He believes those verses were inserted by later, anti Semitic scribes. Paul himself was not an anti Semite.
That would make a lot of sense. I've seen a lot of scholars struggle with certain passages because of alterations by later anti Semitic scribes.
14 hours ago, Raf said:
I have not vetted this claim, as my beliefs about Jesus do not depend at all on whether he actually existed.
Agreed. As I see it (and I'm sure you are not unfamiliar with this line of thinking):
God (a self-aware being that acted with intent to create the universe we see) does not exist - but if he/she/it does...
God doesn't seem to interact with his/her/its creation - but if he/she/it does...
God doesn't do it exclusively through your specific brand of faith/religion.
Each level demands a higher threshold of proof.
And, I get that the historical character issue may not be that easy to untangle. For instance, St. Nicholas probably existed, but if you could time travel and ask him, "So you are the guy that brings presents to all the children of the world on December 25th?" he would respond, "I do what, now?" So with any likely historical Jesus person; Would he recognize anything Christians say about him?
However, this idea that Jesus was just one of the many personal-savior cults, part of a fad that was popular around the Mediterranean at the time, is just too intriguing. Like another nail in the coffin to religion, I guess.
That would make a lot of sense. I've seen a lot of scholars struggle with certain passages because of alterations by later anti Semitic scribes.
Agreed. As I see it (and I'm sure you are not unfamiliar with this line of thinking):
God (a self-aware being that acted with intent to create the universe we see) does not exist - but if he/she/it does...
God doesn't seem to interact with his/her/its creation - but if he/she/it does...
God doesn't do it exclusively through your specific brand of faith/religion.
Each level demands a higher threshold of proof.
And, I get that the historical character issue may not be that easy to untangle. For instance, St. Nicholas probably existed, but if you could time travel and ask him, "So you are the guy that brings presents to all the children of the world on December 25th?" he would respond, "I do what, now?" So with any likely historical Jesus person; Would he recognize anything Christians say about him?
However, this idea that Jesus was just one of the many personal-savior cults, part of a fad that was popular around the Mediterranean at the time, is just too intriguing. Like another nail in the coffin to religion, I guess.
But what does all that say about humanity in general and humans (people) in particular?
It highlights the human need for stories and to define meaning to their lives.
Oh, humans absolutely need that. No disagreement from me.
I wonder if you agree with me on these related things:
1) Humans have many other needs too like food, shelter, medicine, and the benefits of science.
2) Passing off these stories as historical events when they are just parables is highly deceptive and irresponsible.
3) If the stories promote bad ideas like genocide, xenophobia, homophobia, or that you don't need a doctor because praying to an invisible being works just as well, maybe we need to rewrite those stories (leaving in the good lessons of course).
Oh, humans absolutely need that. No disagreement from me.
I wonder if you agree with me on these related things:
1) Humans have many other needs too like food, shelter, medicine, and the benefits of science.
2) Passing off these stories as historical events when they are just parables is highly deceptive and irresponsible.
3) If the stories promote bad ideas like genocide, xenophobia, homophobia, or that you don't need a doctor because praying to an invisible being works just as well, maybe we need to rewrite those stories (leaving in the good lessons of course).
To a degree. I'm not so aggressive about some of it. Re item 2, deceptive and irresponsible implies awareness of the fact. Not necessarily a lot of the people who do so are themselves being deceptive or irresponsible.
With roughly 7 billion humans alive right now and numerous cultures, I'd figure that there's plenty of rewriting going on already, some good, some not so good.
Do you really need me to weigh in on item number 1?
I only have to look around at the suffering in the world, the inspired acts of depravity, the insatiable thirst for unspeakable acts, the 'inhumanity' of humanity WITHOUT even having to believe in the Bible to recognize there is indeed some type of evil, malignant force....and by default there must be a countering love, wisdom, pureness, innocence. When I read THE Word of God it lays it out for me.
There's a difference between being allowed to surmise something and having that thing you surmise actually make sense or be logically defensible.
You can surmise there's a malevolent force at work, but you haven't demonstrated any such thing. You just decided that's the best explanation, and that's fine for you. I'm not going to argue with you at all until you try to get me to believe it or accept it. THEN your burden of proof increases accordingly. Can you demonstrate to me that this world would work differently if there were no malevolent spirit or benevolent opponent at work?
What would reality look like if the cosmos were utterly indifferent to human life? Not antagonistic. Just indifferent.
