Did Jesues actually perform miracles, die and rise from the dead?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Another way of trying to get a the real issue.

Assuming there really was an historical Jesus (and I think there probably was), if we could go back in a time machine and watch (using scientific equipment to verify things) would we actually see him performing miracles (duplicating loaves and fishes, turning water into wine, healing the sick and the blind, raising the dead, etc) and would we actually see him dies on the cross, be a corpse put in the tomb, come alive again on day three and walk among his followers and then actually ascend into heaven?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Damn, I mean to hit 5, not 6.

I'm probably really a 5.5, so I suppose 6 is fair...

[Snatch]

I'm definitely a 6 on this one.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm definitely a 6 on this one.

I think my vacillation is based on a definition issue. Faith healing works through he placebo effect and hypnotism (as studies on shamanism demonstrates) and the faith healers often believe they really have powers. If Jesus was a really charismatic, hypnotic guy, he could have pulled off some of his "miracles".

Also, its just possible that someone could survive crucifixion if they appeared to dies early (as Jesus did) were taken down and were in such a coma that they were left for dead. That would be even more possible if Jesus were given the right poison (remember the wine soaked sponge on a stick?).

But you'll come back to me that these aren't real miracles - and you'll be right.

So yes, on reflection I was right to have hit 6.

[Brynja]

I think perhaps it is an allegory for the power of faith, which in the end I think does more good than harm.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think perhaps it is an allegory for the power of faith, which in the end I think does more good than harm.

I'd agree that its probably an allegory.

But where does that put you on the 1-7 scale?

[Brynja]

Your scale doesn't function for my paradigm.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Your scale doesn't function for my paradigm.

Ok. May I ask why? I can't quite grok why it being an allegory for the power of faith would stop you from making an assessment as to whether it actually happened. Just interested.

[Brynja]

Because the scale is silly I feel, it lacks nuance and that certain something that makes it fit. I realize that doesn't really answer the question.

It is trying to quantify something that really cannot be quantified. Square peg round hole and all that.

[Darkfire]

Can't vote on your scale either as

a) Muslims don't believe Jesus died in the first place
b) It's Allah who performs the miracles through His Prophets, not the Prophets themselves.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Mu

[The Winslow]

I tend to see the miracles as embellished facts rather than total inventions. For example, in the multiplication of breads, the miracle was probably that Jesus managed to get everyone to share what they had with the others, so that everybody had something to eat. A potluck where not everybody had brought something, in other words.

So, I don't see any choice I could check. It's not that I think they didn't happen, it's just that I think they didn't happen in a supernatural way.

As for the resurrection thing, that one was probably copied from similar myths.

[Varaj]

Richard I'm not sure mu fits in the case. It is a relevant question in my mind.

Was Jesus a supernatural being, literal son of God, a mixture of divine and human that everybody else isn't, etc.?

[Varaj]

I tend to see the miracles as embellished facts rather than total inventions. For example, in the multiplication of breads, the miracle was probably that Jesus managed to get everyone to share what they had with the others, so that everybody had something to eat. A potluck where not everybody had brought something, in other words.

So, I don't see any choice I could check. It's not that I think they didn't happen, it's just that I think they didn't happen in a supernatural way.

Uhm then they aren't miracles, unless the change of heart was a miracle. :confused:

[The Winslow]

Yeah, but it's not "it didn't happen" but "it's been embellished".

[Varaj]

Yeah, but it's not "it didn't happen" but "it's been embellished".

"Did Jesues actually perform miracles" seems a pretty straight forward question to me. /shrug/

[TiQuinn]

To me, saying that Jesus turned water into wine or walked on water is akin to saying that George Washington parted the Delaware just like Moses parted the Red Sea and allowed his army to take Trenton. In other words, in the case of Jesus and his miracles, I think an actual event was taken and turned into a mythological legend. When it comes down to it, I don't think my disbelief of the miracle aspects of the tale interferes in my belief in God.

[Snatch]

I think my vacillation is based on a definition issue. Faith healing works through he placebo effect and hypnotism (as studies on shamanism demonstrates) and the faith healers often believe they really have powers. If Jesus was a really charismatic, hypnotic guy, he could have pulled off some of his "miracles".


For me it's the reliance on 1800-2000 year old documents, copied, rewritten, translated and recompiled many, many times over the years. I just do not believe the Bible (both old and new) is a reliable source of information. The miracles could have been simply plot devices to prove a point or embellishments of a significantly lesser event.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Richard I'm not sure mu fits in the case. It is a relevant question in my mind.

Just like Brynja, the question bothers me; it's similar to a poll we had recently about the existence of God which I couldn't really answer either.

I think the question implies that belief is an act of the will, whereas I think (I think :) ) that it's more an act of emotion

If you rephrase it as "How emotionally committed are you to the idea that Jesus actually performed miracles, die and rise from the dead?", I'd say 100%

Was Jesus a supernatural being, literal son of God, a mixture of divine and human that everybody else isn't, etc.?

I'd say that he was completely human and completely divine

[Trainz]

According to this poll, no-one beleives that Jesus did miracles. However, we have quite a few hard-core catholics here.

I think that this is interesting.

[Dacke]

I just want to add that I find Trainz' avatar highly disturbing.

[Varaj]

Just like Brynja, the question bothers me; it's similar to a poll we had recently about the existence of God which I couldn't really answer either.

I think the question implies that belief is an act of the will, whereas I think (I think :) ) that it's more an act of emotion

If you rephrase it as "How emotionally committed are you to the idea that Jesus actually performed miracles, die and rise from the dead?", I'd say 100%


It seems to me you are being intentionally dishonest with the question.
"Did Jesues actually perform miracles?" is about as straight forward a question as you can get.



I'd say that he was completely human and completely divine

Is everybody else completely human and completely divine?

[Varaj]

Can't vote on your scale either as

a) Muslims don't believe Jesus died in the first place
b) It's Allah who performs the miracles through His Prophets, not the Prophets themselves.

So explain to me why this isn't a no?

[Darkfire]

Because Atticus is also implicity asking in that poll is whether I believe in divine miracles and to that I'd answer yes.

[Varaj]

Because Atticus is also implicity asking in that poll is whether I believe in divine miracles and to that I'd answer yes.

He doesn't seem to be doing that to me. It seems a very straight forward question.

[TiQuinn]

It seems to me you are being intentionally dishonest with the question.
"Did Jesues actually perform miracles?" is about as straight forward a question as you can get.


I agree...I'm not sure what it means to be "emotionally committed to an idea" as opposed to believing it actually happened. What's the distinction? The question isn't asking to explain how it happened, or show a scientific explanation for how it happened. If you have faith that Jesus did perform these miracles, the answer is clearly one of the yes answers.

[Snatch]

I think the question implies that belief is an act of the will, whereas I think (I think :) ) that it's more an act of emotion

If you rephrase it as "How emotionally committed are you to the idea that Jesus actually performed miracles, die and rise from the dead?", I'd say 100%


I disagree. I think the question is quite straightforward. Do you believe that the miracles and resurrection actually happen or not? And to what degree are you certain?

If you are emotionally committed to the idea, does that not imply you believe they actually happened?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

[deleted long post on the psychology of emotions and beliefs]

Gobbledegook written too quickly and not enough time to edit it. Will psot it some other time.

Too. Much. Work.

Must. Stop. Looking. At. Messageboard.

EDIT: Side note. I agree with the comments of Varaj and Snatch. Panther.JD's comment in the nest post, while a very good question, is not quite the question I'm asking here.

[panther.jd]

Just like Brynja, the question bothers me; it's similar to a poll we had recently about the existence of God which I couldn't really answer either.

I think the question implies that belief is an act of the will, whereas I think (I think :) ) that it's more an act of emotion

If you rephrase it as "How emotionally committed are you to the idea that Jesus actually performed miracles, die and rise from the dead?", I'd say 100%Do you believe in belief in the divinity of Jesus?

In other words, is the concept of the Divinity of Jesus a concept that should be cherished and spread?

[Brynja]

It seems to me you are being intentionally dishonest with the question.
"Did Jesues actually perform miracles?" is about as straight forward a question as you can get.


Not everyone is Jesus Christ so that doesn't really work as far as I see. That said- you are correct the statement in itself is straightforward but when viewed in the context of 1. who posted it 2. and the hidden connotation (implied or assumed) which I believe is present- the question becomes any thing but straightforward.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Not everyone is Jesus Christ so that doesn't really work as far as I see. That said- you are correct the statement in itself is straightforward but when viewed in the context of 1. who posted it 2. and the hidden connotation (implied or assumed) which I believe is present- the question becomes any thing but straightforward.

Am I right in saying that your position is that you are refusing to answer what you admit is, on its face, a straightforward question because of: (1) the identity of the questioner; and (2) the inferences you think the questioner might later seek draw from your answer?

[Hatter]

I believe that is what is being said, yes. It's a simple question for me to answer though. I think if we're ever able to look backwards in time we'd find a lot of what we hold to be true to be greatly exaggerated.

[Northcott]

Am I right in saying that your position is that you are refusing to answer what you admit is, on its face, a straightforward question because of: (1) the identity of the questioner; and (2) the odds that the questioner will use this as yet another platform to proselytize?

Fixed. Is the question straight-forward? Sure, for most. Mileage varies. Is there a broad-based notion that this is probably leading to another whack at the New Atheist pinata? I'd say that's a safe bet.

Damn, man. It's not healthy for somebody who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus to spend this much time angsting over it. Heck, it's probably not healthy for those who do.

Seriously: No cussing, no vitriol, no jabs. Stop this. It's for your own good.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Just like Brynja, the question bothers me; it's similar to a poll we had recently about the existence of God which I couldn't really answer either.

I think the question implies that belief is an act of the will, whereas I think (I think :) ) that it's more an act of emotion

If you rephrase it as "How emotionally committed are you to the idea that Jesus actually performed miracles, die and rise from the dead?", I'd say 100%

It seems to me you are being intentionally dishonest with the question.
"Did Jesues actually perform miracles?" is about as straight forward a question as you can get.

My problem is how to square his response here with this from another thread:

And on a related point, do you believe that if we got in a time machine and went back to turn-of-the-millennium Palestine, we'd see Jesus actually raising people from the dead and actually turning water into wine, etc?

Yes

Now, it may be that that "yes" was meant to be qualified somehow. Indeed, I can't find it, but I think he did qualify it - though not in a way that I remember would affect his answer here. But I could be wrong on that.

It may also be that he's refusing to answer the question on the same grounds as Brynja (see above).

[Bagpuss]

I think Jesus managed one out of the three.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think Jesus managed one out of the three.

:lol:

At 100% you're far less open to the possibility of miracles than I am. :shock: ;)

[Varaj]

Not everyone is Jesus Christ so that doesn't really work as far as I see. That said- you are correct the statement in itself is straightforward but when viewed in the context of 1. who posted it 2. and the hidden connotation (implied or assumed) which I believe is present- the question becomes any thing but straightforward.

So you are saying people aren't willing to testify of Christ because of who asked them too? :confused:

[Goblin Girl]

So you are saying people aren't willing to testify of Christ because of who asked them too? :confused:

I'm not going to answer this poll because I don't know what answer I think is correct at this point.

But I will say this. There is a whole spectrum of belief among Christians. Some protestant denominations actually insist, as part of their doctrine, that each member come to their own conclusions about the inerrancy and meaning of the bible. Some people who self identify as Christians might still be trying to decide what they think, and thus can't answer.

