh yeah? Prove it didn't happen!

Best wishes. You're welcome back any time, whether I like it or not.

Exactly. But that is just one of many points raised in the article.

Trying to refrain from replying until I have time, but thank you cman for posting that wikipedia link, which neatly sums up most of the "evidence" mythicists need to overcome to be taken seriously. Some of that is easy. Some of it, not so much. The expert consensus is the easiest argument to overcome because in this field, the expert consensus is ludicrously biased in favor of tradition. When I hear about the consensus of experts, I tend to expect overwhelming evidence in favor of that consensus, not overwhelming excuses about why we shouldn't expect to find evidence even though, no, seriously, we should. The notion that we would have to reject other historical figures if we held Jesus to a more rigorous standard is also incorrect. I would submit that such claims would be refuted by asking for an example, one example, of a historical figure whose existence is taken for granted but for whom LESS evidence exists than for Jesus. You won't find one. What you'll find instead is a Jesus that has more in common with Robin Hood and King Arthur than with Nathan Hale and Alexander Hamilton. Amyway more later

Can't reply without violating my own admonition. Let's just say given the alternatives, I'd prefer killing the conversation. That said, Nathan, you and Mark were able to disagree with me without making it about me. It's not impossible.

I was going to come up with a clever comeback but I am not that clever. Well done.

This is actually Bram Stoker's Dracula

ok. Though I reserve the right to make "The Fate of the Apostles" as a separate thread. :)

Oldies, we were kind of dismissive of this post. Are you satisfied with my response? Or would you prefer greater detail? The lack of evidence for the martyrdom of the saints was the straw that broke the camel's back for me in my journey from faith, so it's not a topic I avoid. But in terms of THIS conversation, I think YOU get to decide whether I've adequately addressed it.

Alan, My humblest apologies. There actually ARE threads about me. You know that because you participated in them. And that was fine, because I made that/those thread(s) about me, so it was fair game. This thread is not about me. It's about a particular topic. In addressing that topic any one of us is welcome to accept or reject evidence that's presented. A healthy discussion allows challenges that are presented in good faith, and responses in good faith. [Dismissive posts are not conducive to a healthy conversation and are just being spit on this thread out of frustration at being unable to address the topic. I am treating those posts with the respect they earned. Yours is not one of those posts]. I cannot tell if you are citing scripture to address the topic at hand, in which case it would be fair game, or to express your disappointment at my personal journey, in which case you are off topic. Indirectly, you could make the case that one reason I am no longer Christian is my realization that the claims of the Bible cannot withstand honest inquiry [and those claims that can withstand inquiry are not really a big deal]. And this thread would be an example of one such claim. But that still doesn't make ME the topic and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from continuing on that course. Thanks.

Seriously, did not insult his intelligence. Insulted his post. If it did a Good Job of reflecting his intelligence, that would be insulting the poster.

My attorney returns calls.

You're not. Let's return to topic.

By the way, when you file a frivolous lawsuit, you are required to pay fees and costs when you lose. So if I were you I would be REAL careful about threatening legal action. You may be able to afford your lawyer but I assure you, you cannot afford mine.

Are you threatening to sue me? Wow. For the record, I insulted your pointless post, not you. But if you'd like to get lawyers involved, I'm listed.

Well, What you said did a very poor job of reflecting your overall intelligence.

Contradiction is not rebuttal. "But I believe it" is not a resoonse to valid points raised. Or invalid points for that matter. I understand that it pisses you off to hold a position that has no supporting evidence, but that's not my fault and it doesn't help your position to call out "yuh huh" when your bulls hit argument is successfully refuted.

To me the most amazing thing about Thomas is how crucial his witness is and, subsequently, how we never hear from him again, not even in Acts of Some of the Apostles, where his name shows up on a list and then he disappears from the narrative. Probably hiding out with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who likewise vanish from the story once they've outlived their usefulness. They probably all hid out in Arimathea, which has a crucial property in common with Narnia, Mordor and Hogwarts. Any wagers? I understand if you are a believer you will take the gospels as, well, gospel. But to a historian, the gospels cannot reasonably treated as evidence. They are the claims for which history seeks evidence. That the story of Thomas is left out of Matthew and Luke should arouse suspicion as to its authenticity. Neither writer had any good reason to leave it out. Same with the raising of Lazarus. Why would anyone recounting the ministry of Jesus leave out that story? And where TF did Lazarus go? Arimathea? The gospel of John is fiction. That the moral of the story is "blessed are those who do not see yet believe" should be a giant red flag. No one in the act of providing evidence, which the gospel of whoever the hell wrote John purports to be, would cap his story off with an admonition against seeking evidence. The ONLY people who speak out against the value of evidence are those who know they have none.

I mean the easiest way to refute this would be to request documentation. The James story is especially of interest because it is recorded in Acts 12, but zero mention is made of him converting a guard who agrees to be beheaded by his side. My guess is that the writer of Acts found that story less credible than a zombie taking flight and disappearing behind a cloud bank, so he left it out.

Looking at Chockfull's excellent post on a new thread, I think it becomes interesting to look at how various agruments are made and presented. We would all like to think our approach is logical, but i submit that no argument is purely ANYTHING. All combine logic, "authority" and emotion to some degree. Some, no doubt, rely more on one than others. I humbly submit (pathos) that the majority of arguments in favor of the historicity of Jesus rely more on the argument from authority (ethos) than on actual evidence (logos). I'll try to shut up and hear you guys out if you'd like to explore the topic without my interference. (Caveat: it's not about ME and I will jump in if the attempt is made [AGAIN] to make it about me).