Edited by Modgellan Deleted off topic part of the post
...You can surmise there's a malevolent force at work, but you haven't demonstrated any such thing. You just decided that's the best explanation, and that's fine for you. I'm not going to argue with you at all until you try to get me to believe it or accept it...
I've heard this before, not as religion "A" as opposed to "no God(s)", but as Religion "A"is true because "it makes so much more sense" than religions B, C, D...ad infinitum
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
53
16
24
21
Popular Days
Mar 14
16
Mar 29
16
Mar 16
14
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 53 posts
waysider 16 posts
Bolshevik 24 posts
TLC 21 posts
Popular Days
Mar 14 2017
16 posts
Mar 29 2016
16 posts
Mar 16 2017
14 posts
Mar 17 2017
14 posts
Popular Posts
Rocky
Just over two years ago (Feb 28, - March 2, 2015), I witnessed some big time arguing -- my first time sitting in on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Washington. It was a thrill. On Feb 28, I tou
Rocky
May I suggest that some participants in this thread (esp. TLC) could benefit tremendously from this MOOC on the subject of understanding arguments. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning
Raf
He believes those verses were inserted by later, anti Semitic scribes. Paul himself was not an anti Semite.
I have not vetted this claim, as my beliefs about Jesus do not depend at all on whether he actually existed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rockman
That would make a lot of sense. I've seen a lot of scholars struggle with certain passages because of alterations by later anti Semitic scribes.
Agreed. As I see it (and I'm sure you are not unfamiliar with this line of thinking):
Each level demands a higher threshold of proof.
And, I get that the historical character issue may not be that easy to untangle. For instance, St. Nicholas probably existed, but if you could time travel and ask him, "So you are the guy that brings presents to all the children of the world on December 25th?" he would respond, "I do what, now?" So with any likely historical Jesus person; Would he recognize anything Christians say about him?
However, this idea that Jesus was just one of the many personal-savior cults, part of a fad that was popular around the Mediterranean at the time, is just too intriguing. Like another nail in the coffin to religion, I guess.
Edited by rockmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
But what does all that say about humanity in general and humans (people) in particular?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rockman
Hmm, not sure it says much...except that humans are REALLY bad at the telephone game even when they write it down.
What do you think it says?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It highlights the human need for stories and to define meaning to their lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rockman
Oh, humans absolutely need that. No disagreement from me.
I wonder if you agree with me on these related things:
1) Humans have many other needs too like food, shelter, medicine, and the benefits of science.
2) Passing off these stories as historical events when they are just parables is highly deceptive and irresponsible.
3) If the stories promote bad ideas like genocide, xenophobia, homophobia, or that you don't need a doctor because praying to an invisible being works just as well, maybe we need to rewrite those stories (leaving in the good lessons of course).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
To a degree. I'm not so aggressive about some of it. Re item 2, deceptive and irresponsible implies awareness of the fact. Not necessarily a lot of the people who do so are themselves being deceptive or irresponsible.
With roughly 7 billion humans alive right now and numerous cultures, I'd figure that there's plenty of rewriting going on already, some good, some not so good.
Do you really need me to weigh in on item number 1?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I only have to look around at the suffering in the world, the inspired acts of depravity, the insatiable thirst for unspeakable acts, the 'inhumanity' of humanity WITHOUT even having to believe in the Bible to recognize there is indeed some type of evil, malignant force....and by default there must be a countering love, wisdom, pureness, innocence. When I read THE Word of God it lays it out for me.
Edited by ModgellanDeleted off topic comments
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There's a difference between being allowed to surmise something and having that thing you surmise actually make sense or be logically defensible.
You can surmise there's a malevolent force at work, but you haven't demonstrated any such thing. You just decided that's the best explanation, and that's fine for you. I'm not going to argue with you at all until you try to get me to believe it or accept it. THEN your burden of proof increases accordingly. Can you demonstrate to me that this world would work differently if there were no malevolent spirit or benevolent opponent at work?
What would reality look like if the cosmos were utterly indifferent to human life? Not antagonistic. Just indifferent.
Edited by ModgellanDeleted off topic part of the post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Modgellan
off topic comments and replies have been removed above
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I've heard this before, not as religion "A" as opposed to "no God(s)", but as Religion "A"is true because "it makes so much more sense" than religions B, C, D...ad infinitum
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
But like Raf, I have no problem with that, believe as you like, only when you're trying to convince me do I require some kind of evidence
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.