1. Man and God

Comment #103373 by smithyboy on December 25, 2007 at 10:11 am

Help though. I can't find how to change my user name. I've gone to edit account details and it doesn't seem to be an option.

2. Man and God

Comment #103364 by smithyboy on December 25, 2007 at 9:46 am

I only ever used a screen name because when I first signed up it seemed to be done the thing. But it is nice to know real names, so I'll use mine from now on: Mark Smith. (Not that it gives much away, being so common!)

3. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103236 by smithyboy on December 24, 2007 at 3:25 pm

sent2null
I went through a religious period. But I did try to examine evidence and listen to reason. And I was always struck when I came across something honestly and accurately explained. There were times it clashed with what I believed and, to be honest, I often held on to what I believed. But in the end there were too many clashes and I realised my faith wasn't tenable. So in the long run it is worth it. Some of the 'defenders' might never change their positions, but others will, and in the long run they will appreciate the 'enlightment' others bring.

Cheers and merry Christmas.

4. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103220 by smithyboy on December 24, 2007 at 2:09 pm

sent2null
urin4it may not have been impressed, but I sure was. And I like to think that is because I read you carefully and pretty much understood what you said. Thanks for the post.

5. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103213 by smithyboy on December 24, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Dsouzaphile

Smithyboy, you haven't thought through the fact that I believe the Lord spake the entire universe into existence, so a little earth stoppage and it's multitude of problematic consequences is not a large prob.

Actually I had thought that through. In case you missed my last sentence, I wrote

And no doubt you define god as omnipotent, thus cleverly defining him as capable of doing it, but surely at some point the absurdity will strike you, and you will think, 'Oh yeah, perhaps it's just that the story is a myth'?

What you now need to think through is this: the god you are asserting is indistinguishable from that first-grade-philosophy-student construct, the god which created everything just a moment ago, but with the appearance that all is just as it is; or the other construct, in which you are just the figment of a greater being's imagination. Do you not see that once you have recourse to a god for whom 'a little earth stoppage and it's multitude of problematic consequences is not a large prob' you can prove everything and thereby nothing? That way madness lies!

6. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103199 by smithyboy on December 24, 2007 at 1:14 pm

ADH
Comment 64: now you say 'the miracle of the incarnation' is the key, while not so long ago, on the first Pagan Christ thread (6 December article), you were maintaining it is the resurrection. ('The evidence is … to crown it all, so to speak, his resurrection'). You never did come back to that one once your evidence for the resurrection was challenged. Perhaps you think 'the incarnation' is less open to refutation?

7. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103186 by smithyboy on December 24, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Albondigas

We are agreed that your argument is 'in general terms' accurately summarised as:

1. unless the first Christians had had some sort of experience that led them to believe that the dead Jesus had come alive again, they would not have come to believe that Yahweh had planned for Jesus to die and they would not have acted on this

2. they did indeed believe and act as in 1 above, therefore they must have had the sort of experience referred to in 1 above

3. the sort of experience referred to in 1 above is only explained by the resurrection being historical fact

Here are some experiences that could have functioned as in 1 above, but which emphatically are not only explained by the resurrection being fact:

*Person A hears person B telling them the dead Jesus has come alive again. This is an experience for person A, and functions as required whether or not B is 'telling the truth' (by which I do not mean that if B was not telling the truth he had to be deliberately lying)

*Person C has a dream in which Jesus appears to them alive (and goes on to tell other 'Person As' that he is alive)

*Person D has a waking apparition of Jesus alive

*Person E goes to a tomb where he thought Jesus had been buried, but there is no body there (perhaps because Jesus's relatives had taken it home for burial, or perhaps for a number of other reasons), and concludes that Jesus must be alive

*Person F is distraught at the loss of Jesus, and simply cannot accept that the one he had put his hope in is dead

*Group of people G are gathered together to try to come to terms with what has happened and what it can mean, and a version of mass-hysteria sets in in which they convince themselves he is risen.

I could go on. And I suppose you have heard these sorts of suggestions before. But I'm hoping that having agreed 1 to 3 above are a fair representation of your argument, you'll accept they are a fair refutation of it.

I know you just don't think it very likely that the first disciples would really have had such dreams and waking apparitions etc. But we know from history and from present experience that all these sorts of things do happen, and so in fact are quite likely. Indeed, in view of the cognitive dissonance I referred to in my first post on the subject in this thread, I think it is more than quite likely.

This brings me on to your question to me:

Here we have one of the biggest, if not the biggest deception ever perpetrated in history. To pull this off, one would think that the instigators would need to be pretty astute. That's where it's a bit curious. They really blew it on a very key point. They were dumb enough to claim the radicality of a bodily resurrection when they could have claimed a spiritual resurrection! A spiritual resurrection could never be challenged but claiming a bodily resurrection could. Why would they make such a stupid mistake?

