Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > You know his name wasn't really Jesus Christ........

You know his name wasn't really Jesus Christ........
Thread Tools
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 12:40 AM
 
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 12:49 AM
 
Semantics.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:01 AM
 
Semantics, but about as logical as the idea  of it being possible to take the lord's  name in vain...
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:35 AM
 
How is it impossible to use a deity's name in vain, besson? Whether or not doing so is of any concern to you is a different issue.

This thread seems destined for the PWL.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:39 AM
 
Because uttering the words of a supernatural  being cannot cause problems?
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:39 AM
 
poli/war lounge? When you point at something and call it something, it is that something, or a rose by any other name...
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Because uttering the words of a supernatural  being cannot cause problems?
You are entitled to your opinion. It sounds like you're 100% certain that there is nothing beyond the material universe.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You are entitled to your opinion.
And you yours, but you cannot rationalize y ours (nor should you have to, but this ind ividual is making a rational point).
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:50 AM
 
I can use rational arguments in support of my religious beliefs. If you want to rigidly define religion as completely illogical that again is your opinion.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:53 AM
 
I don't think using the Lord's name in vain means what you think it means, besson.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I can use rational arguments in support of my religious beliefs. If you want to rigidly define religion as completely illogical that again is your opinion.

No, you cannot. Faith is faith, not somethi ng in a rational framework that you can ex plain away. The second we get to talking s nakes and animals on a boat that whole rat ional thing gets blown out of the water.

That isn't to say that there is something  inherently wrong with a faith or that some version of your faith doesn't explain the u niverse in some way, but you just can't lo ok at this through the lens of rationalism.  Apples and oranges.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 02:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I don't think using the Lord's name in vain means what you think it means, besson.
Using "Jesus Christ" as a form of exclamation or expressing frustration, distaste in something, and the like is using it in vain, right?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 02:03 AM
 
What the hell happened to your spacebar?

Anyway, my approach to religion is based in part on my capacity to reason. I believe that although there are aspects of religion that are beyond rational understanding, there are other aspects that demand rationality. It's what allows me to differentiate in part between my religion and the other religions of others. But you don't understand that point and never will because you disregard all religion as false, so it's rather pointless to argue this with you.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Feb 28, 2010 at 02:13 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 02:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Using "Jesus Christ" as a form of exclamation or expressing frustration, distaste in something, and the like is using it in vain, right?
Not necessarily. Using it in vain would more directly be using it as an idle excuse. IE, "Jesus told me to have sex with you." Or "Jesus told me to sell my book to you so that you can find spiritual happiness."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 02:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Not necessarily. Using it in vain would more directly be using it as an idle excuse. IE, "Jesus told me to have sex with you." Or "Jesus told me to sell my book to you so that you can find spiritual happiness."
That's not really correct, mitchell. שָׁוְא (shav) is associated with emptiness, vanity, falsehood, lying, worthlessness. The command refers to invoking the sacred name, specifically the Tetragrammaton, in an empty, worthless, vain, false (etc.) way.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Feb 28, 2010 at 02:55 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 02:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
That's not really correct, mitchell. שָׁוְא is associated with emptiness, vanity, falsehood, lying, worthlessness. The command refers to invoking the sacred name, specifically the Tetragrammaton, in an empty, worthless, vain, false (etc.) way.
And those are empty and false ways aren't they, if you're using it as an excuse for personal gain?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 02:33 AM
 
Yes, but I thought the way you defined it wasn't quite on the mark. It's not just about excuses. As an example, we religious Jews alter our spelling and pronunciation of holy appellations except when in prayer so as to avoid the possibility of using a divine name in vain.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 02:36 AM
 
Religious stuff goes in the flame lounge. You know this.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 02:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
What the hell happened to your spacebar?

Anyway, my approach to religion is based in part on my capacity to reason. I believe that although there are aspects of religion that are beyond rational understanding, there are other aspects that demand rationality. It's what allows me to differentiate in part between my religion and the other religions of others. But you don't understand that point and never will because you disregard all religion as false, so it's rather pointless to argue this with you.
Your understanding of my understanding is false.

I don't think any religion is false. I believe the answers to life are a big fat "I don't know". I'm agnostic, not atheist. I'm not saying that your religion is any more or less rational than any other. What I am saying is that these sorts of discussions are just inappropriate ways to discuss faith, because you simply can't discuss it through the lens of rationalism.