And also, even if a person is sure they know the answer to this question, why would anyone want to get into the *same old argument* with Atticus? He's doing this to mock people, not because he actually is seeking truth of some sort.

Pearls before swine, and all that.

[Northcott]

So you are saying people aren't willing to testify of Christ because of who asked them too? :confused:

Would that surprise you?

[Varaj]

Would that surprise you?

Yes.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

[Deleted. Attempt at humour might be misinterpreted as "mocking".]

[Varaj]

And also, even if a person is sure they know the answer to this question, why would anyone want to get into the *same old argument* with Atticus? He's doing this to mock people, not because he actually is seeking truth of some sort.


Answering the question isn't getting into an argument.

[Northcott]

Yes.

Why? Answering the question might not necessarily require an argument, but this is akin to Izzy posting an otherwise innocuous-sounding poll about Jimmy Carter* back in his heyday as a trollbot. Sure, people could just tick a box or give a direct answer, but everybody knows he's fishing for ammo to start up a variation on the same themes. After awhile folks get sick of it and stop responding... except Cyra, whom I've apparently filled in for over the last few months. :o


*See that? Jimmy Carter. JC. Builds houses -- carpenter -- Christ comparison. Somewhere out there Rush Limbaugh's head just melted.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Because Atticus is also implicity asking in that poll is whether I believe in divine miracles and to that I'd answer yes.

Actually, I'm not implicitly asking anything. The question means what it says.

If you think that means the question excludes Muslims, then you're right in a way. I expected Muslims to answer "no" - you might think Allah performed the miracles through Jesus, but you certainly don't think rose from the dead.

Which, of course, is why a "no" answer (ie. options 5-7) doesn't necessarily mean one is an atheist. Indeed, it doesn't even mean one isn't a Christian, according to some definitions. Bishop Spong, for example, would probably be a (5) or a (6) and I think it would be harsh to say he isn't a Christian.

[Goblin Girl]

Answering the question isn't getting into an argument.
No, but it will be when Atticus looks at who posted what and calls them out for it.

[Varaj]

No, but it will be when Atticus looks at who posted what and calls them out for it.

Only if you let it. It takes two to argue.

[Varaj]

Why? Answering the question might not necessarily require an argument, but this is akin to Izzy posting an otherwise innocuous-sounding poll about Jimmy Carter* back in his heyday as a trollbot. Sure, people could just tick a box or give a direct answer, but everybody knows he's fishing for ammo to start up a variation on the same themes. After awhile folks get sick of it and stop responding... except Cyra, whom I've apparently filled in for over the last few months. :o


Is a person of faith thinks that answering a straight forward question on that faith gives ammo to somebody perhaps it is time they find a new faith.

[Goblin Girl]

Is a person of faith thinks that answering a straight forward question on that faith gives ammo to somebody perhaps it is time they find a new faith.

But we've already established that this might not be a straightforward question, even for people of faith.

Personally, if there were some issue important to me that I was trying to figure out, I would never post about it where a hostile jackass would mock me. Instead, if I were wanting to discuss it with others in an attempt to find my truth on the matter, I'd talk in person or post in a place where people wouldn't act like dicks about it.

[Varaj]

But we've already established that this might not be a straightforward question, even for people of faith.

No we haven't.


Personally, if there were some issue important to me that I was trying to figure out, I would never post about it where a hostile jackass would mock me. Instead, if I were wanting to discuss it with others in an attempt to find my truth on the matter, I'd talk in person or post in a place where people wouldn't act like dicks about it.

Very solid position and one I can respect. Staying out of the thread is a fine, fine option. Posting in here about how "I can't answer that question 'cause it is tricksie" doesn't do that though.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

But we've already established that this might not be a straightforward question, even for people of faith.

Personally, if there were some issue important to me that I was trying to figure out, I would never post about it where a hostile jackass would mock me. Instead, if I were wanting to discuss it with others in an attempt to find my truth on the matter, I'd talk in person or post in a place where people wouldn't act like dicks about it.

Now that is interesting.

Whenever there is an issue important to me and I'm trying to figure it out, I deliberately try to raise it somewhere where I expect robust intellectual debate and criticism. I want to see the idea pulled apart and tested and prodded and poked and, yes, even satirised to some extent. I also want to see who else defends it and how and whether I find their arguments in favour of the idea actually turn me off it or not. Only then can I decide whether it stands up to scrutiny, whether it's an idea worth adopting.

Varaj, I where would you fall on that spectrum?

EDIT: But, GG, I can understand your approach. I'd ask what it is you're unsure of, but I'm afraid you'll think I'm trying to set you up, so I won't. If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine with me.

[Varaj]

Varaj, I where would you fall on that spectrum?

Where do I fall on the spectrum? Depends on the subject. I tend to break things into "There is a point in discussing" and "There is no point in discussing."

[Goblin Girl]

No we haven't.Then did you not read what I wrote upthread? This:

But I will say this. There is a whole spectrum of belief among Christians. Some protestant denominations actually insist, as part of their doctrine, that each member come to their own conclusions about the inerrancy and meaning of the bible. Some people who self identify as Christians might still be trying to decide what they think, and thus can't answer.

[Goblin Girl]

Now that is interesting.

Whenever there is an issue important to me and I'm trying to figure it out, I deliberately try to raise it somewhere where I expect robust intellectual debate and criticism. I want to see the idea pulled apart and tested and prodded and poked and, yes, even satirised to some extent. I also want to see who else defends it and how and whether I find their arguments in favour of the idea actually turn me off it or not. Only then can I decide whether it stands up to scrutiny, whether it's an idea worth adopting.

Robust intellectual debate and assholishness aren't the same, yo.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Where do I fall on the spectrum? Depends on the subject. I tend to break things into "There is a point in discussing" and "There is no point in discussing."

I suppose one of my (obviously many) character flaws is that I find it hard to believe there is a category of "There is no point in discussing." I make up my mind about things through dialectic. So, for me, there's almost always a point to discussing something. The flaw is that it's more than a little selfish of me to continue a conversation that's benefiting me if it's not benefiting the other. The problem is, of course, that I have a real problem groking (by which I mean understanding in a deep, emotional, automatic way) that conversation on any intellectual issue might be a bad thing for anyone.

Even matters of pure subjective preference, like artistic taste, are things I benefit from discussing. Hearing someone articulate why they like something I dislike helps - it either helps me confirm my own preferences or it makes me see and appreciate the thing from a new perspective (on occasion, I've even come to like something I used to dislike through this process). But to do that I need to do more than just listen, I need to probe and test.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Robust intellectual debate and assholishness aren't the same, yo.

Tell that to the losing party in a Socratic seminar - or in an appearance before the High Court of Australia or the NSW Court of Appeal. Having a cherished idea robustly challenged in an intellectual debate by a strong opponent often feels like being personally attacked - at least it does for me.*

EDIT: *I'm still smarting from the week before last when an argument I wrote (but did not deliver) was demolished in the Court of Appeal - and I wasn't even the guy standing before the CA getting hosed out. It was my first big loss since coming to the bar and I'm still limping.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

But I will say this. There is a whole spectrum of belief among Christians. Some protestant denominations actually insist, as part of their doctrine, that each member come to their own conclusions about the inerrancy and meaning of the bible. Some people who self identify as Christians might still be trying to decide what they think, and thus can't answer.

But, if you don't mind me asking, how does that prevent said Christian from answering the question? Couldn't a member of a denomination that had come to his or her own conclusion regarding the inerrancy and meaning of the Bible answer this question? Again, if you don't mind me asking?

[Varaj]

Then did you not read what I wrote upthread? This:

I read it I just don't believe it establishes what you think it does.

[Varaj]

I suppose one of my (obviously many) character flaws is that I find it hard to believe there is a category of "There is no point in discussing." I make up my mind about things through dialectic. So, for me, there's almost always a point to discussing something. The flaw is that it's more than a little selfish of me to continue a conversation that's benefiting me if it's not benefiting the other. The problem is, of course, that I have a real problem groking (by which I mean understanding in a deep, emotional, automatic way) that conversation on any intellectual issue might be a bad thing for anyone.

Even matters of pure subjective preference, like artistic taste, are things I benefit from discussing. Hearing someone articulate why they like something I dislike helps - it either helps me confirm my own preferences or it makes me see and appreciate the thing from a new perspective (on occasion, I've even come to like something I used to dislike through this process). But to do that I need to do more than just listen, I need to probe and test.

Hey that's cool man.
Can you guess which category I put my belief on the two categories? :tongue:

[Brynja]

Am I right in saying that your position is that you are refusing to answer what you admit is, on its face, a straightforward question because of: (1) the identity of the questioner; and (2) the inferences you think the questioner might later seek draw from your answer?

It is a refusal to answer based on the artifical parameters placed. Had anyone put forth this question i would have answered the same. That said, your posts are typically designed in their phrasing to "catch" people. That isn't discussion, rhumination or debate, that is cross-examining. As to inferences- I think my answer to the first speaks well enought to answer the latter.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

It is a refusal to answer based on the artifical parameters placed. Had anyone put forth this question i would have answered the same.

Fair enough. Care to answer Varaj's questions on how the parameters are artificial? You don't have to of course, I'm just asking.

That said, your posts are typically designed in their phrasing to "catch" people. That isn't discussion, rhumination or debate, that is cross-examining. As to inferences- I think my answer to the first speaks well enought to answer the latter.

First, I think you misunderstand the purposes of a proper cross-examination. It's not like TV, you know.

Second, though I imagine you won't believe me, you're attributing to me a degree of Machiavellianism that rather exceeds my intelligence.

[Northcott]

Is a person of faith thinks that answering a straight forward question on that faith gives ammo to somebody perhaps it is time they find a new faith.

Recognizing that somebody is fishing for it and believing you're giving it are two different things. If an element of earned distrust taints the hue of the question, wary or evasive responses are entirely natural reactions -- for those who have a hard time shutting people out entirely, that is.

The more direct response would be to simply not answer the query at all, I agree. I'm simply saying that I find the notion of people speaking up to pointedly ignore the question to be understandable. Which, of course, may not be happening in some cases.

The other side of this is that the continued aggressive approach to the issue is directly responsible for a growing sense of need for precision of language due to the penchant for dismissing other's thoughts as delusion, word games, etc. What we're seeing here is a growth of precision of terminology that's taking these ideas out of the realm of discussion and into myopic, defensive, courtroom paranoia. And rightfully so.

[Brynja]

Parameters are artifical because we draw lines to corral in thought to mold a debate. That is fine for debates of the formal and judged nature, or cases, but I think a consideration of something as shaping as faith really shouldn't have them. YMMV

Then what does a proper cross examination set out to do?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Parameters are artifical because we draw lines to corral in thought to mold a debate. That is fine for debates of the formal and judged nature, or cases, but I think a consideration of something as shaping as faith really shouldn't have them. YMMV

Then what does a proper cross examination set out to do?

GetPutBlunten. (actually it should be "GetBluntenPut" but, as my teacher said, that doesn't sound as good)

Get what you know the witness is going to give you. Evidence that is good for your side which the witness will willingly give. That's the majority of most cross-examinations.