Why deception? It certainly is possible that some of the first Christians really didn't believe Jesus was alive (much more likely than an actual resurrection) and so did perpetrate a deception, but I'd say the other possibilities I've suggested are much more likely. In other words, it seems likely to me that they did believe he had been raised, it is just that they were wrong. And of course their belief in it would make it more likely to succeed: the best way to tell a lie is to believe it is the truth.

Finally, in this case, ie in the case where they believe Jesus has been raised, the words of Jesus before he died would indeed carry weight and the question of wasting their lives on a lost cause would not be in their minds.

8. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103074 by smithyboy on December 24, 2007 at 9:33 am

Thanks for the answers Albondigas
Miracles supporting theism: the examples you give are not ones you have personally experienced. I thought you might appeal to the latter. But stories of miracles written down in ancient texts really support theism? Is that truly your thought-through position? The implication is that the miracles in the Koran support the existence of Allah, the miracles of the Baghavad Gita support the existence of the hindu pantheon, the miracles of Mormonism support the Mormon god, etc etc.

Perhaps you mean that, having accepted the truth of the judaistic god and having further accepted the inerrant status of the Bible, the burning bush miracle functions to … Oh but wait, what does it do? It can't support your version of theism, because you have to already be committed to theism, inerrancy etc.

Paul's conversion: I've heard plenty of conversion stories in my time. I don't find them particularly convincing as to the existence of god myself (though I'll admit they often work on an emotional level to bring the listener over to the convert's side), but I do know that the more miraculous they are the more they elevate the convert's importance in the minds of the believers, and I'm pretty sure that was the case for Paul. In other words, I don't think this is an example of a miracle supporting theism, but I do think it is an example of a miracle story supporting Paulinism.

9. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102802 by smithyboy on December 23, 2007 at 5:07 pm

AtheistJohn
Are you physically nauseated by seeing two women kissing? I ask, because heterosexual men usually aren't and often do have negative feelings towards male homosexual acts. If it is just the male acts you are 'disgusted' by then it is not homosexuality per se that 'disgusts' you. I know nothing about Ayn Rand, but I'm guessing she was trying to say something moral and she was trying to say it about homosexuality per se. If so, I'm hoping you are not on her side.

[Edit - by the way Steve, Albondigas has replied to you on the old Pagan Christ thread (not to me though - sob)]

10. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102790 by smithyboy on December 23, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Thanks Dsouzaphile

I believe that the sun literally stood still in the sky (or the earth stopped, whatever) just as the bible said.

The 'whatever' suggests the reason you can continue to believe. You aren't prepared to think things through to their conclusion, and instead you're happy with 'goddidit'. So be it, but that is not a rational position.

1. You haven't thought through the pre-scientific worldview point. The Bible asserts it just as much as any of its other 'truths'. So why reject it but accept its other assertions?

2. You haven't thought through what it means to say that on one day in history the sun literally stood still. If you accept that in fact the earth goes round the sun it is simply not possible for the sun to have stopped all motion and for it to have appeared from Joshua's point of view that it stood still in the sky.

3. You haven't thought through what it means to say 'the earth stopped'. In the context of the Joshua story, that can only mean it stopped spinning for several hours – just like that. One moment it was spinning, at whatever speed it goes, and then it just screeched to a halt. Aside from the fact that, if this is right, the words of the story and the meaning of the (human) author are literally wrong and it is therefore not 'just as the bible said', and so, if you think the Bible is inspired, god 'told a lie'; aside from that, I assume that on thinking it through you will assert that god must have prevented all the effects that would otherwise have happened from happening. A scientist could set these out far better than me, but I guess they would include keeping the oceans in place, preventing the moon flying off, stopping the fluid core spinning, etc etc. It's a pretty good miracle, I'll grant you that. And no doubt you define god as omnipotent, thus cleverly defining him as capable of doing it, but surely at some point the absurdity will strike you, and you will think, 'Oh yeah, perhaps it's just that the story is a myth'?

11. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102771 by smithyboy on December 23, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Fides, comment 102741

Wow, insightful. Thanks a lot fides. Don't know whether you've noticed, but this is a place where people come to discuss stuff. We're not too interested in swapping knitting patterns, so amongst other things we offer opinions about other peoples' opinions. However, in my view there is also a great deal more thoughtful, interesting and substantive discussion than on, say, theist sites. But I imagine you disagree and can point me to some truly enlightening ones?

12. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102670 by smithyboy on December 23, 2007 at 11:43 am

agg

But this is the whole point of this being evidence for an omniscient and omnipotent god. He should have foreseen it!

But this is buying into the game. God's omniscience and omnipotence are religion's great get-out clauses. By definition god is said to 'know' all things, including 'the future', and be able to do all things. It follows, by definition, that god can prove himself to us. But to me this just points up the meaninglessness or nonsensicality of the definition. The question, as I see it, is whether 'god' (as yet undefined) could possibly show itself to us. We can only try to answer that question by reference to meaningful concepts etc, and so I don't think recourse should be allowed eg to some sort of ability to 'know the future'.