That does not make you irrational as in "not using your head", or "misguided", or any of the other usual sorts of contexts we use this word in. Based on your life experiences your faith could be completely rational *for you*. However, as soon as we get into trying to make sweeping statements about life and people in general using some sort of quasi rational argument, that's when I disagree.

The second that we stop trying to make rational arguments out of our faith in an attempt to rationalize our faith to other people and convince them of its righteousness through some sort of rational means (of which language is included), the second this world starts being a more peaceful and better place.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 07:52 AM
 
Seems to me the bible isn't big on technicalities. It doesn't matter whether you use the actual proper name or not, you still thought it.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
Religious stuff goes in the flame lounge. You know this.
No, I didn't. This thread has nothing to do with politics or war.
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I can use rational arguments in support of my religious beliefs. If you want to rigidly define religion as completely illogical that again is your opinion.
You may think they're rational, but they're not based on any evidence, which eliminates their rationality. There is no rational evidence for the existence of any god. There is only belief, which was conjured up by people who understood very little of what was happening around them, yet this has come to be accepted at face value, simply because it's been handed down as fact over generations.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 12:32 PM
 
Jeshua ben Josef, or ben Miryam as the Koran call him, was his name. Christ is a title

Jesus Christ - Original Catholic Encyclopedia
I. THE SACRED NAME

The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek 'Ina-00s, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation".
.......
The word Christ, christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah, means "anointed".
( Last edited by Chongo; Feb 28, 2010 at 12:42 PM. )
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
No, I didn't. This thread has nothing to do with politics or war.
Political/War Lounge (6 Viewing)
Politics, war, religion, party bickering, etc. Please check straw men at the door.

Religion threads haven't been allowed in the regular lounge for years.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 06:20 PM
 
Yet the Romans wrote INRI on his cross.
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Yet the Romans wrote INRI on his cross.
And I always thought that was for Henry, as in Jesus H. Christ.
     
BlueSky
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ------>
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 06:41 PM
 
Josh Josephson.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Jeshua ben Josef, or ben Miryam as the Koran call him, was his name. Christ is a title

Jesus Christ - Original Catholic Encyclopedia
Good Lord (no, wait—wrong thread to say that in—I mean, erm, good grief), are we supposed to call him ’Ina-00s now? Switch the n and the a, and you pretty much have my name! Can I still take my own name in vain?

Or should we just assume that the Original Catholic Encyclopedia finds it too cumbersome to actually write Ἰησοῦς on their site?
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 07:57 PM
 
Who says Joshua or Jesus was even a real person to begin with? It seems all made up to me
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 08:02 PM
 
There is a lot of evidence that points to the original Christian movement having believed in a mythical, non-historical Jesus. And gradually the story got historicized especially with the advent of the gospels, with progressively more details being added (and the story possibly getting merged with one or more historical figures) in order to make for a more concrete figure and mythology through which to spread the good news of Christianity.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Feb 28, 2010 at 08:27 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 08:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
There is a lot of evidence that points to the original Christian movement having believed in a mythical, non-historical Jesus. And gradually the story got historicized especially with the advent of the gospels, with progressively more details being added (and the story possibly getting merged with one or more historical figures) in order to make for a more concrete figure and mythology through which to spread the good news of Christianity.
OOOOoooooo good one
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You may think they're rational, but they're not based on any evidence, which eliminates their rationality. There is no rational evidence for the existence of any god. There is only belief, which was conjured up by people who understood very little of what was happening around them, yet this has come to be accepted at face value, simply because it's been handed down as fact over generations.
The funny thing is I could as easily conclude your lack of faith is irrational by rejecting any of the evidences you'd offer to affirm it. The difference between the two is simply one of perspective, not reality.

IMO, you have a degree of certainty that is at least as bothersome as anyone you'd point a finger at.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
There is a lot of evidence that points to the original Christian movement having believed in a mythical, non-historical Jesus. And gradually the story got historicized especially with the advent of the gospels, with progressively more details being added (and the story possibly getting merged with one or more historical figures) in order to make for a more concrete figure and mythology through which to spread the good news of Christianity.
You would be no more reasonable than the antagonistic atheists or agnostics who question the rationale of your faith.

The reason I believe in my God is that I believe also in your God. It is our God. I would offer the same evidences affirming the rationale of my faith that you would offer on behalf of yours.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The funny thing is I could as easily conclude your lack of faith is irrational by rejecting any of the evidences you'd offer to affirm it.
I'm not the one making claims of some deity, which there's never been a shred of evidence in support of, yet which billions of people believe in simply because they've been exposed to stories about multiple deities since birth. Simply writing it down in a book, which has been translated into innumerable languages, by thousands of translators, over and over, doesn't make it real. For whatever reason/reasons, mankind seems to need to explain that which he can't understand (which is as it should be, as we'd still be climbing trees if that were not the case), but that doesn't give him license to make things up to attempt an explanation.