Blunten - put questions that will either show that the witness' knowledge of the facts is incomplete or distorted or that will expose inconsistencies in the witness' account - and then give them a chance to explain those inconsistencies. Keep at it. If the witness is genuinely mistaken (or lying but not good at it), keep giving them an opportunity to explain - the inconsistencies will start to accumulate and multiply (sometimes to the point where the witness talks themselves round to your side, this happens surprisingly often with expert witnesses). If the witness appears to be lying, then start to lay traps. If that doesn't work, you've either got a weak case or a witness who's a very good liar. In either case, it's time to consider whether to advise your client to settle to minimise costs.

Put - put to the witness anything you will submit in argument that contradicts their testimony and give them a chance to comment on it.

Having said that, it was not my intention to "cross-examine" in this thread. But even if it had been, I don't think that word means quite what you think it means.

[Brynja]

No I know exactly what it means and your post re-enforced that for me.

Your posts follow that format- which IS designed to catch people out.

You state it yourself- "Blunten - put questions that will either show that the witness' knowledge of the facts is incomplete or distorted or that will expose inconsistencies in the witness' account - and then give them a chance to explain those inconsistencies"

[Varaj]

Recognizing that somebody is fishing for it and believing you're giving it are two different things. If an element of earned distrust taints the hue of the question, wary or evasive responses are entirely natural reactions -- for those who have a hard time shutting people out entirely, that is.

Maybe because I feel some subjects aren't really discussable I don't see it that way. Not saying another view is wrong, just saying I don't see it that way.



The other side of this is that the continued aggressive approach to the issue is directly responsible for a growing sense of need for precision of language due to the penchant for dismissing other's thoughts as delusion, word games, etc. What we're seeing here is a growth of precision of terminology that's taking these ideas out of the realm of discussion and into myopic, defensive, courtroom paranoia. And rightfully so.

In my mind, until precise language is achieved complex issues can't be discussed. There is a big difference between arguing semantics and trying to understand exactly what they mean. That is the beauty of jargon it removes the question of what a person means. That is why jargon exists in every field, including religion and philosophy.
Part of the problem is people want to discuss things to the level that jargon is needed but aren't willing to accept that jargon is needed.

[Brynja]

Varaj-

I agree a lack of precise language does make discussion difficult but I think the discussions need to happen so we can move toward that precision.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The other side of this is that the continued aggressive approach to the issue is directly responsible for a growing sense of need for precision of language due to the penchant for dismissing other's thoughts as delusion, word games, etc. What we're seeing here is a growth of precision of terminology that's taking these ideas out of the realm of discussion and into myopic, defensive, courtroom paranoia. And rightfully so.

Brynja, this is another example of popular misunderstanding of cross-examination. At least in front of a judge sitting alone (which is the vast majority of Australian non-criminal litigation), "defensive court room paranoia" is the worst thing that a witness can do. It destroys the witness's credibility with the judge. Whereas the witness who is relaxed and not artificially precise is far more likely to be believed.

Indeed the only thing I did in this thread that was even remotely related to cross examination was the two part question I asked you regarding your reasons for refusing to answer - and I've only realised I'd done it that way now I think about it.

Had you answered yes to that question - as GG did - then that would have been "game over" in a courtroom. Indeed, not just in that courtroom, but in any courtroom ever for that witness - because you'd have admitted to "defensive court room paranoia".

I regret that question for that very reason - because it is one of the very few legitimate "tricks" in cross-examination and it was inappropriate in this context. But as I said, it was instinctive reaction to what I perceived as your possible evasiveness.

The answer you actually gave, btw, would have been the right one to give in a courtroom - which makes sense, because it was your honest answer.

[Varaj]

No I know exactly what it means and your post re-enforced that for me.

Your posts follow that format- which IS designed to catch people out.

You state it yourself- "Blunten - put questions that will either show that the witness' knowledge of the facts is incomplete or distorted or that will expose inconsistencies in the witness' account - and then give them a chance to explain those inconsistencies"

Shows he is trying to catch himself as well.

"If that doesn't work, you've either got a weak case or a witness who's a very good liar."

I certainly don't like the method he is using, which is why I don't discuss religion with the man, but I do think it is unfair to say all he is trying to do is catch people and trip him up. I think Atticus is honestly seeking discovery, he just is fanatical and aggressive in his seeking.

[Northcott]

Maybe because I feel some subjects are really discussable I don't see it that way. Not saying another view is wrong, just saying I don't see it that way.

Fair enough. My personal take is that almost all subjects are discussable -- it's just a matter of who (whom?) we're discussing them with. I might be able to have a discussion with Pat Roberts on economics, but the moment the Holy Roller pulls out his Christ Card (from the 700 Club trading pack) and tries to convert me, the chances are that my ability to discuss without mockery would decline significantly. It's a weakness.

Though I think there's enough people that would pay to witness that debacle that we could make a pay-per-view event of it. :D


In my mind, until precise language is achieved complex issues can't be discussed. There is a big difference between arguing semantics and trying to understand exactly what they mean. That is the beauty of jargon it removes the question of what a person means. That is why jargon exists in every field, including religion and philosophy.
Part of the problem is people want to discuss things to the level that jargon is needed but aren't willing to accept that jargon is needed.

Jargon is, however, highly specialized, and to discount people from a discussion due to lack of that jargon simply closes a circle of learning and reduces the overall pool of ideas. I think using layman's terms is not only fine, but often desireable. Rather than saying jargon is needed, I'd say it's more efficient. The capacity exists to explain concepts without it. The layman's approach, however, has the great weakness of requiring an open atmosphere where learning is far and away the primary the goal. When the goal becomes about winning/proving a case, it poisons the discussion. The two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but can very well become so when a majority, or even a significant portion, of the people in the discussion have no interest in the other goal; either the end result or the tactics employed for it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

In my mind, until precise language is achieved complex issues can't be discussed. There is a big difference between arguing semantics and trying to understand exactly what they mean. That is the beauty of jargon it removes the question of what a person means. That is why jargon exists in every field, including religion and philosophy.
Part of the problem is people want to discuss things to the level that jargon is needed but aren't willing to accept that jargon is needed.

This is also very, very true.

It might be thought that there's a contradiction with my previous post, but there are really two sorts of precision. The paranoid precision of a crafty witness trying not to give anything to the other side. And the honest, diligent precision of a witness or counsel trying hard to say exactly what they mean, no more, no less.

[Brynja]

And then I feel i responded correctly. I have to judge intent and motive all day at work, I feel I am alright at it, and my gut is rarely incorrect. Further I don't get pushed into answers (Students love that) so, there you have it.

Then I suppose if one shouldn't be asking you not to cross them perhaps you can dial back the intensity and pretend you are with co-workers at supper debating something.

[Goblin Girl]

But, if you don't mind me asking, how does that prevent said Christian from answering the question? Couldn't a member of a denomination that had come to his or her own conclusion regarding the inerrancy and meaning of the Bible answer this question? Again, if you don't mind me asking?

Some people who self identify as Christians might still be trying to decide what they think, and thus can't answer.
:duh:

[Brynja]

Shows he is trying to catch himself as well.

"If that doesn't work, you've either got a weak case or a witness who's a very good liar."

I certainly don't like the method he is using, which is why I don't discuss religion with the man, but I do think it is unfair to say all he is trying to do is catch people and trip him up. I think Atticus is honestly seeking discovery, he just is fanatical and aggressive in his seeking.



That is true, but for me at least the application of a concept is nearly as important as the concept itself. I am not thrilled with the application.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

No I know exactly what it means and your post re-enforced that for me.

Your posts follow that format- which IS designed to catch people out.

You state it yourself- "Blunten - put questions that will either show that the witness' knowledge of the facts is incomplete or distorted or that will expose inconsistencies in the witness' account - and then give them a chance to explain those inconsistencies"

First, what Varaj said.

Second, if my posts follow the form of cross-examination then I've imbibed the skill a little more deeply than I realised - because it's not intentional.

EDIT: You do realise that, in Australia, it's quite common for a barrister to cross-examine his own witnesses (including the client) in chambers in preparation? And we're not allowed to "coach" - to tell them what to say or how to answer a question. You cross-examine your own witnesses, then come to a view of whether you have a strong case and then, only if you think you have a case, do you run the case. It's one of the reasons for the barrister-solicitor split - you've got to hold your own client at a distance.

[Northcott]

Indeed the only thing I did in this thread that was even remotely related to cross examination was the two part question I asked you regarding your reasons for refusing to answer - and I've only realised I'd done it that way now I think about it.

The problem is the long history of doing so, and interjecting those tactics into threads where they weren't present until that point. Follow a person around and start up that behaviour when they're in a board meeting, having lunch with some buddies, out for a beer at night -- you'll get a very different response than sitting in front of a judge, I'd wager.

[Varaj]

Jargon is, however, highly specialized, and to discount people from a discussion due to lack of that jargon simply closes a circle of learning and reduces the overall pool of ideas. I think using layman's terms is not only fine, but often desireable. Rather than saying jargon is needed, I'd say it's more efficient. The capacity exists to explain concepts without it. The layman's approach, however, has the great weakness of requiring an open atmosphere where learning is far and away the primary the goal.

It is all about need, in my mind. Most people don't need jargon because they don't discuss the topic to the level that jargon is required. Most people don't need the precision so you certainly don't want to jump to jargon right away.


When the goal becomes about winning/proving a case, it poisons the discussion. The two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but can very well become so when a majority, or even a significant portion, of the people in the discussion have no interest in the other goal; either the end result or the tactics employed for it.
Some subjects are worth convincing people they are wrong on. They are worth winning the discussion.
Ex: Somebody says blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites.

[Varaj]

That is true, but for me at least the application of a concept is nearly as important as the concept itself. I am not thrilled with the application.

Thus "I don't discuss religion with the man." :lol:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Then I suppose if one shouldn't be asking you not to cross them perhaps you can dial back the intensity and pretend you are with co-workers at supper debating something.

I get the idea, but barrister at supper debating? It makes Nutkinland look like EnWorld. (Again, said for context, not justification.)

[Brynja]

my point is- be a bit more cognizant. No one is perfect here, no one but you seem to take some strange glee in persuing things in a "terrier like" way. When I want a small yappy dog I will adopt one.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Some subjects are worth convincing people they are wrong on. They are worth winning the discussion.
Ex: Somebody says blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites.

I suppose I think that, since 9/11, this has become one of those subjects.

Except that, I'm not actually trying to convince people they're wrong. I'm trying to work out if I'm wrong.

[Northcott]

It is all about need, in my mind. Most people don't need jargon because they don't discuss the topic to the level that jargon is required. Most people don't need the precision so you certainly don't want to jump to jargon right away.

Interesting idea. I'm going to chew that one over.

Some subjects are worth convincing people they are wrong on. They are worth winning the discussion.
Ex: Somebody says blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites.

Agreed, some are. But that brings us to a couple other notions: 1) That time and place of battle should be picked. Random attacks do little but stir up ire, whether the point is salient or stunned. 2) That we're then reduced to categorizing those arguments that are 'worth winning', even at the cost of destroying an atmosphere of learning/sharing/exploration/etc. Then it becomes a notion of what return that investment brings. To my mind, unless there's harm present, it's not worth swinging the ol' verbal fist.

[Brynja]

I suppose I think that, since 9/11, this has become one of those subjects.

Except that, I'm not actually trying to convince people they're wrong. I'm trying to work out if I'm wrong.


The question then becomes how well do you accept the times you are wrong?

[Varaj]

I suppose I think that, since 9/11, this has become one of those subjects.