[edit: posted this before I saw the recent discussion above of problems with 'omnipotence' etc. Still think it applies though]

13. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102588 by smithyboy on December 23, 2007 at 9:16 am

dsouzaphile

Even today we speak of the sun as what? Rising and setting. We don't say "I'll pick you up at our latitudinal inclination to glimpsing the rays of the sun as the globe starts another rotation." No we pick them up at sunrise. We are the center of our own universe in our communication and in our own thinking as was true then and always will be astronomical knowledge notwithstanding.

This seems to be some sort of attempt to defend Joshua's story about the sun standing still. But I'm not sure what you are saying. True that 'even today' we talk of the sun rising. But we know that is not what is happening. 'Rising' and 'setting' for us is metaphor. I guess your rather condescending lesson about the constitution was trying to suggest that historical documents use metaphor too? The writer of Joshua, though, did not know that the earth goes round the sun and must really have meant the sun normally goes on a trip across the sky (perhaps a chariot ride as the Egyptians pictured it) but on this day it really did stand still – no metaphor involved. So I guess Walk's point was that you surely don't hold to the Bible's pre-scientific worldview and, if you don't, why do you reject that but think you can hold onto other biblical 'facts'. (Please correct me if I've misrepresented you Walk.)

Oh, and by the way, I notice you haven't responded to Walk's query about hell.

14. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102559 by smithyboy on December 23, 2007 at 8:24 am

Or, as Paula mentioned, Stenger's idea of a nice sign in plain English on the cosmic microwave background...

I always suspected we English folk were the pinnacle of creation!

Seriously though (well, semi-seriously anyway), whenever somebody comes up with a thought experiment like this you can find difficulties. In this case, the god in question needs to know ahead of time a language that is going to evolve, how to spell, etc etc.

Russell Blackford suggests 'it shouldn't be beyond Him to demonstrate that he is indeed a very powerful being'. But surely, by definition he isn't a being, at least not a being in the sense of 'beings' that are part of our universe(s). It therefore wouldn't be at all easy. This is one appeal of Christianity, which claims that god revealed himself by making himself a man. The trouble then of course is how the man shows he is god. This is why the resurrection plays such an important part in Christian theology and why Christians so often claim the resurrection is the best demonstration there could be of god's existence. I don't agree, but I can see the attraction of the argument.

15. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102420 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Fair enough
I read him saying 'in other words you have to look at it as it was written' and thought he might be a literalist. Let's see if he tells us!

16. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102417 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Walk
I don't think it is vague for fundamentalists/inerrantists or their ilk. That's because they have to have as a basic interpretative rule that you understand the text according to how it was intended by the original writer. (I'm not sure if it was dsouzaphile or somebody like him who asserted this recently.) The original writer, being a premodern, almost certainly conceived of the sun 'riding across the sky' each day, and therefore did literally mean to say that the sun stood still. I can't see why you think it is vague.

17. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102408 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Walk
Were you thinking of Joshua 10:12-14, where Yahweh makes the sun stand still and it does not 'go down for about a whole day', and which thereby implies it is going round the earth? (But not for that day, obviously!)

18. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102407 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 4:20 pm

A very good point. Are there any such coherent movements of atheists?

Not sure. Is that what happened with some Soviets and East Germans?

Certainly I think if RD wants to bring about an atheist movement, it could be a danger. But then again, perhaps the need for some sort of coherence will save us!

19. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102405 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Steve,

I have been thinking about this particular point for some time, and I am honestly not sure what evidence for a God could be.

Developing this a bit more: When we talk about 'evidence for' something, we usually seem to mean evidence in support of a hypothesis describing a 'law' as to how the universe works or alternatively as to how a particular thing happened. The other kind of 'evidence for' I can think of (right now, after a couple of beers) is evidence in support of an historical event. Neither of these things (law or historical event) is what people seem to mean by the word 'god'. So I guess I'm not sure what 'evidence for a god could be either'. But I don't think this makes me a fundamentalist. Rather, I think it points up the emptiness of the word 'god'.

However, if you come at it from the other way, and find somebody who is prepared to give content to the word first, can you then come up with various hypotheses (eg as to how 'it' would act) for which there would be evidence?

20. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102399 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 3:54 pm

I think if a society or perhaps even a coherent movement or grouping within a society came to identify itself in some way as atheist, then it would be possible to have fundamentalists or people with fundamentalist characteristics within that grouping, simply because you always do seem to get that within any grouping. In other words, 'fundamentalism' seems to be a sociological category as well as, say, a philosophical category.

21. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #102363 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 1:21 pm

BJohn
Seems you aren't posting any more, but perhaps you're still reading. Leaving aside the question of god's existence (just a small issue I know!), please consider what sort of god you believe in. You think the miracle of Fatima is real. But you seem to accept the sun can't really have 'spun and then dived toward the earth'. So what you believe in is a god who is prepared to hoax or mislead or delude (dare I say it) 70,000 plus people to get what he wants. And what did he want, by the way? And if he did do that indiscriminately for 70,000 people, why the hell didn't he do it for the rest of us, so we could all become believers too? And don't say 'freewill', because he was obviously prepared to overlook that for the 70,000.

22. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #102334 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 11:38 am

Except for atheists and agnostics, of whom just 15 percent took the virgin birth story as historically true, a majority of all other subgroups believed it to be factual.

As we looked at 65 or 66 different population subgroups, and compared them across all kinds of measures, there really was not much distinction across any of the groups," Mr. Barna said.

1005 divided by 65 = 15 (which is making an assumption of course). 15% of this is 2 or 3 people. So I don't think anything can be read into this.

23. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102313 by smithyboy on December 22, 2007 at 10:21 am

Hope elise97 doesn't mind too much, but I have to disagree to some extent. There were Christian Gnostics, but they probably came somewhat later. The 'original Christians' probably did believe in a historical Jesus, and the majority view of modern academics is that this is what they believed. I know elise97 thinks the academics have got this wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out.

24. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102073 by smithyboy on December 21, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Shane McKee
Excellent summary. (Except not so sure there is enough evidence to be conclusive about the family-taking-the-body bit.) And I agree absolutely that the historical Jesus is a major threat to Christianity.

25. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102031 by smithyboy on December 21, 2007 at 12:40 pm

ive noticed even keen atheists extremely reluctant to accept the probable non histority of this guy, even richard dawkins goes along with it, which seems odd as its central to the belief system for most Christians

I don't think somebody should be taking a position simply because it is the most convenient for their cause. I would hope that RD and others conclude that Jesus was probably historical (though then 'romanticised' etc) because they think, as I do, that this is where the evidence points.

26. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100908 by smithyboy on December 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Just watched the video and thought it was pretty good. I thought the 'interviewer' did OK. He set it up at the beginning as a debate, and was clearly debating from a Christian (or at least theist) position, so I didn't have a problem with him asking the sort of questions he did. He gave RD the opportunity to quite convincingly (given the constraints) address points that many Christians would raise. The only point I thought the interviewer 'lost it' a bit was on the 'horny to be good' comments. But even here, RD will have given many people something to think about.

27. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100339 by smithyboy on December 18, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Marshall1

Darwinian sexual misfiring??

If you want me to give up my belief in God, you're going to have to do much better than that, Mr. Dawkins.

Are you really saying you'll give up your faith if somebody provides a convincing evolutionary explanation of altruism? Don't make promises you can't keep. Perhaps you would like to specify just what would make you give up your belief?

28. The Pagan Christ

Comment #99827 by smithyboy on December 17, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Albondigas

This has nothing to do with the issue I was addressing. I was addressing the statement you had made in a previous post about having 'to rule out any appeal to the miraculous in support of theism'. You were suggesting that a miraculous event, whatever it may be, cannot be used to support the idea that God exists. I was disagreeing with that position.

You previously seemed to take the view that believing in the supernatural (ie being a theist) comes before believing that a dead body can come back to life (Post 155), and more generally that belief in theism precedes belief in the miraculous (Post 165). I suggested that therefore the miraculous should not be appealed to in support of theism. You now seem reluctant to agree this. So please will you confirm whether you are disagreeing (a) with the proposition that you need to be a theist *before* you believe in miracles (seemingly the implication of your previous posts) or (b) with the proposition that the miraculous should not be appealed to in support of theism. If it is (b), please will you specify precisely (preferably with examples) how the miraculous supports theism, given (a).

29. The Pagan Christ

Comment #99820 by smithyboy on December 17, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Albondigas

To make things clearer, I should have said 'Where would they ever come up with notion that the Messiah was supposed to die as part of the plan and believe it?' It's one thing to be exposed to an idea, but an entirely different thing to believe it and act on it.

OK. So I think(!) we are agreed that it is historically plausible that the first followers of Jesus had available to them the idea that it might be part of Yahweh's plan that the messiah would die. And I think we are still talking about whether it is reasonable to believe in the resurrection.

We occasionally seem to have talked past each other. So before going any further, can I confirm whether I have understood you right? It isn't really spelled out, but I think you are now offering a 3-part argument, namely:

1. unless the first Christians had had some sort of experience that led them to believe that the dead Jesus had come alive again, they would not have come to believe that Yahweh had planned for Jesus to die and they would not have acted on this [I'm not sure what actions you are thinking of, spreading the message perhaps, can you specify?]

2. they did indeed believe and act as in 1 above, therefore they must have had the sort of experience referred to in 1 above

3. the sort of experience referred to in 1 above is only explained by the resurrection being historical fact

If that isn't an accurate representation of what you are getting at, please would you correct it.

30. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #99421 by smithyboy on December 16, 2007 at 3:50 pm

I've had a look at what D'Souza says on his on his site about the debate and reactions to it. I have to conclude he is neither honest nor fair in how he represents the views of others. In fact, his lies are appalling. That being so, I think Dawkins et al would be wisest simply to have nothing to do with him. Debate and other similar interaction requires good faith on both sides, and with D'Souza it simply isn't there.