The difference between the two is simply one of perspective, not reality.
Reality is what we deal with every moment of our lives. Stories written many years after a supposed son of god appears to "save" us, are, to me, just that; stories. There is absolutely no way to verify any of them, yet we're expected to believe them just because someone says so.

IMO, you have a degree of certainty that is at least as bothersome as anyone you'd point a finger at.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I've never made the claim that there isn't a god, but I haven't seen any evidence yet to convince me there is one, and I find lack of questioning among otherwise rational people disturbing.
( Last edited by OldManMac; Feb 28, 2010 at 10:53 PM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 10:48 PM
 
God's name is not God either.

Exodus 3:13-14
13
"But," said Moses to God, "when I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' if they ask me, 'What is his name?' what am I to tell them?"
14
6 God replied, "I *m who I *m." Then he added, "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I *M sent me to you."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You would be no more reasonable than the antagonistic atheists or agnostics who question the rationale of your faith.
I realize that atheists make similar claims against my religious beliefs. That doesn't mean that any argument they may make is something I automatically have to reject. As you can see I happen to agree with a lot of what Earl Doherty puts out. I'm sorry for the offense. Of course, I haven't exactly made my thoughts on Christian theology a secret around here. We are allies in many respects, but that does not negate the salient distinctions between our religions.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 01:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The funny thing is I could as easily conclude your lack of faith is irrational by rejecting any of the evidences you'd offer to affirm it.
You COULD...but if his arguments are made out of reason, the the person rejecting them out of hand without rational grounds is the irrational one. You don't counter reason with conjecture or arbitrary assertions. Well you CAN, but such statements made in a rational argument aren't even worth consideration. Which is why you don't attempt to argue in favor of religion, there are few, if any, rational arguments to be made for it.

IMO, you have a degree of certainty that is at least as bothersome as anyone you'd point a finger at.
Yeah, someone who appears certain based upon a complete lack of evidence is bothersome.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:24 AM
 
Jesus f*cking Christ!

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I realize that atheists make similar claims against my religious beliefs. That doesn't mean that any argument they may make is something I automatically have to reject. As you can see I happen to agree with a lot of what Earl Doherty puts out. I'm sorry for the offense. Of course, I haven't exactly made my thoughts on Christian theology a secret around here. We are allies in many respects, but that does not negate the salient distinctions between our religions.
From what I have found so far, Doherty's theories are based on a document (the Q document) no one can prove exists.
The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. It is a theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings, written in Koine Greek. Although many scholars believe that "Q" was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found.
BTW, I'm still waiting to see Muhammad's birth certificate.
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:29 AM
 
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
From what I have found so far, Doherty's theories are based on a document (the Q document) no one can prove exists.
His theories aren't just based on Q but rather an intellectual reading of the whole of Christian scripture, and particularly the earliest documents, which appear to not have an historical Jesus in mind. The details of an earthly ministry are conspicuously absent from the earliest Christian documents and don't come into focus until the gospels, and even then those details get augmented as you go from Matthew to John. I think the evidence is compelling that the historical personage of Jesus got back-ported on top of the mystical, esoteric original framework of early Christianity. And that early Christianity was merely a corrupted, Hellenistic extension of the messianic hope of Judaism.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Mar 1, 2010 at 05:06 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 08:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
You COULD...but if his arguments are made out of reason, the the person rejecting them out of hand without rational grounds is the irrational one. You don't counter reason with conjecture or arbitrary assertions. Well you CAN, but such statements made in a rational argument aren't even worth consideration. Which is why you don't attempt to argue in favor of religion, there are few, if any, rational arguments to be made for it.
I would say that laws are evidence of God. Natural laws and manmade laws, laws of human nature that offer a moral guidance; in this sense a recapitulation of God's nature. The inception of matter still in the realm of the supernatural; if you say there is no such thing as the supernatural, you're saying that everything is natural pending a mechanism to explain it, but this is not evidence or rationale for the certainty of godlessness. It is faith. Life is teeming with legible information, data, code... the product of intelligence. Some see slop, some see beauty. Perspectives. If design and intelligence is non-scientific as it is virtually undetectable and irrational, SETI would be scrapped in short order and the forensic sciences would have no place in resolving crime.