Except that, I'm not actually trying to convince people they're wrong. I'm trying to work out if I'm wrong.

I firmly believe religion should not be a basis for political decision making or more pointedly if it can not be emperically shown through cost benefit analyst it shouldn't be legislated. I also believe that is an argument worth winning.

Ex: Porn is bad 'cause God says so.
Ex: Porn is bad because it contributes to sexual predations as shown in these studies, increases divorce rate as shown by these studies and those threats justify curbing freedom of speech.

[Varaj]

Agreed, some are. But that brings us to a couple other notions: 1) That time and place of battle should be picked. Random attacks do little but stir up ire, whether the point is salient or stunned. 2) That we're then reduced to categorizing those arguments that are 'worth winning', even at the cost of destroying an atmosphere of learning/sharing/exploration/etc. Then it becomes a notion of what return that investment brings. To my mind, unless there's harm present, it's not worth swinging the ol' verbal fist.


Fuck you you hormone guzzling muscle head....oh wait was this one of those moments. :o*



*In other words I agree. :D

[Scarbonac]

Where's the "I have no idea" response?

[Goblin Girl]

Except that, I'm not actually trying to convince people they're wrong. I'm trying to work out if I'm wrong.

Well, I can completely understand and respect that search. I'm on a similar one myself. But please try to use non-confrontational language when you're asking. If you really want thoughtful responses, that is.

Even Richard Fannon won't bother to talk about religion with you--that ought to tell you that your approach isn't working!

Tell you what. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and see what you do with it (or to me).

As I said upthread, I can't answer because I don't know what I think about this particular question. But I guess I've come to believe that this is the wrong question. The questions should really be:

1. Do you (or do I, or does anyone) think that the moral and behavioral code as put forth in the Bible is one that is:
A. Good for individuals?
B. Good for family groups?
C. Good for society?

2. If the Bible is complete fiction, does that fact harm individuals, family groups or society?

3. If it is, on the other hand, completely true, does following or not following it cause good or harm to individuals, family groups or society?

[Darkfire]

Actually, I'm not implicitly asking anything. The question means what it says.

If you think that means the question excludes Muslims, then you're right in a way. I expected Muslims to answer "no" - you might think Allah performed the miracles through Jesus, but you certainly don't think rose from the dead.

Which, of course, is why a "no" answer (ie. options 5-7) doesn't necessarily mean one is an atheist. Indeed, it doesn't even mean one isn't a Christian, according to some definitions. Bishop Spong, for example, would probably be a (5) or a (6) and I think it would be harsh to say he isn't a Christian.

Except there is one problem in that Muslims do believe that is possible for Allah to raise someone from the dead and we do believe divine miracles are possible. We just don't believe that Jesus was risen or that he did the miracles himself.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

my point is- be a bit more cognizant. No one is perfect here, no one but you seem to take some strange glee in perusing things in a "terrier like" way. When I want a small yappy dog I will adopt one.

Here's the thing. I may have gotten people to roundly dislike me, but I'll wager I've also gotten people to think about some issues to a depth they otherwise wouldn't have. And I know for a fact I've learned a HELL of a lot.

I'll agree it would be nice to find a way of being "nicer" about it. But I also think people need to be a little less sensitive, a little tougher about discussion of their cherished ideas and beliefs.

I know, for example, that my students used to say on their teaching evaluations that I was "confronting", "challenging", "demanding" and "scary" (also "too fast" and "too focussed on black-letter law" - kids, as one of my lecturers used to say, this ain't no summer camp!). But they also gave me among the highest teaching ratings in the two faculties I'd worked in. And you know what else? The same ones who said "confronting" and "scary" also said "approachable" and "friendly". I must admit that I've never managed to work out that little contradiction - and the inconsistent little buggers had always moved on by the time I got the forms back, so I never got a chance to pin them down. But I have a suspicion: If you met me in person and we had exactly these conversation, you'd see a big smile on my face, a twinkle in my eye and hear a lot of laughing, mostly at myself. I think that makes a difference.

[Darkfire]

Here's the thing. I may have gotten people to roundly dislike me, but I'll wager I've also gotten people to think about some issues to a depth they otherwise wouldn't have. And I know for a fact I've learned a HELL of a lot.

Sorry Atticus, but no. I used to read your posts, but these days the best I can do is skim them :(

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The question then becomes how well do you accept the times you are wrong?

Pretty well, I'd say. Indeed, I've actually been complemented on that by posters on previous incarnations of these boards.

Accepting that I'm wrong doesn't happy that often, I'll admit. But I did say that I'm a lot more stupider than you seem to think...

[Goblin Girl]

If you met me in person and we had exactly these conversation, you'd see a big smile on my face, a twinkle in my eye and hear a lot of laughing, mostly at myself. I think that makes a difference.
I'm sure that's true. Izzy is a big ol' friendly dog of a guy in person. People who think, based on his online persona, that he's going to be evil incarnate are always shocked.

Maybe the problem is that you aren't trollish enough? You come across as just sane enough that you seem to be deadly earnest instead of playing a part.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Except there is one problem in that Muslims do believe that is possible for Allah to raise someone from the dead and we do believe divine miracles are possible. We just don't believe that Jesus was risen or that he did the miracles himself.

:what: Which means your answer to my question is no - i.e. options (5)-(7). The question was about what actually happened to Jesus, not what Allah could have made happen had he wanted to. :confused:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm sure that's true. Izzy is a big ol' friendly dog of a guy in person. People who think, based on his online persona, that he's going to be evil incarnate are always shocked.

Maybe the problem is that you aren't trollish enough? You come across as just sane enough that you seem to be deadly earnest instead of playing a part.

But I'm not "playing a part". That's my point.

Thinking about it, the me you see here is probably closest to the me you'd see in a classroom if I was teaching you.

[Goblin Girl]

Thinking about it, the me you see here is probably closest to the me you'd see in a classroom if I was teaching you.
That might be it then. The people here aren't your students.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

That might be it then. The people here aren't your students.

But I never treated my students as students. I treated them as equals. That's what they found scary.* ;)

*Yep, that's right, I treated them as if they were just as stupid as I know myself to be.

Seriously, the difference between how I treat students and how I teat equal colleagues is that I joked and teased with my with my students more.

[Darkfire]

:what: Which means your answer to my question is no - i.e. options (5)-(7). The question was about what actually happened to Jesus, not what Allah could have made happen had he wanted to. :confused:

A further clarification then, would you be okay with the replacement of Jesus with any of the prophets from the Abrahamic faiths, or is this just a focus on the Christian Jesus?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

A further clarification then, would you be okay with the replacement of Jesus with any of the prophets from the Abrahamic faiths, or is this just a focus on the Christian Jesus?

The focus was meant to be the Christian Jesus.

Yes, I was being Christo-centric. I expected Jews and Muslims to answer "no" (except for those weird "Messianic Jews", what's up with that!?!). In retrospect that was probably rude, sorry.

[Dacke]

I'll give these a shot.
1. Do you (or do I, or does anyone) think that the moral and behavioral code as put forth in the Bible is one that is:
A. Good for individuals?
B. Good for family groups?
C. Good for society?
On all of these, I'll say that it contains some good stuff and some bad stuff. The core thing, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is good. Some of the stuff that gets added around that, like "Don't eat pork" or "Don't have gay sex" or "Women should be quiet and do what their husbands say", are bad.

2. If the Bible is complete fiction, does that fact harm individuals, family groups or society?
No. Why should it?

3. If it is, on the other hand, completely true, does following or not following it cause good or harm to individuals, family groups or society?
If it is completely true, we get a circular argument. The bible says that the things in it are good, and if we assume that it speaks the truth then it is, of course, correct.

[Northcott]

Some of the stuff that gets added around that, like "Don't eat pork" or "Don't have gay sex" or "Women should be quiet and do what their husbands say", are bad.

I've gotta say -- for me, personally? That bolded one there isn't so bad. Mileage varies, of course. ;) Hell, on a bad day I could use a little more of that whole "do what the husband says" thing, too!

Now that I think about it, this is probably why my wife threatens to kill me in my sleep.

[Goblin Girl]

I've gotta say -- for me, personally? That bolded one there isn't so bad. Mileage varies, of course. ;) Hell, on a bad day I could use a little more of that whole "do what the husband says" thing, too!

Now that I think about it, this is probably why my wife threatens to kill me in my sleep.
I'm no bible scholar, but I'm pretty sure the bible makes it clear that spouses are supposed to respect, listen to and even submit to each other.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm no bible scholar, but I'm pretty sure the bible makes it clear that spouses are supposed to respect, listen to and even submit to each other.

Which hippy Bible translation are you reading? ;)

Or am I confusing it with the old English Book of Common Prayer?

[Northcott]

I'm no bible scholar, but I'm pretty sure the bible makes it clear that spouses are supposed to respect, listen to and even submit to each other.

I am now going to plug my ears and sing LA-LA-LA-LA! I'M NOT LISTENING at the top of my lungs while furiously shaking my head at the computer screen.

[Goblin Girl]

Which hippy Bible translation are you reading? ;)
It doesn't really matter which version. 1 Corinthians 7:3 and 7:4. You could argue that it only means you should satisfy each other sexually, but I think that would be a narrow interpretation.

There are plenty of other passages that apply, but you can go hunting for them yourself, or ask Richard Fannon to enlighten you. :)

[Dacke]

I've gotta say -- for me, personally? That bolded one there isn't so bad.
It's not a thing that affects me personally, but I don't see why there has to be a prohibition against it for those who do like it.

[Northcott]

It's not a thing that affects me personally, but I don't see why there has to be a prohibition against it for those who do like it.


:cursing: Dammit! When did you people start taking me so seriously?!?

[Snatch]

Holy responses! I leave for 1 day and now have 8 hours of catching up to do.

Not everyone is Jesus Christ so that doesn't really work as far as I see. That said- you are correct the statement in itself is straightforward but when viewed in the context of 1. who posted it 2. and the hidden connotation (implied or assumed) which I believe is present- the question becomes any thing but straightforward.

Bill Clinton felt the same about "is". ;)

[Brynja]

The existiance of the divine and a discussion on sex aren't -quite- the same

[Snatch]

The existiance of the divine and a discussion on sex aren't -quite- the same

Obviously you haven't had mind-blowing sex. :)

[Brynja]

Nope.

[dekster]

This is an old thread but I thought I'd make a few comments on it. First and foremost, I think the choices are rather limiting for people of faith simply because belief does move up and down on the scale. For example, I can mark 100% at times in my life and then, at other times, I may mark beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a thinking and rational human being, doubt does affect ones life so trying to answer in an absolute manner puts everything in the category of making it seem as if someone will always be walking around w/ an unwavering viewpoint. I applaud those who think that they are able to walk through life in this manner but I know that I am not able to do so.

Now, I'll move on to some of the posts that I'd like to respond to......

Do you believe in belief in the divinity of Jesus?

In other words, is the concept of the Divinity of Jesus a concept that should be cherished and spread?

If one believes in the Deity/Divinity of Jesus then, yes, it is a concept that should be cherished and spread. However, I don't believe that was the purpose of this poll. I would like to follow this thinking for a moment, however......

A question that often concerns me are those that follow the forms and practices of a faith but, in reality, it has no meaning in their heart. That type of empty formalism disturbs me more than anything and I've often wondered why people would act in such a manner.