31. The Pagan Christ

Comment #98840 by smithyboy on December 14, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Sara
(I'm not a scholar by the way. Arguably was once, but I'm just an ordinary working guy now!)

I've just had a quick scan through the wikipedia article 'The Bible and History', and it looks pretty good to me as an overview. Also the article Deuteronomic History is helpful. Similarly if you then go to Moses, especially the academic views part. Similarly on Paul. Not to say you can absolutely rely on wikipedia, but it gives plenty of good jumping off points at least.

As general comments, I would say on Moses the views are pretty diverse, which is a reflection of how difficult it is to arrive at consensus when the written sources are so far removed from the actual time, and the archeaological evidence is debatable too. On Paul, I doubt there are many that claim he didn't exist, so you have closer agreement, and the debate is over which of his letters are authentic etc and then how his thought is to be interpreted.

32. The Pagan Christ

Comment #98284 by smithyboy on December 13, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Albondigas
Sleep is for wimps!

the barrier was overcome. I wonder why?

And what is the result of your wondering? Surely you aren't implying that the success of a message proves its truth?

Since the event we are talking about is the resurrection, I'd say that it does support theism. Why? Because Jesus claimed to be God. By claiming to be God, he establishes a link between the miraculous and theism. Now as you point out, a theistic view has to be in place beforehand for this to make sense.

I presume you are saying here that the 'fact' of the resurrection demonstrates that Jesus was god and/or that whatever Jesus claimed to be true was true. But the problem we started with remains. Why should I think the resurrection is fact?

This isn't to say to that no one ever thought of it prior to Jesus.

Let's not forget what we have been talking about. You agreed with ADH that the 'failure to produce a body' argument is a good one in favour of the resurrection as a historical event (Post 125). I asserted that you know neither that a body was not produced nor that if one had been produced Christianity would have failed (Post 130). You sort of accepted this, but felt that the chances of Christianity succeeding after a body had been produced was 'pretty slight' (Post 132). I disagreed and gave you a (in my view anyway!) plausible historical scenario in which a body was produced but Christianity succeeded anyway (Post 135). You suggested a reason why the scenario isn't plausible, namely that there is no way the first Christians could have come up with the idea that the messiah was supposed to die (Post 141).

You are now suggesting there was a source for that idea: the man Jesus himself. I have indicated various other possible sources. But even if you think those others aren't valid, don't you see that you have refuted your own argument as to why my scenario isn't plausible?

Why was it that when these guys died there was no resurrection story, no message that their followers were committed to proclaim?

How do you know there wasn't? History is written by the winners.

The Teacher of Righteousness was a literary figure, ie in the Qumran scriptures. I suggested him as a source of the idea that the messiah would die. I don't know whether it was thought he would subsequently be raised. I don't see why that is relevant though.

Since the Jews believed in one resurrection, wouldn't they have been scratching their heads wondering why no one else got raised from the dead?

Yes, and it seems that is why Matthew was compelled to include the legend of the curtain temple torn in two and the many bodies raised in his version of the resurrection (Matt 27:52). Matthew's Gospel is particularly aimed at that audience.

33. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97777 by smithyboy on December 12, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Steve99

And I ask you, as I have asked others who have posted here... where is your personal religious "rightness" meter, that allows you to differ from anyone else on this matter?

I think - actually I'm pretty sure - fear of this question is what causes so many intelligent Christians to hold to a fundamentalist method of interpreting the Bible (and thereby why creationism remains so strong). But then they begin to realise (if they allow themselves) that the Bible won't hold up to a fundamentalist reading ...

34. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97169 by smithyboy on December 11, 2007 at 2:42 pm

They may say that religion is the main motivating force, but their intention is political not religious.

Islam, at least the sort espoused by Bin Laden, doesn't distinguish between the religious and the political. A political intention is a religious intention and vice versa.

35. The Pagan Christ

Comment #97146 by smithyboy on December 11, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Albondigas
Taking Post 165 first, you talk about 'the supernatural', by which I take you to mean some sort of theism, because your argument presumes some sort of creator god who intervenes in history. So I will use the term theism if that is OK.

It seems you accept that the resurrection only becomes a probable historical fact if you already hold a theistic view. The implication that I would take from that is that the resurrection can play no part in determining the truth or otherwise of theism (though you no doubt think it gives a sort of feedback loop into the nature of that theism). And to be fair, you point this out yourself, in that you suggest 'the whole of creation' is the basis of your theism. The question then becomes whether, in the light of our modern understanding of the nature of the universe, theism is an appropriate conclusion. I'll not try to take that any further, as it covered in other threads, except to say that if you accept the point in respect of the resurrection I assume you agree it applies equally to any other apparently miraculous events, and consequently you rule out any appeal to the miraculous in support of theism.

May I also point out that in your Post 125 you quoted Steve99 as saying 'You should be demanding evidence before you believe', and you affirmed 'That's exactly right!'