What we know of science is that it is ever-growing, ever-changing. To claim a rigid degree of certainty using the sciences and information made available to you by fallible man is at least as dubious and irrational as the claim of an infallible God as communicated through fallible man no? People throw around the word "evidence" as if it can only demonstrate a singular truth or fact.

There are secular accounts affirming Scripture, there is science and archeology affirming Scripture, there is textual integrity and extant manuscript authority, just as there are many evidences that call into question Scripture. Perspectives. A Jewish person may call into question the Judeo-Christian theology just as someone of another faith may call his into question. One may challenge granular aspects of the TOE while antagonistic atheists may call into question granular aspects of theology. All this proves is that nothing of any degree of contention is beyond refutation among mankind. After all, one can see a thing and still not believe it.

Yeah, someone who appears certain based upon a complete lack of evidence is bothersome.
No. Someone who holds that something is NOT so in one case, but IS so in another under similar lacking evidences is acting no less in his own faith and the dogma of his own choosing than an ardent zealot of another kind.
ebuddy
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I would say that laws are evidence of God. Natural laws and manmade laws, laws of human nature that offer a moral guidance; in this sense a recapitulation of God's nature.
You could say that…and many would agree with you…but I fail to see how this has anything to do with reason, and I fail to see the evidence. What I see is someone stating their personal belief based upon faith, and asserting it as evidence, which is pretty common in these discussions and not compelling in the least.

The inception of matter still in the realm of the supernatural; if you say there is no such thing as the supernatural, you're saying that everything is natural pending a mechanism to explain it, but this is not evidence…
No, what I am saying is that the supernatural doesn't exist pending any compelling evidence to the contrary. Currently there is no evidence whatsoever, let alone compelling evidence.

…or rationale for the certainty of godlessness.
Who's speaking of certainty? Certainty of what cannot be known objectively is the realm of the faithful and has no place among thinking people. When I say that I don't believe in god, it doesn't mean that I am absolutely certain. It means that there is no reason to believe in god. No evidence and no compelling rational argument.

It is faith.
I had so much "faith" ( ) in this conversation and you have to pull out this old saw. Definition 1 of the apple dictionary defines faith as "complete trust or confidence in something or someone", by this definition I have "faith" in reason as the only demonstrable source of man's knowledge.

If design and intelligence is non-scientific as it is virtually undetectable and irrational, SETI would be scrapped in short order and the forensic sciences would have no place in resolving crime.
SETI is the result of rational thinking and evidence. The fact the man exists is proof that that life up to our level of development exists, and stands to reason that it is possible that other life at least up to our level of development exists. I don't see how this or forensic science relates to this discussion at all.

What we know of science is that it is ever-growing, ever-changing. To claim a rigid degree of certainty using the sciences and information made available to you by fallible man is at least as dubious and irrational as the claim of an infallible God as communicated through fallible man no?
No. Absolutely not.

Man has his senses to perceive the world and rational method to make sense of what he perceives. How is this dubious and how does this even compare to the man who asserts the existence of god with no evidence, no proof, and nothing perceptible to back up the claim whatsoever? Our senses and our intellect are all we have to observe and analyze everything within and without us. How is using the only tools we have to understand the universe dubious in the least?

People throw around the word "evidence" as if it can only demonstrate a singular truth or fact.
I don't understand what you mean by this.

There are secular accounts affirming Scripture, there is science and archeology affirming Scripture, there is textual integrity and extant manuscript authority, just as there are many evidences that call into question Scripture
Perspectives. A Jewish person may call into question the Judeo-Christian theology just as someone of another faith may call his into question. One may challenge granular aspects of the TOE while antagonistic atheists may call into question granular aspects of theology. All this proves is that nothing of any degree of contention is beyond refutation among mankind. After all, one can see a thing and still not believe it.
You act as if merely refuting something call its veracity into question. Just because one may refute something doesn't mean its refutable. On one side, we have knowledge gained through the only method we have of gaining knowledge, on the other we have knowledge gained through…what? A communication which can't be proven with a being that there is no objective evidence of?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
God's name is not God either.
Exodus 3:13-14
13
"But," said Moses to God, "when I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' if they ask me, 'What is his name?' what am I to tell them?"
14
6 God replied, "I *m who I *m." Then he added, "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I *M sent me to you."
He's an ascii bovine? *m
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Yet the Romans wrote INRI on his cross.
The oldest gospel, Mark, says the inscription was "King of the Jews." The other three authors added other stuff on top.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
There is a lot of evidence that points to the original Christian movement having believed in a mythical, non-historical Jesus. And gradually the story got historicized especially with the advent of the gospels, with progressively more details being added (and the story possibly getting merged with one or more historical figures) in order to make for a more concrete figure and mythology through which to spread the good news of Christianity.
The oldest part of the NT, the letters of Paul, clearly indicate that he thought Jesus was a real person. Only the most torturous interpretation of Paul could suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I realize that atheists make similar claims against my religious beliefs. That doesn't mean that any argument they may make is something I automatically have to reject. As you can see I happen to agree with a lot of what Earl Doherty puts out. I'm sorry for the offense. Of course, I haven't exactly made my thoughts on Christian theology a secret around here. We are allies in many respects, but that does not negate the salient distinctions between our religions.
Earl Doherty is a hack. If anyone is interested in real scholarship on Jesus, there are many credible authors on the subject, Gary Wills being the best. ("What Paul Meant" is the best book of the last ten years in my humble opinion.)