In essence, I often wonder if they are giving tacit approval to those very things in which they do not believe. Are they not helping to spread some delusion by their very actions or lack of fortitude? With that in mind, I would ask the reverse.......

Do those that do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus believe that is a concept that should be spread? If so, then should they not be strong enough in their convictions to step forth and proclaim it before the world? Oh, yes, they fear ostracism or a society that does not like people that do not believe.

I know of a people that held a belief that went against the grain of a society. They firmly held to that belief and when being put to the sword they held on to that faith and willingly went to their deaths. These people were called Christians and they died for their belief.......are those that disbelieve willing to die for the power of their conviction of unbelief?

Ahhh, but those silly Christians don't have to worry about death in today's world, right? In America, that would be true but worldwide it's definitely not true.

Think them fools but these fools are willing to die for their belief.



And also, even if a person is sure they know the answer to this question, why would anyone want to get into the *same old argument* with Atticus? He's doing this to mock people, not because he actually is seeking truth of some sort.

Pearls before swine, and all that.

Honestly, GG, in looking over this thread this was my first and foremost thought. I read it and realized that most people of faith that I know would never post to such a thread or even discuss it because they see it as a great big "yes" club. In fact, it might even appear to be very similar to what people accuse Christians and other theists of doing......having their own little yes group.

According to some, though, I'm a glutton for punishment so I thought I would put in my thoughts on the matter. Especially after an evening of having to listen to someone's complete idiocy on similar matters. At least hear I've heard a bit more cogent thinking than I did earlier.


But we've already established that this might not be a straightforward question, even for people of faith.

Personally, if there were some issue important to me that I was trying to figure out, I would never post about it where a hostile jackass would mock me. Instead, if I were wanting to discuss it with others in an attempt to find my truth on the matter, I'd talk in person or post in a place where people wouldn't act like dicks about it.

Again, I must agree with you. A thread such as this one (and others I've seen on similar forums) all seem to have the same overarching theme and it often seems the same names are those that post in these threads.

However, I must admit that theists often do something very similar in their own forums. They often phrase them in such a manner hoping to bring in the non-theist and break them down.....personally, I've never found either discussion to be very helpful because while this medium is good it can never replace the nuances of personal face-to-face communication.

Now, I will try and sum up my thoughts on this matter. I could debate the historicity of the Gospels until I'm blue in the faith but, honestly, it would do no good in such an area. I might move on to the Resurrection and other matters but, again, I don't see how it would advance the discussion in a meaningful way.

Ultimately, it all boils down to a simple, personal thing for me in my faith journey. The Easter Story, Resurrection Story or whatever you would like to call it taught me somewhere deep in my being that self-sacrificing love is the greatest gift of all. Without that story, I would not be willing to die or love others......I would not be willing to care for the unlovable or be kind to those that are deformed, maimed or shunned. Without that story, I would serve myself in the best way possible and help others w/ only when I believe it would better me.

Yes, such thoughts still invade my mind.....selfishness is too often a part of my life but, hopefully, that Easter Story will continue to remind me of a love that goes beyond self. A love that sees such a great and mighty value in the lives of others that it is willing to forgo all selfishness so others might be esteemed more highly than myself.


"That is what the Son of Man has done: He came to serve, not to be served—and then to give away his life in exchange for many who are held hostage."

The Gospel of Mark Chapter 10 verse 45

[Varaj]

Ultimately, it all boils down to a simple, personal thing for me in my faith journey. The Easter Story, Resurrection Story or whatever you would like to call it taught me somewhere deep in my being that self-sacrificing love is the greatest gift of all. Without that story, I would not be willing to die or love others......I would not be willing to care for the unlovable or be kind to those that are deformed, maimed or shunned. Without that story, I would serve myself in the best way possible and help others w/ only when I believe it would better me.

Yes, such thoughts still invade my mind.....selfishness is too often a part of my life but, hopefully, that Easter Story will continue to remind me of a love that goes beyond self. A love that sees such a great and mighty value in the lives of others that it is willing to forgo all selfishness so others might be esteemed more highly than myself.

It is very nice that you got those from Christianity but all those things exist with out the Easter story or the resurrection story. Those concepts are seen in the religious and non-religious stories of every culture through out written history.

[dekster]

It is very nice that you got those from Christianity but all those things exist with out the Easter story or the resurrection story. Those concepts are seen in the religious and non-religious stories of every culture through out written history.

Really? Examples please. I'm a fairly decent student of comparative world religions and the concept of willing self-sacrifice are ones that I like to here.

I'm not doubting you or their existence, I really would like some examples. I know of a few that have some similarities but would like to see the ones that you're thinking about.

[Varaj]

Really? Examples please. I'm a fairly decent student of comparative world religions and the concept of willing self-sacrifice are ones that I like to here.

I'm not doubting you or their existence, I really would like some examples. I know of a few that have some similarities but would like to see the ones that you're thinking about.

Well lets take a famous one of self-sacrifice that they even made a movie about. It is about 300 dudes that willing sacrifice their lives in a hope to save their people.

More from greek.
The Leontides, the Coronides (daughters of Orion), the Hyacinthides, Alcis and Androcleia and the Erechtheidae collectively agree to die in compliance with an oracle so that their cities may be rescued from plague or war.

Alcestis sacrificed herself to save her husband.

What did that Prometheus guy do?

Read about the right eye of Horus for Egyptian. On a side note many people think the Jesus myth is heavily influenced by the Horus myths. There are some very surprising similarities.

What about Enkidu and Gilgamesh?

Inyan from the Lakota myths

Grandfather Bear from the Cree stories

The Hávamál and Odin.

Jicarilla Apache emergence myth

I can get more if you like.

[dekster]

Thank you for your answers. Some of your choices are rather unique and others I'm very familiar with......However, from my worldview these myths all have something in common because they are all fragments of, as Tolkien put it, The True Myth.

I find it very interesting that the seeds of the same Myth are interwoven with human history and are often looked at in wonder and with respect. Quite beautiful. And it goes against our very nature to die for strangers but, in many of these myths, this is what happens.

Ulitmately, though, while the Christian story has the same elements of myth it is The True Myth.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Varaj]

Thank you for your answers. Some of your choices are rather unique and others I'm very familiar with......However, from my worldview these myths all have something in common because they are all fragments of, as Tolkien put it, The True Myth.

I find it very interesting that the seeds of the same Myth are interwoven with human history and are often looked at in wonder and with respect. Quite beautiful. And it goes against our very nature to die for strangers but, in many of these myths, this is what happens.

Ulitmately, though, while the Christian story has the same elements of myth it is The True Myth.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

You are welcome. As for the sentence I disagree. We see it all the time. Almost in any given disaster their are heroic accounts of people risking their lives or dieing to save total strangers lives. It happens all the time, I would dare to say on a daily basis. I believe it is a normal part of human behavior.

[dekster]

You are welcome. As for the sentence I disagree. We see it all the time. Almost in any given disaster their are heroic accounts of people risking their lives or dieing to save total strangers lives. It happens all the time, I would dare to say on a daily basis. I believe it is a normal part of human behavior.

Why? I'd be interested in your thoughts on what makes humans want to die for those they do not know.

[Varaj]

Why? I'd be interested in your thoughts on what makes humans want to die for those they do not know.

Why do I believe it? Because independent observation seems to indicate it happens.

Why do humans tend to have that behavior? Most strong social species have it, it exists in humans for the same reason it exists in other species. I believe Hamilton's rule explains it fairly well.

[dekster]

Why do I believe it? Because independent observation seems to indicate it happens.

Why do humans tend to have that behavior? Most strong social species have it, it exists in humans for the same reason it exists in other species. I believe Hamilton's rule explains it fairly well.

I did not deny independent observation indicating. However, independent observation down through the centuries of the human species shows that slaying one's own kin is often a very common practice. In fact, there are times within history that it was much more common than this rule indicates.

However, if we give more credence to Hamilton's Rule it seems to have been primarily used to discuss kin selection. Social insects and ground squirrels are the examples that I read about and these creatures are concerned w/ creatures within their own colony or group.

I am not talking about a weaker, less adequate individual sacrificing themselves for their particular group or kin but, rather, those that sacrifice themselves for those they do not know at all and are NOT part of their group or culture.

I've read a good deal of evolutionary theory along sociological lines that tries to place all human behavior within an evolutionary framework. This type of thinking places all moral and behavioral decisions plainly within a framework that requires these actions to evolve so that the human species would survive and grow.

I find a number of problems with these theories based upon the very irrational nature of humanity. Humankind often does what is not best for its society, culture, family group or environment and evolutionary theory does not seem to address this well at all.

Unfortunately, this discussion has wandered into an area in which it did not start. I was trying to discuss something else but, as has been my experience, the topic often moves on to something else. I must say that I have often done something very similar.

So, with all this said and done, I've made my points and you've made yours. I can see by the poll numbers that my view on this matter is not popular or, at the very least, not popular enough for others with similar views to enter into discussion.

Therefore, I will do the more evolved thing and move on to some other topic that may have a more balanced following on this list. I find no real reason to continue if I'm the Lone Ranger.....it becomes rather dull rather quick.

Thank you for your time and I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving.

dekster

[Eliezer]

Thank you for your answers. Some of your choices are rather unique and others I'm very familiar with......However, from my worldview these myths all have something in common because they are all fragments of, as Tolkien put it, The True Myth.

I find it very interesting that the seeds of the same Myth are interwoven with human history and are often looked at in wonder and with respect. Quite beautiful. And it goes against our very nature to die for strangers but, in many of these myths, this is what happens.

Ulitmately, though, while the Christian story has the same elements of myth it is The True Myth.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Dekster, I'm relatively new here, but quoting Tolkien to talk about the "The True Myth" seems a little disingenuous given that the subject has been given lots and lots of thought by a number of scholars. At essence is how is it that some central themes can exist in the myths of different cultures throughout the world? There have been Christian apologists who have attempted to state that the reason is that these ideas where taught by Adam to his descendants and that as the human race spread throughout the globe some corrupt elements of the "faith" were preserved in the myths and legends of the various peoples.

This is used to explain why flood myths, Horus/Jesus myths and others exist in both the new and old world.

However, Joseph Campbell attempted to tackle these questions from a different perspective and evolutionary psychology has lent a great deal of credence to this idea of hard wiring within our brain for the social interactions being the source of the myths.

Whether you accept the Christian apologist view or the evolutionary psychologist view does not in any way change the original contention by Varaj that multiple cultures have a self sacrifice myth. In fact the converse is true.

[dekster]

Whether you accept the Christian apologist view or the evolutionary psychologist view does not in any way change the original contention by Varaj that multiple cultures have a self sacrifice myth. In fact the converse is true.

Huh? I don't get it. I never indicated that other cultures did not have some type of sacrifice within them. Those sacrifices differed in a number of ways from culture to culture but, yes, there are too many examples of sacrifice to deny it.

So, would you please explain your point? :rolleyes:

[Varaj]

Really? Examples please. I'm a fairly decent student of comparative world religions and the concept of willing self-sacrifice are ones that I like to here.


Huh? I don't get it. I never indicated that other cultures had some type of sacrifice within them. Those sacrifices differed in a number of ways from culture to culture but, yes, there are too many examples of sacrifice to deny it.

So, would you please explain your point? :rolleyes:


The world really followed by a question mark is generally used to indicated you don't believe something. So yes you did indicate that you didn't believe other cultures had self-sacrifice myths.