On Post 164:

The hard part would be selling that to others, having them buy into something that was completely foreign to their understanding and then being willing to get persecuted for it.

I'm not sure whether you wrote this before I added the Edit to my Post 157. The point of the edit was that probably people were presented with the resurrection claims first. Perhaps only later, and perhaps in a different cultural milieu (addressed more by Paul) did the meaning of the death itself (apart from as a precursor to the resurrection) become an issue.

Irrespective of this though, your argument doesn't seem to me to have much force. You are saying that selling the idea that Yahweh intended the messiah to die was a barrier to the spread of the message. But, assuming you are right, it was a barrier whether or not the resurrection was fact. And apparently the barrier was overcome, whether or not the resurrection was fact.

the accounts also make it clear that the duh-sciples didn't get what he was talking about :-). So if you take one, you take them both. No cherry picking allowed!

Are you kidding? You asserted that there was no source from which they could arrive at the concept of the death being 'part of the plan'. I pointed out that the Gospels say Jesus was a source of this idea. That in no way commits me to accepting other claims of the Gospels. I was showing both that your assertion was not consistent with what you presumably believe and that Jesus was a possible source. But in any case, so what if the Gospel tradition that they didn't get what he was talking about is also accurate? That doesn't mean they didn't 'get it' after he died. On cherry-picking, are you trying to say that if I agree something is historically accurate, I have to accept the rest?

On the teaching about sacrifice, prophetic suffering and the Qumran idea of the Teacher of Righteousness having to die, my point was that these are all potential sources of the idea that the death of the messiah was part of the plan, in response to your objection that this was unthinkable for them. Your objection now that they weren't ideas specifically about the messiah seems rather weak. Mixing of ideas went on all the time. (In fact the Teacher of Righteousness may well have been a messianic figure for Qumran.)

Such mixing of ideas is well illustrated in fact by the last point you raise, that of the resurrection being at the last day. Resurrection was indeed thought of in this way. So when the first followers proclaimed Jesus's resurrection it was believed that this had introduced 'the last days' and that world transformation was at hand. Trouble was, things didn't play out that way, and so the 'transformation' became internalized and spiritualised. Much of the development of early Christian thought is best understood according to this dynamic, including the reading back of spiritual salvation etc into Gospels.

36. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96509 by smithyboy on December 10, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Hi Elise97
I should have mentioned in some of my above posts where I saw some of your Egyptian etc myths coming in. Eg the Qumran sect may have brought some into the equation at that stage. And when the Jews were in exile in Bablyon they may have been influenced by zodiac myths resulting in the 12 tribes.

On whether there is any evidence for Moses at all: your suggestion could well be right, but I like to be cautious and not overstate a case.

Cheers

37. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96481 by smithyboy on December 10, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Sara
I agree that the dialogue you are suggesting would be great. I don't have any idea how to bring it about though I am afraid. It isn't in the interests of the Christians and there aren't many other groups that are going to bring it about. Perhaps atheists should try. You have alerted me to the idea that it might be useful if I can do something in my area in this respect. I guess you could try finding out what goes on at your nearest university. On a book with dialogue between scholars, this needs a publisher who wants to sponsor it.

On the historicity of Paul: the history of early Christianity seems to make most sense if he was a real figure, but many of the stories about him in the book of Acts are likely to have mythical elements and a number of the writings supposedly by him are likely not to be authentic (eg Hebrews, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, possibly Ephesians).

The same is probably true of Peter and James.

On Moses: my own view is that the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) came into being around the 6th and 7th Centuries BCE when the Jewish people were in exile in Babylon. The stories were therefore written down very long after the supposed events and it is therefore fairly unlikely that they are historically accurate in many respects. It follows there is little good evidence that there was a man called Moses as depicted in the Torah.

On the above, Wikipedia (though not always to be relied upon) gives you some good jumping off points.

38. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96459 by smithyboy on December 10, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Albondigas
I am sorry. I misread you. Can I have another try? You say

The objection was that they would come up with the notion that the Messiah would die

Here are some reasons why they might have come up with the notion that the messiah was supposed to die:

1. The messiah had in fact just died. Clearly the key point. People who believed this man was their messiah had to either find meaning in his death or give in. Surely you recognize this would give impetus to what I am suggesting? All it would have taken would have been for someone to say, Perhaps God intended this. Religious people have done this throughout history when things went wrong.
2. According to the Gospels (whose historicity presumably you accept, though I am not committed to), Jesus himself taught that he would have to die.
3. Jewish teaching at the time contained an influential strand about sacrifice, which teaching was taken over by early Christians and applied to Jesus.
4. Jewish teaching also contained ideas about prophets suffering.
5. The Dead Sea Scrolls apparently refer to 'The teacher of righteousness' who is put to death.

Even if 2 to 5 above were not the case, do you really think that it is less likely that (a) somebody could have come up with an idea like 'the death was a sacrifice' without such background than (b) a body came back to life?