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
From what I have found so far, Doherty's theories are based on a document (the Q document) no one can prove exists.
No one has seen the original Ten Commandments lately either, but they are embedded in the Torah, just like Q in embedded in Matthew and Luke.

Most scholars became convinced of the existence of Q after the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas. Before that, there wasn't much evidence that mere lists of Jesus' sayings would be made by Christians, but the GoT indicated otherwise.

I'm less convinced now. It seems simpler and more logical that Matthew copied both Mark and Luke. Matthew's versions of "Q" seem to me just more elegant and refined versions of Luke's earlier stuff.
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
His theories aren't just based on Q but rather an intellectual reading of the whole of Christian scripture, and particularly the earliest documents, which appear to not have an historical Jesus in mind.
That is complete nonsense. Paul discusses Jesus as a recently living person continually, including things Jesus said, did, and taught.

It gets difficult with Mark because he doesn't write a pure historical account. But that's just following the example of the Jewish writings, which aren't pure history either. The Greeks and Romans didn't write pure history either, and neither did Josephus. Legendary embellishment was typical of all historical writing back then.

Regarding Jesus' real name, Paul never refers to anything beyond just "Jesus." Mark refers to him as "Jesus, son of Mary" and Jesus the Nazarene, probably Mark's own transliteration of Nazirite (a Jewish holy man). Later it becomes Jesus of Nazareth because the older meaning of "Nazarene" is forgotten. (The existence of a place called Nazareth before the 3rd century is a very touchy subject among scholars. For me, that fact that Marcion went looking for it and couldn't find it anywhere is the last word on the matter.)

Regarding the "using the name of God in vain" thing, Jews like everyone else in the ancient world were very suspicious about speaking aloud the names of supernatural beings. Not only did they avoid using God's name, but the names of foreign gods as well, preferring to use corruptions when necessary. For instance, Beelzebub was a Jewish corruption of Ba'al Hadad, a Cannanite deity that Jews believed was really a demon. Attracting the attention of a god or demon by speaking its name seemed ill-advised at the time.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
He's an ascii bovine? *m
I Am is his name, sorry Big Mac.

Also regarding the use in vain. I read a recent peice that the author's belief "in vain" meant vain uses of his name as a threat/false prophecy. (thus says the Lor* G*d....)
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 04:07 PM
 
Yeah, but it's God. You really think he's going to be fooled by an asterisk?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I Am is his name, sorry Big Mac.
It's not that clear. In Exodus, God gives his name three times, each time differently.
3:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” and he said, “You shall tell the children of Israel this: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
3:15 God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.
First he says "I AM WHO I AM" then he says "I AM" and then "Yahweh."

When he meets with Pharaoh, he Moses says:
5:1 Afterward Moses and Aaron came, and said to Pharaoh, “This is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness.’”
So does Yahweh mean "I AM" or "I AM WHO I AM" or something else. And the translation of "I AM WHO I AM" isn't universally agreed on. Some prefer "I AM HE WHO IS" or "I AM THAT I AM."

EDIT random thought: The author of the gospel of John preferred "I AM HE" as a translation. When Jesus says this in Gethsemane, the Jewish guards coming to arrest him drop to the ground in terror.

There's no clarity in the bible about such matters, that's for certain.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Mar 1, 2010 at 04:28 PM. )
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 04:21 PM
 
Maybe he's Popeye.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I Am is his name, sorry Big Mac.
Hey, no problem. I'm not really that rigid when it comes to English translations from Hebrew. But thank you for regarding it anyway.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,