[Eliezer]

Huh? I don't get it. I never indicated that other cultures had some type of sacrifice within them. Those sacrifices differed in a number of ways from culture to culture but, yes, there are too many examples of sacrifice to deny it.

So, would you please explain your point? :rolleyes:

I guess we'll just have to color me confused. I thought you had advocated a position that Christianity was fairly unique in it's self-sacrifice myth. Then you had shifted that position, once proven wrong, to the "one true myth". I had assumed by this phrase that you were referring to Christian apologists (usually short earth types) who believe that the sacrifice myths are all corruptions of prophecies of a Christ taught to Adam's descendants as they spread through the earth.

If I misunderstood you then I'll just apologize for my confusion.

[dekster]

The world really followed by a question mark is generally used to indicated you don't believe something. So yes you did indicate that you didn't believe other cultures had self-sacrifice myths.

Well, considering the typos in this post, I can see how mine might also have caused confusion. The key phrase in my posting was:

I'm a fairly decent student of comparative world religions and the concept of willing self-sacrifice are ones that I like to here.

So, while there might have been a question mark behind the word "really", the context of the statement might have been construed as mildly sarcastic. I guess I'll have to check the "smilies" for one that will help.

My apologies for the confusion. I'll explain my position further in a reply to another post.

[Varaj]

Well, considering the typos in this post, I can see how mine might also have caused confusion. The key phrase in my posting was:


So, while there might have been a question mark behind the word "really", the context of the statement might have been construed as mildly sarcastic. I guess I'll have to check the "smilies" for one that will help.

My apologies for the confusion. I'll explain my position further in a reply to another post.

Cool, cool.

[dekster]

I guess we'll just have to color me confused. I thought you had advocated a position that Christianity was fairly unique in it's self-sacrifice myth. Then you had shifted that position, once proven wrong, to the "one true myth".
I'll try and be clearer on a few points that, sadly, I did not convey as well as I might have done earlier.

First and foremost, I have been a student of world religions and mythologies since a very young age. I cut my teeth on mythology from the Greco/Roman and Norse worlds while still very young. While the encyclopedias I read for fun were quite a few years out of date even when I was a child, they conveyed these mythologies faithfully. (Pardon the pun.)

As I got older, I enjoyed reading both Egyptian and Hindu religious beliefs. About the only areas that I've never really delved into are Asian belief systems. I'm familiar with them in a general way but, other than that, would have to look into them further before being able to discuss them more fully.

So, with that said, the sacrifice myths are ones in which I'm familiar.


I had assumed by this phrase that you were referring to Christian apologists (usually short earth types) who believe that the sacrifice myths are all corruptions of prophecies of a Christ taught to Adam's descendants as they spread through the earth.

If I misunderstood you then I'll just apologize for my confusion.

There are quite a few things to address in just this one section of the post. I am neither a "young earth" nor an "old earth" Christian as I believe that the texts are not trying to put forth either concept. If someone wants to ask my beliefs about the geological timetable, that's an entirely different matter.

The whole "young earth" argument is a total misunderstanding of genre and the literary purpose of a text. When looking at the text in such a manner it is at the best, frustrating, and at the worst, heretical, from my point of view.

While I did journey through fundamentalism in my life, I must say that the concept of "Christ" teaching Adam's descendants certain prophecies would be an even more disingenuous reading of the text as well as a total misunderstanding of Biblical history and Christian doctrine. The primary example would be, of course, that the incarnation had not as yet occurred at this time so it would quite strange for The Messiah to be giving Adam prophecies.

Doctrinally, some may wish to point to the protoevangelium found in the third chapter of Genesis but most conservative and liberal scholars would not try and say that Adam had a clear understanding of what this may have meant. You must have dealt with a rather strange branch of fundamentalism and, having been a part of some rather strange branches, I'd be curious to find out more about it.

As to the term, True Myth, I use it in the sense that JRR Tolkien used it when he spoke to CS Lewis.

Jospeh Pearce, in discussing Tolkien and Lewis, relates the following and explains it in such a way that if I was to expound upon it without giving him the credit it would seem as if I was trying to make it seem as if I'd come up with it myself. Here is the statement:

Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.

More can be found here:

JRR Tolkien: Truth and Myth (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0107.html).

So, as the Apostle Paul before him, I agree with Tolkien that God has revealed Himself through the poets, artists and myth makers of cultures throughout the world as a way of expressing Himself. It was, in my world view, ultimately shaped in the coming of Christ.

This is very different in the view you presuppose from certain fundamentalist groups. Such people, in my experience, seem to need to think that everything needs an unbroken lineage instead of realizing that God has revealed Himself throughout creation. I have no problem believing that everyone throughout history has had the Imago Dei within them no matter how darkly it may have been obscured.

Does this clarify my view? I hope so. I am more than willing to answer any further questions to help understand my point.

Thank you for your time.

[Eliezer]

While I did journey through fundamentalism in my life, I must say that the concept of "Christ" teaching Adam's descendants certain prophecies would be an even more disingenuous reading of the text as well as a total misunderstanding of Biblical history and Christian doctrine. The primary example would be, of course, that the incarnation had not as yet occurred at this time so it would quite strange for The Messiah to be giving Adam prophecies.

Doctrinally, some may wish to point to the protoevangelium found in the third chapter of Genesis but most conservative and liberal scholars would not try and say that Adam had a clear understanding of what this may have meant. You must have dealt with a rather strange branch of fundamentalism and, having been a part of some rather strange branches, I'd be curious to find out more about it.


Thank you, much clearer.

Apparently I mis-wrote. I meant to refer to proto-gospel teachings that prefigured and prophesied of an incarnate self-sacrificing god.

Lack of pre-incarnation gospel teachings are problematic for me logically. I have issues with a religion that requires faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and then doesn't have the "gospel" being taught in any form sufficient for faith in an incarnate, self-sacrificing god so that salvation would then be available to them. To have an all knowing god who planned things for Christ to come and to not be able to provide "prophecies" of his coming and clarity about it seems ludicrous.

The mental gymnastics that some go through to eliminate the need for a pre-incarnation gospel to be taught is pretty impressive, but I find it just plain silly. It's much easier to posit the "gospel" being taught from the beginning and the Mosaic law as prefiguring Christ, or a lesser law because the Israelites would not receive the full gospel.

Some interesting evidence for this are the "Christian" style ceremonies (particularly rituals that appear to be similar to the bread and wine/flesh and blood ceremony) of Christians that appear to have been practiced in Israel in some religious communities prior to the advent of Christ.

However, that same evidence could be taken to show that Jesus was just a plagiarist and that everything he introduced as "new" was really already there and he just capitalized on the pre-existing myths. Similar to how Christians tend to view Mohamed (SAW).

But you are right, in the minds of most Christians it isn't the "gospel" it is proto-gospel elements. Most believe it isn't there, but some believe it is.

[dekster]

Thank you, much clearer.

Apparently I mis-wrote. I meant to refer to proto-gospel teachings that prefigured and prophesied of an incarnate self-sacrificing god.

Lack of pre-incarnation gospel teachings are problematic for me logically. I have issues with a religion that requires faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and then doesn't have the "gospel" being taught in any form sufficient for faith in an incarnate, self-sacrificing god so that salvation would then be available to them. To have an all knowing god who planned things for Christ to come and to not be able to provide "prophecies" of his coming and clarity about it seems ludicrous.

Well, in this area I would like to disagree with you but it seems that we view this in such a different manner that it would be very difficult.

It's also very interesting that you went from the view of The Messiah directly communicating with Adam to a "proto-gospel." I'm not sure what you mean by that term but I have an idea.....the doctrinal concept of the protoevangelium simply means "the first message" of hope. It is not meant, in a literal sense, to fully prefigure the Incarnation though that application can be made.

This concept is best understood as one of hope that is given to people that need it. It's also nice to see the comments that I'm familiar with in such discussions such as "ludicrous" and I look forward to the Dawkin's fans who might want to use "ridiculous." Yes, even terms such as "crazy" and "deluded" might help in this discussion <insert sarcastic smilie>. (Personally, I think Douglas Adams gave the best discussion of atheism over and above Dawkins.)

The mental gymnastics that some go through to eliminate the need for a pre-incarnation gospel to be taught is pretty impressive, but I find it just plain silly. It's much easier to posit the "gospel" being taught from the beginning and the Mosaic law as prefiguring Christ, or a lesser law because the Israelites would not receive the full gospel.


This depends on what theological tradition you are using. There are no great theological gymnastics when one understands certain basic concepts of Judaism and the _fact_ that this was a religious tradition based on sacrifice. There are major implications that even human sacrifice may have been practiced among the Hebrews but was later explicitly forbidden.

Thank you, again, for your smashing and brilliant discussion. "Just plain silly" is a most definite winner in discussing an issue. I find it "just plain stupid" that some people can not see what it right in front of their face. I also find it "just plain stupid" when people can't see the forest for the trees. And I find atheism a hopeless despairing place in which to walk where eternity lasts only seventy to eighty years if one is lucky.

Yes, these "arguments" you've presented are excellent ones. <insert sarcastic smilie>

And people wonder why I don't get into these discussions on the 'net anymore.

I had someone who is becoming quite a good friend point something out to me yesterday and I appreciate him for it. He said that the 'net is often a place where people like to go "fight" and he likes to use it as a place to have fun. I think I'll take his advice and do the same.

I'll just make one or two further comments. ;)

Some interesting evidence for this are the "Christian" style ceremonies (particularly rituals that appear to be similar to the bread and wine/flesh and blood ceremony) of Christians that appear to have been practiced in Israel in some religious communities prior to the advent of Christ.


Yes, and your point is? No good scholar denies the existence of these communities. In fact, the Gospels themselves show that these practices (especially baptism) was used prior to the Incarnation. And the whole "meal" thing.....Have you never heard of Passover?

You try and prove a point by saying:

However, that same evidence could be taken to show that Jesus was just a plagiarist and that everything he introduced as "new" was really already there and he just capitalized on the pre-existing myths. Similar to how Christians tend to view Mohamed (SAW).


Jesus a plagiarist? Again, you've totally missed any point I've tried to make. Jesus was an Israelite and during his time he saw a "meal" every year. It had a lot to do with sacrifice and a people being in bondage. It was called Passover. The whole establishment of the meal was not meant to do away with that meal but to change it to mean something else.

That's not called plagiarism....it's called the evolution of religion. Other groups have done it as well. (In this case, I'm not arguing for the rightness or wrongness of my position. I am just pointing out your gross error in identifying this as plagiarism. Just as the Hebrew religion very quickly did away with any type of human sacrifice and evolved into something greater so to did the Christian faith.)

But you are right, in the minds of most Christians it isn't the "gospel" it is proto-gospel elements. Most believe it isn't there, but some believe it is.


Most, some....great descriptors. Again, I'd point out that you did not speak at all about a protoevangelium at all but directly stated that there are "some Christians" that believe that Christ directly gave Adam prophecies that were later corrupted.

I asked for corroboration about such a fundamentalist group as I had not seen such teaching being common within fundamentalism as I'd studied it. This is not a simple "mis-writing" but a blatant misrepresentation of a belief system.

It is much easier to make someone look silly by saying, "They believe Jesus talked to Adam and told him what was going to happen and the later people screwed it up." Than to say, "There is a message of hope that weaves its way in and out of the Biblical narrative that is often missed." That IS the protoevangelium.