[Edit - can I also add, that they didn't necessarily need to deal with the 'meaning of the death' part first. If somebody believed they had seen Jesus alive, the first step would be the idea he has been resurrected and therefore vindicated etc. It was probably only later that they felt a need to understand the meaning of the death itself. This is in fact in line with the supposed first sermon, in Acts 2:14-36]

On the argument that once the supernatural is in the picture, the resurrection becomes the most probable explanation, I trust you recognize the circularity in this. Don't claim that the historical fact of the resurrection is the basis of your faith and then bring in the supernatural at this point. In fact, an unsubstantiated faith in the supernatural appears to be the basis of your faith.

39. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96350 by smithyboy on December 10, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Albondigas
My apologies, I thought you were quoting John 2:19 as evidence of something Jesus actually said!

Thanks for coming back by the way. Glad you didn't run away like ADH seems to have done.

Back to my suggestion. You think it 'extremely unlikely' that after Jesus's death some of his followers would not have found a way to reinterpret their new situation in a way that meant their new movement had not failed? As others on this thread have asked, More unlikely than a dead body coming back to life?

But in any case, you seem to agree that people reinterpreting their situation in face of disappointment does happen, and that this can result in somewhat unusual beliefs. Instead of disputing this, you offer a specific problem with my suggestion, namely that the concept of resurrection wasn't available to them within their cultural background. I'm afraid though that that is where you are wrong. Work on the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown that the Jews of Qumran believed at and before the time of Jesus in a bodily resurrection of the righteous. Try googling 'dead sea scrolls and resurrection' if you want more on this. Or if you want something closer to home, try Mark 12:18, which refers to the Sadducees, 'who say that there is no resurrection': obviously, by implication the non-Sadducean Jewish groups did believe in resurrection.

40. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95839 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 10:29 am

Albondigas
On (a), 'the probability of the body being produced is slight': you agree then that there is no evidence whether a body was produced or not. The reason you think the probability is slight is your answer to (b), that Christianity would not have survived if a body had been produced. 'The failure to produce a body' is therefore not evidence, it is simply a consequence of (b). So your argument actually is relatively simple: Christianity would not have survived if a body had been produced.

I'm glad you want to make sense of things. So here is an alternative that I think makes sense and shows why (b) is not at all convincing.

1. A man called Jesus went around proclaiming that a new time was coming, one of liberation from Roman rule etc etc.
2. Some people joined him and became committed to their messiah's ideas and believed Yahweh was on his side.
3. Their 'messiah' got executed.
4. The followers were now in a position of extreme cognitive dissonance. Perhaps some became disillusioned and went back to their previous lives.
5. But others, as has happened on countless similar occasions in history, found a way to reinterpret their new situation: Yahweh had not abandoned them or their messiah; in fact his death was part of Yahweh's plan and that plan also meant a subsequent vindication. Rumours start that somebody has seen him alive ... And so it builds.
6. This process takes time, and contrary to your assumption is not visible to 'outsiders'.
7. Only after quite a significant amount of time do the followers start telling outsiders that their messiah had been raised from the dead. And only quite some time after that (if at all) did some of those outsiders decide they wanted (and indeed why should they?) to try to disprove the claims by producing the body.
8. So lets say somebody goes to find a body. They find one. What do they do now? Take the mouldy thing down to the main square and show it off? By now the movement has a momentum of its own. There are plenty of reasons why its followers would fail to be convinced by such evidence, even if they knew about it. Failure to be convinced by evidence is a feature of nascent religious movements throughout history.

41. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95805 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 8:38 am

Albondigas
See my Post 107 above, which applies well to your points also.

On the 'failure to produce a body argument', you do not know either (a) that a body was not produced or (b) that if one had been that Christianity would have crumbled.

Providing a quote of Jesus's supposed words from John's Gospel is highly unconvincing. You are making an argument from history, so you must be prepared to allow the historian's usual approach, which includes asking about the reliability of a source. Of the four Gospels, John's is the least reliable as a report of history (not that the other three are particularly good), and these supposed words of Jesus are almost certainly an after-the-fact addition by John (and incidentally a shifting of the temple cleansing story from late in Jesus's career, as per the other Gospels, to early). I expect you don't agree with this reading, but the point is that it's not very convincing to offer something which is highly dubious in itself to prove something even more dubious.

42. The art of the soluble

Comment #95786 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 7:55 am

ADH
I 'confess to being baffled' as to why you haven't come back on my critique (Post 107) of your resurrection argument in the Pagan Christ thread.

43. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #95756 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 6:06 am

epeeist, so when are you taking up ploughing?

44. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #95755 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 6:05 am

Seems to me Ruht is simply not in a state of mind capable of being reasoned with. Until he shows evidence that he is prepared to listen as well as speak I wouldn't bother.

45. The art of the soluble

Comment #95744 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 5:08 am

Who is Colin Tudge? He can't possibly be a scientist can he? Sounds like he has virtually no understanding of the 'algorithm' of natural selection.