One sounds like a crazed fundamentalist that believes in a time traveling pre-Incarnate Jesus. The other sounds as if there was a plan behind it all without having to jump through so-called "magical" hoops or twist the story behind understanding.

*sigh*

There I go again.

[Eliezer]

First off, Dekster: Thanks for being so patient with me. I know it's hard to have to deal with people who obviously aren't as educated as you on these subjects. And apparently I'm such a poor writer that my arguments are too obtuse to be made sense of so your reduction of my arguments by ad hominem is totally valid. I accept your rebuke and bow before your obviously superior and grandiose intellect.


It is much easier to make someone look silly by saying, "They believe Jesus talked to Adam and told him what was going to happen and the later people screwed it up." Than to say, "There is a message of hope that weaves its way in and out of the Biblical narrative that is often missed." That IS the protoevangelium.

One sounds like a crazed fundamentalist that believes in a time traveling pre-Incarnate Jesus. The other sounds as if there was a plan behind it all without having to jump through so-called "magical" hoops or twist the story behind understanding.

*sigh*

There I go again.

Let's break it down into simple terms so nobody gets lost again...

How are people saved? The answer I understand to be fairly standard in the Christian community is "faith in Christ". If that answer isn't correct then this all falls apart, but I'm feeling pretty confident that this a "correct" answer for the majority of mainstream christians in the US.

If that is true the next question is "How did people get saved prior to the incarnation?"
I'm not going to accept "they didn't" as an answer since we have Abraham saved in a parable.

If the answer of how pre-incarnation folks got saved involves anything other than "faith in Christ" then the next obvious question is "Why has the criteria for salvation been changed?"

Now, changing the criteria for salvation prior to incarnation and post incarnation doesn't make a lot of sense to me. (Now you pointed out earlier that maybe I'm just too dumb to see the simple logic of it. And you apparently mistook my exclamations of how it looked to me as a logical argument, but I never intended it as such.) I'm not making an argument, but stating that I am confused on why a point of doctrine exists.

Maybe my reasoning is flawed, but here it is in a nutshell:
Trinitarian belief... Same god, incarnate or not. Eternal, changeless, unknowable (so maybe he changes but we don't know it). He's omniscient and omnipotent. So why go through the whole process of changing "how" you get saved? Why not teach initially that "Jesus" is coming and believe on the Christ that is to be and you'll be saved? Why change it at all?

Maybe, just maybe, I believe religious beliefs ought to be internally consistent and logically consistent. Maybe, just maybe I believe that if god's all so hot he'd be efficient too. He wouldn't be in the business of laughing at our plight when he creates a world, puts and Adam and Eve in it and watching them screw up and then telling every other person born on the planet, "Sorry, your ancient forebears fucked up so you're totally fucked. Yep, disease, sin, pain, suffering, death. Yep, you get all that because Adam and Eve fucked it all up for you."

It is more logically consistent to believe that the world with all its problem exists for a reason in its imperfect state and that it was intended that way from the beginning and god planned a incarnation from the beginning and planned from the beginning that salvation would come through faith on him. Seems a lot simpler...

But maybe we ought to hijack our own thread for that discussion ;)


Now, a word of caution. You can be all smarmy and condescending with me or you can try to actually enlighten me. Your choice. I've asked what I thought were valid questions. I have what I consider to be valid concerns over what I believe are just plain silly beliefs by mainstream christianity. You can ignore it all, dismiss me or respond in the same condescending vein you've bothered to respond in thus far.

[dekster]

First off, Dekster: Thanks for being so patient with me. I know it's hard to have to deal with people who obviously aren't as educated as you on these subjects. And apparently I'm such a poor writer that my arguments are too obtuse to be made sense of so your reduction of my arguments by ad hominem is totally valid. I accept your rebuke and bow before your obviously superior and grandiose intellect.

Well, I guess it was a rebuke. However, to say that my intellect is superior and grandiose, while it feeds my ego, reminds me to say that I'm just a small town country preacher.

I know you're being a bit facetious and I do apologize for having misunderstood where you're coming from. With the nature of this thread and the consistency of the comments I'd seen, I made the mistake of not realizing that you were actually seeking honest discussion.

I'll post the last part of your message here:

Now, a word of caution. You can be all smarmy and condescending with me or you can try to actually enlighten me. Your choice. I've asked what I thought were valid questions. I have what I consider to be valid concerns over what I believe are just plain silly beliefs by mainstream christianity. You can ignore it all, dismiss me or respond in the same condescending vein you've bothered to respond in thus far.

Again, I must apologize for misunderstanding your original posts. I honestly did not believe you were wanting to discuss the matter as it did not come across in that manner. To be very frank with you, I am not the type of person that likes to flame in and out. I've also outgrown the need to think that I have all the answers.

I also apologize for coming off condescending as, again, that is not who I am. I've been slapped around enough in life to realize that's not the way to act. I honestly thought that you were trying to reduce Christian teaching to the "ridiculous" instead of honestly discuss it. I'd already browsed through enough threads here and that other place to think that was the general consensus.

It was my desire to jump and just post a few viewpoints and I never had the wish to seem condescending in these matters. The only matters in which I find it impossible NOT to sound condescending are role-playing games and, I must admit, that's just too volatile a subject on the net right now. It'll get you burnt at the stake! :shock: (Besides, everyone knows the system I'm playing is the best!)

Now, I'll respond to the rest of your message in another post. But, let's get things off on the right foot, eh?

Hey, my name is Dekster. I spent eight years ministering in fairly conservative churches, primarily the Assemblies of God. I have over 60 hours of Bible courses from conservative to moderate to liberal views and, strangely enough, hoping to finally finish my Bachelor's degree this year after 20 years of trying. The degree will be in Organizational Management.

My other career outside of ministry has been in collections (Yeah, I know....insert laughter here.....you can even use the joke, "Hey, what's the difference? Answer: The people are nicer!" :lol:) and retail sales primarily dealing with electronics.

Religious background: Raised Occasional Southern Baptist (Occasionally, we went to church.) Ministered in the Assemblies of God (Trinitarian Pentecostal Denomination) and left them formally in 1999. Currently, I'm reentering vocational ministry with the United Methodist Church because it feels like "home" to my family and I. That's not an experience I've had in a long time.

My hobbies are:

Reading musty as well as new theological tomes.
Church history.
Freemasonry, it's history and research.
Playing, collecting, discussing and generally anything related to Fantasy RPGs and the industry.
Reading Fantasy and Sci-Fi.
Science and evolution have recently popped up on the scene.
I'm trying to move way from politics...too volatile.

Why do I say all this? Well, it gives you a brief overview of where I'm coming from. If I come off sounding condescending, please note that I'm WYSIWYG and I don't mean to sound that way.

So, with all this said.......hopefully, you'll tell me a bit about yourself so we'll both know where we're coming from.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Can I jump in here?

If that is true the next question is "How did people get saved prior to the incarnation?"

One widely-held belief is called the Harrowing of Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell). Basically, when Christ descended into Hell, he smashed in the doors, generally kicked demon butt and gave everyone who died before the Incarnation an opportunity to leave with Him.

"Come with me if you want to live." :)

Why not teach initially that "Jesus" is coming and believe on the Christ that is to be and you'll be saved? Why change it at all?

Another widely held belief is called "progressive revelation", humanity wasn't ready to process the full story, so as humanity develops, God reveals more and more about what He is like

[Eliezer]

Can I jump in here?



One widely-held belief is called the Harrowing of Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell). Basically, when Christ descended into Hell, he smashed in the doors, generally kicked demon butt and gave everyone who died before the Incarnation an opportunity to leave with Him.

"Come with me if you want to live." :)


Hastur, you're always welcome to jump in. :)

Harrowing of hell idea is a pretty cool one. Still changes how salvation occurs and provides for post-death salvation for the damned. One time exception kind of makes sense, but why not do the mormon baptism for the dead thing instead? Given a few assumptions about an unchanging god, a consistent path to salvation makes more sense to me. But I can chalk that up to "unknowable mysteries" for the moment.


Another widely held belief is called "progressive revelation", humanity wasn't ready to process the full story, so as humanity develops, God reveals more and more about what He is like

The progressive revelation idea doesn't really jive with me. I've found very little evidence that mankind was any less "human" or capable of understanding than we are now. Humans 4000 years ago were just as smart, had the same desires, had the same problems as a class (no they didn't have cell phone issues back then or internet message board threads to flame).

Morally, I find no superiority between now and then. Modern western thinking is still very firmly predicated upon Greek thinking that is over 2000 years old. Ideals such as the "rule of law" or the death of ideals like the fading of the "god kings" around 400-600 BC in the near east may be considered evolutionary idea changes, but all of these ideas have been around and keep coming back or fading.

Cultures that embrace certain ideas have definitely progressed and faded as they themselves have changed or others have changed.

Now, I can accept that peoples or cultures may have been prepared differently at different times for "the gospel", but I have trouble with humanity as a whole being prepared or not prepared for the incarnation.

But that's just my take on the situation based on some reading of history and reading translations of ancient literature.

[Eliezer]

Can I jump in here?



One widely-held belief is called the Harrowing of Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell). Basically, when Christ descended into Hell, he smashed in the doors, generally kicked demon butt and gave everyone who died before the Incarnation an opportunity to leave with Him.

"Come with me if you want to live." :)


Just thought of something. There would apparently have been some prophets, like Abraham, who where in heaven before the harrowing. Does that open up multiple ways to access salvation before Christ?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Harrowing of hell idea is a pretty cool one. Still changes how salvation occurs and provides for post-death salvation for the damned. One time exception kind of makes sense, but why not do the mormon baptism for the dead thing instead? Given a few assumptions about an unchanging god, a consistent path to salvation makes more sense to me. But I can chalk that up to "unknowable mysteries" for the moment.

Hold tight because this is going to get funky. The Jesus' death and ressurrection was a single moment in time, but it's consequences echo backwards and forwards through spacetime. It changed the nature of reality: past, present and future.

During Passover at around ~35 CE, Jesus kicked down the doors of hell and set the captives free
Right now, Jesus is kicking down down the doors of hell and setting the captives free
Fifty, a hundred, even a million years in the future, Jesus will be kicking down the doors of hell and setting the captives free
Before the first human being was born, Jesus was kicking down the doors of hell and setting the captives free

(I'd almost say that before the world was created Jesus kicked down the doors of hell and set the captives free, but I haven't thought the implications of that statement through and it may be heresy)

I'm dressing it up in sci-fi language, but this is a fairly widespread belief.

The progressive revelation idea doesn't really jive with me. I've found very little evidence that mankind was any less "human" or capable of understanding than we are now. Humans 4000 years ago were just as smart, had the same desires, had the same problems as a class (no they didn't have cell phone issues back then or internet message board threads to flame).

Morally, I find no superiority between now and then.

Really? We're probably going to have to agree to differ on that one because I can see great improvement in the "moral character" of humanity even in the last two hundred years, never mind the last 2000

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Just thought of something. There would apparently have been some prophets, like Abraham, who where in heaven before the harrowing. Does that open up multiple ways to access salvation before Christ?

Yes, and this is one of the many reasons why I don't accept that the conservative evangelical "accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior or be lovingly tortured for all eternity" interpretation of the Bible

I don't even understand what the words "Personal Savior" mean.

[dekster]

Let's break it down into simple terms so nobody gets lost again...