If Dawkins could show how the algorithm that has produced the living world could arise spontaneously, then he would have gone a long way to making his point. As things stand, he has not begun even to address it.

What an extraordinary claim. All that is needed is things making imperfect copies of themselves, ie replicating. Once doing that, the living world eventually arises. This has clearly been shown again and again.

46. The art of the soluble

Comment #95741 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 4:56 am

mmurray, are you sure it is their hand?

47. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95738 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 4:37 am

Sara, Post 115:

Agreed all round!

I'm not actively involved in the world of biblical scholarship any more, though I do try to keep up with it. It would be great if scholars did make clear the distinctions you are looking for. I think within that world they are pretty much the fabric of ingoing discussion, but when it comes to books for public consumption, you just aren't going to get a publisher any more saying 'Oh great, a book that sets out all the boring careful stuff about good historical investigation and then concludes that Jesus probably was a real man but not more than that, etc etc.' What you will get is a publisher saying 'Oh great, a book which makes the sensational claim that Jesus never existed and comes from Egyptian mythology, and we can call it The Pagan Christ'. The other thing you will get is Christian publishers who ask well-known Christian scholars to make an academic case defending the Christian position, because there are plenty of Christians who will buy such books, while there is no similar pull in an opposite direction. I'm not trying to defend scholars, but the real world tends not to bring about the sort of thing you are looking for.

48. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95588 by smithyboy on December 8, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Elise97
I don't think you have read my posts very carefully. See, for example, the last 2 sentences of my reply to Wonderist in Post 106. But really you need to refer to all of them to see the historical context I put the gospel accounts in and that I have nowhere claimed either that they are contemporary or indeed provide 'credible evidence'. You seem to be reading into the posts things I am not saying.

49. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95573 by smithyboy on December 8, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Elise97
If you think the evidence points this way, then fair enough. But no it is not 'cultural indoctrination and being familiar with the tales of a 'real jesus' that makes [me] believe he must have been real'. The reasons I 'believe' ('think it likely' is how I would describe it) that Jesus was a real historical person are precisely the reasons I have set out in previous posts (plus more along the same lines). It could be that my reasoning is flawed, but simply asserting I have been indoctrinated doesn't help me see the flaws.

In terms of your 'belief', that Jesus is in a line of descent from more ancient mystical 'sons/suns of god' in the greek/roman/egyption tradition, where is your evidence? I guess you might point to parallels in the shapes of belief that developed, and I would agree that the traditions you refer to may be where some Christian theology came from, but what we were talking about was whether Jesus was a historical person, and I made clear that I considered a great deal of myth was subsequently attached to him.

If you want to say he wasn't historical, I think you need to deal with the points I posted, not ignore them.

[Edit - In case you are worried I am not addressing your historical points: you describe a sort of mythical background or milieu in which you think the Jesus myth makes sense. I'll not address each point in detail, but I will say that the more relevant milieu is that of 1st century Judaism and all its myths etc, though undoubtedly the milieu you refer to had an effect also. For example, the most obvious background to the 12 disciples is the 12 tribes of Israel, not the 12 signs of the Zodiac, while the background to his 'godhood' appears to be an assimilation of judaistic view of Yahweh and the messiah and Greek views of the logos as represented by John's Gospel for example.]

On Nessy, you have misunderstood me. I suggested a floating log as one possible cause, not that I thought it was the cause. I agree entirely that previous myths could be the cause. The idea is simply to reach a best view on what the most likely cause(s) was. For that reason, I haven't discounted the possibility you suggest that Jesus was entirely myth, I just don't think it the most likely explanation.

50. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95527 by smithyboy on December 8, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Sara:

Rumours and word-of-mouth: almost certainly there were rumours, and in fact the great majority of 'knowledge' etc about Jesus passed on in the years following his death must have been by word-of-mouth. This would explain the discrepancies between the Gospels, for example, when they eventually came to be written and the gradual introduction of mythical elements, miracles etc, into the stories. So accepting there were rumours, is it more likely they started because there really was a man called Jesus who caused some sort of a stir etc or for some other reason? And what would that other reason be?

Stories of the Loch Ness Monster: these have some sort of underlying causes – perhaps floating logs, perhaps a real animal, along presumably with the growing influence of the story itself. What we might try to do is decide on the most likely underlying cause(s), and this is what we are trying to do in respect of the Jesus stories.

Myth and fable: the Gospels contain plenty of these in my view, but once again it seems more likely that they attached to a historical figure, than that the historical figure itself is entirely myth.

Yes, 'Jesus' was a relatively common name. But are you saying that a rare name would have made him more likely to be historical?

Yes, itinerant 'preachers' were fairly common (John the Baptist appears to have been one). So it follows that it is entirely plausible that one such itinerant preacher was a man called Jesus and that he was able to gain a following.

Are you worried that admitting the existence of Jesus gives support to Christian views? My opinion is that we should try to find out the facts wherever they lead.