How are people saved? The answer I understand to be fairly standard in the Christian community is "faith in Christ". If that answer isn't correct then this all falls apart, but I'm feeling pretty confident that this a "correct" answer for the majority of mainstream christians in the US.

If that is true the next question is "How did people get saved prior to the incarnation?"
I'm not going to accept "they didn't" as an answer since we have Abraham saved in a parable.

If the answer of how pre-incarnation folks got saved involves anything other than "faith in Christ" then the next obvious question is "Why has the criteria for salvation been changed?"

Wow. This is a tough one. Why? Because faith in Christ has so many implications in that phrase. The answer to that question has varied across the board and, similar questions like it, helped start the Protestant Reformation.

This question would have been easier to answer a few centuries ago simply because we would most likely have a common idea of who Christ is and was as well as what you're talking about.

I would really like to discuss it with you but, to be honest, it would take an entire book to do it. Would you be interested in reading a book on the the subject? If so, I'd recommend a certain book as I found it helpful but it's a bit of hard reading. It was, at least, for me rather difficult as I had to find the Greek and Hebrew tools to help me with some of the issues raised in it.

The question your asking is "How are people saved?" (Both pre and post incarnation) but first we have to ask ourselves "What is salvation?"

In the last century or two, salvation has boiled down to being "saved from sin." Whereas, historically, I believe the answer to that question was becoming a part of the community of the monotheistic God of Israel. Once within that community forgiveness becomes a vital part of the equation and how that forgiveness has been communicated was changed.

Now, originally, people became a part of the community of God of Israel by birth. Others eventually came into that community by the proselytizing of that community but this was often rarely done. Forgiveness was then demonstrated through the sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament. There was, however, a running theme that the ultimate sacrifice that God desired was one of the heart (metaphoric, not literal.)

Now, why the incarnation? Well, this allowed the community of God to have Him walk among them. It also made it much easier for those not born within that community to now enter into it by placing their belief in Him as He had now appeared. Instead of limiting this salvation to a specific people it was now opened to all nations.

So, ultimately, how are people saved? By becoming a part of the community of God. How was this done pre-incarnation? Mostly by birth and a trust in God to accept the sacrifices of a faithful heart. How is this done post-incarnation? By "new" birth and trust in God (seen in Jesus) to accept the sacrifices of a faithful heart.

The problem with popular evangelical Christianity is that they've wanted to boil salvation down to a simple and easy to understand truth. There is no wrong with this per se but, honestly, we live in a much better educated world where more and more people need fuller answers. Sadly, no one either wants to take the time to communicate those answers or don't know the answers themselves.

Maybe my reasoning is flawed, but here it is in a nutshell:
Trinitarian belief... Same god, incarnate or not. Eternal, changeless, unknowable (so maybe he changes but we don't know it). He's omniscient and omnipotent. So why go through the whole process of changing "how" you get saved? Why not teach initially that "Jesus" is coming and believe on the Christ that is to be and you'll be saved? Why change it at all?


So, it boils down to this and I'll probably sound like I'm repeating myself but hopefully I'll bring across this point clearly. How was salvation brought about preincarnation? One became a part of God's community and looked forward to a time when He would bring ultimate forgiveness to his people. Yes, this means looking forward to Jesus but they did not have to have a full and clear understanding of who Jesus would be but, rather, that God was sending his deliverer just as he had done in the past.

The whole Old Testament continually shows God's people f**king everything up and his eventual saving them out of their troubles. He continually tells them there will come a time when ultimate salvation will occur.

This is what is seen in the Advent of the Messiah. The whole concept of Messiah was within the framework of the Hebrew Scriptures and is clearly enough outlined so the Hebrews only needed to hope that God would send salvation.

After the incarnation, the hope is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. It's not necessarily a looking forward to the person of Jesus as some indicate but, rather, a looking forward to the Redeemer of Israel. However, after the Incarnation the whole world may now look back to it and find forgiveness and entrance into God's community.

In the Book of Acts, Paul puts forth a brief message on Mars Hill that has a short outline of this concept as viewed by those outside the Israelite community (Gentile) while Peter, in the beginning of the book, outlines the message to those who would have been considered a part of that community (Israel).

Maybe, just maybe, I believe religious beliefs ought to be internally consistent and logically consistent.

I also like logical consistency. It's what took me to where I am in my journey. I hope that my information helps and I'll only direct you to one website that might help explain it clearer than I though it's trying to discuss these concepts within the Christian community.

http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html

If I'm not clear or seemed repetitious, I apologize for my inadequacies in this area.

[dekster]

Yes, and this is one of the many reasons why I don't accept that the conservative evangelical "accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior or be lovingly tortured for all eternity" interpretation of the Bible

I don't even understand what the words "Personal Savior" mean.

I think I'm going to like you. I don't know whether we'll agree fully or not but that one statement above is just beautiful.

Thanks,

dekster

[dekster]

During Passover at around ~35 CE, Jesus kicked down the doors of hell and set the captives free Right now, Jesus is kicking down down the doors of hell and setting the captives free Fifty, a hundred, even a million years in the future, Jesus will be kicking down the doors of hell and setting the captives free Before the first human being was born, Jesus was kicking down the doors of hell and setting the captives free

(I'd almost say that before the world was created Jesus kicked down the doors of hell and set the captives free, but I haven't thought the implications of that statement through and it may be heresy)

I don't think that would be heresy. I also don't have any major problems with this view in one sense or another. Jesus' sacrifice takes him outside the space-time continuum and is quite amazing.

The whole "harrowing" view, though, is not as necessary. I see hell, especially as used in the Apostle's Creed, as being the "land of the dead."

Really? We're probably going to have to agree to differ on that one because I can see great improvement in the "moral character" of humanity even in the last two hundred years, never mind the last 2000

I would also have to agree. Slavery is one prime example of an issue that has definitely changed. (Unless wage slave is the same thing? ;) )

[Varaj]

I would also have to agree. Slavery is one prime example of an issue that has definitely changed. (Unless wage slave is the same thing? ;) )

I think he meant moral capability. At least that is how I read what he said.

[Eliezer]

Wow. This is a tough one. Why? Because faith in Christ has so many implications in that phrase. The answer to that question has varied across the board and, similar questions like it, helped start the Protestant Reformation.

**edited out for not having huge post**

I also like logical consistency. It's what took me to where I am in my journey. I hope that my information helps and I'll only direct you to one website that might help explain it clearer than I though it's trying to discuss these concepts within the Christian community.

http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html

If I'm not clear or seemed repetitious, I apologize for my inadequacies in this area.

Dekster, thanks for the answer. It looks like the simple answer is that "faith in Christ" isn't really the defining criteria for salvation, but rather more "joining the community". I'm good with that answer. Prior to Christ to join the community you didn't need a clear understand of who the incarnate Christ would be, but rather that you believe that a savior or deliverer would come.

That actually makes sense. Eliminates the need for a specific Christ figure to be taught to Adam or his immediate descendants and only be taught that a deliverer would come at some future point. That just leaves the question of how that message was communicated and how the specifics worked. Since the scriptural account is largely closed on this and apocryphal sources (like the book of Enoch) aren't conclusive we'll probably remain in the dark on this.

But again, thanks. This helps me understand better.

[Eliezer]

Hold tight because this is going to get funky. The Jesus' death and ressurrection was a single moment in time, but it's consequences echo backwards and forwards through spacetime. It changed the nature of reality: past, present and future.

During Passover at around ~35 CE, Jesus kicked down the doors of hell and set the captives free
Right now, Jesus is kicking down down the doors of hell and setting the captives free
Fifty, a hundred, even a million years in the future, Jesus will be kicking down the doors of hell and setting the captives free
Before the first human being was born, Jesus was kicking down the doors of hell and setting the captives free

(I'd almost say that before the world was created Jesus kicked down the doors of hell and set the captives free, but I haven't thought the implications of that statement through and it may be heresy)

I'm dressing it up in sci-fi language, but this is a fairly widespread belief.


Well, hey if you've got a god not constrained by linear time then it works just fine. From the perspective of Abraham, no time travel necessary it's just a retroactive thing from the future into the present. (That's taken from the perspective of someone who sees time as linear.) From that perspective, you don't need a harrowing at all because the sacrifice/atonement works retroactively. From Abraham's perspective, I'm in the community, forgiven of sins because the deliverer will come and deliver. Given the near eastern perspective on time that would not be logically problematic for most people until the Greeks came along.



Really? We're probably going to have to agree to differ on that one because I can see great improvement in the "moral character" of humanity even in the last two hundred years, never mind the last 2000

That's fine, however, not to put too fine a point on it, but perhaps your thinking in terms of Western democracies. Slavery is still very much alive in the world. Children sex slaves for the boy armies in parts of Africa comes to mind. In my sleepy home town in midwest Kansas they busted a sex slavery ring for "massage parlors" that involved illegal chinese immigrants forced into prostitution to pay off their debt for coming the the US. The UK has recently had arrests for the same thing going on.

The US may not be a marauding band of Assyrians that gouge out the eyes of it's enemies kings after slaying the kings children in front of the king, but we have violated pretty seriously the very "rules of law" and common morals of humanism upon the sacrificial altar of "expediency".

In the last 400 years there have been enormous strides toward greater morality and a more common morality, however, we've also committed virtual genocide against large populations of the world like the indigenous folks in Mexico and parts of Africa and Australia. We've had Polpots, Stalins, Hitlers, large and small. We allowed the genocide of Rwanda. We saw thousands of people dumped into a sausage grinder and put the resulting whole human sausage into a river. The UN war crimes investigators didn't believe the destruction of human life was that great at that plant. They dredged the river far enough downstream and eventually dredged up tons of human bone fragments. That was in Europe in the Balkans. That was within my life time and recent memory!

Moral strides... The ancient Romans treated some conquered peoples extremely humanely and others were not treated so nicely. In many instances they did better than Europe did to Germany after WWI. The Chinese have also gone through times of enlightenment and times of darkness just like the West. Various cultures have outlawed slavery at various times in history. Various cultures were variously bloody and variously even handed, fair and ruled by the rule of law. Just like today.

We can agree to disagree on this, but some have argued that man's inhumanity against man isn't limited by his improved moral capacity, but rather his increased accountability in the eyes of world judges.

My study of history has led me to the conclusion that we as a people on this planet or nor more nor less moral than the total of our ancient forebears. We can argue that we are not Genghis Khan or any particular group. History is often sensationalized and we forget the people that were most like we like to view ourselves. For a really good example check out ancient Egypt and what we know of their morals and things. Slavery existed, but their views on family, loyalty, the law and other "moral" issues is very "modern".

[dekster]

We can agree to disagree on this, but some have argued that man's inhumanity against man isn't limited by his improved moral capacity, but rather his increased accountability in the eyes of world judges.

My study of history has led me to the conclusion that we as a people on this planet or nor more nor less moral than the total of our ancient forebears. We can argue that we are not Genghis Khan or any particular group. History is often sensationalized and we forget the people that were most like we like to view ourselves. For a really good example check out ancient Egypt and what we know of their morals and things. Slavery existed, but their views on family, loyalty, the law and other "moral" issues is very "modern".

What an interesting statement! Quite a good one....basically, it becomes act right or the people watching will kick your a** or, at the very least, talk bad about you. (I'm not being sarcastic....I like this view. It's something to think about.)

Your second example is good as well. Your comments about we, as a people, take part in the moral responsibility of our forebears is also a thought that has run through my mind on both a personal and corporate level.

Good things to think about.