Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
markdohle

An atheist scholar viewpoint on Jesus

111 posts in this topic

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 10:43 PM, psyche101 said:

That sounds like utter nonsense I cannot begin to work out what exactly you are referring to. Science has well proven itself, as such the only stumbling block is yourself in this situation. 

Science has proven itself, but those who try to use it often garble what the original article said, if there even was an original article. When trying to say "science says this" or "science says that," reference the article where science actually said that.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
13 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Science has proven itself, but those who try to use it often garble what the original article said, if there even was an original article. When trying to say "science says this" or "science says that," reference the article where science actually said that.

Doug

Oh like reporters you mean. Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

Hey bud how ya been

You cannot be a fundamentalist simply because you do not follow a literal interpretation.

fundamentalist
ˌfʌndəˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.
    "religious fundamentalists"

Might be just me, but you seem more an apologist. Your arguments of loose interpretation are of the same nature as that which I hear from Muslim uni students interpreting the Koran as non violent. It seems incredibly unlikely and bias is plainly obvious.

The fundies do take the Bible literally, and that is where we see religion at its worst from terrorism to Ken Ham. If I might be so bold as to lean on the casual friendship (I think of you as a friend) I would simply call you stubborn. I know you have knowledge that counters religious belief and I.know you maintain belief in spite of that knowledge. I find you am anomaly, no good reason to believe at all, yet you insist on it. Perhaps it might be that you are good with debate and it is part of your character, but as much as I respect you, and I do very much, I cannot see you making a good argument in favour of a belief position. It seems to be more of a "what can it hurt" position.

Ahhhh... But, given that description, many of the "Christian Fundamentalists" aren't actually following the Bible. They are following their Preacher/Minister/Pastor. If they truly followed the Bible, they'd follow Jesus's teaching that the Greatest Commandment is Love as you would be loved. Since many Fundamentalists are hate/anger/fear driven, they aren't actually following what Jesus told them to do. 

I do believe in the Miraculous, even alongside my believe in the Mundane. I believe that dinosaurs lived roughly 60 to 200 million years ago, and left fossils behind. I do believe that the Universe is vast and full of planets, and potentially life. I do believe that DNA advances by way of natural selection (and domestication). I also do believe that humans are special, and that impossible things happen, and that sometimes caring (and praying) for someone can greatly affect their lives, even if they don't know you are doing it. I believe in higher beings (angels) who have communicated with humanity in the past, and in demons who do haunt us still today. I do believe that Jesus died to save mankind, and following his teachings is the best way to live a life as a "good" person.

I also believe that those teachings can be re-imagined... re-seen... as related to the modern day. This is not against the Bible, as Paul clearly says that we (Christians) are not shackled to the laws of the past and can basically pick and chose what we believe and follow, if it is uplifting to Christ. I'll see if I can find the exact quote.

Long story short... Labeling someone a fundamentalist, in today's world, is more a comment on their intolerance, and wrong headedness, then on their devotion to their religion.

Quote

Yet in academic circles.We see little to no belief, but people who take the species forward without violence, manipulation or coercion. Westboro is a small chapter with a fundamentalist belief and constantly exhibit disgusting behaviour. From little groups like Westboro to major capitals like Wahabbism, the closer one is to God, the more one embraces the worst qualities our species has to.offer.

I'd again disagree. Not that academics are more likely to be secular, but that religion really has anything to do with who is the worse part of society. I'd say (again) that it has more to do with ignorance then with their religion. 

Quote

I do not think anyone can comment on the situation without the full story. Sounds like he liked to shout from the rooftops? How many did he oppress with this new outlook? How many who stood by him through thick and thin did he turn his back on? Many young people have also suicided not being able to resolve belief and a gay nature, for every one who has "seen the light" one has taken a life in vain due to God's bigoted commands.

I was just pointing out that the argument you were making can be made from both sides, with individual stories to back it up. To actually claim religion sparks more violence, or kills more people, or insights more hatred, I'd prefer to see actual sociological surveys that showed such to be true.

Quote

We have each other, religion clouds that reality.

I don't think it has to. Each person can have religion, and also have the world as it appears by way of science. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Though, like you said, I could be a bell curve exception. :tu:

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 22:36-40

Quote

Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/10.htm

Quote

23“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.24No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”f

27If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience.29I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

 

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Oh like reporters you mean. Fair enough.

It's not usually hard to find the original article:  Google Scholar is extremely helpful in that regard,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/07/2017 at 6:20 PM, DieChecker said:

Ahhhh... But, given that description, many of the "Christian Fundamentalists" aren't actually following the Bible. They are following their Preacher/Minister/Pastor. If they truly followed the Bible, they'd follow Jesus's teaching that the Greatest Commandment is Love as you would be loved. Since many Fundamentalists are hate/anger/fear driven, they aren't actually following what Jesus told them to do. 

But they are. I'll quote the passages you left but Jesus still says God's will before mankind. He does not say the old does not apply, he just expands and focused on the secondary issue which is us. He quite plainly states that he upholds God's word too, he claims that brining others into the fold is a godly act and saves the "real you" which is the imaginary soul. The fundamentalist's adhere to a very literal interpretation, they do not focus on the secondary issue of mankind and put God's word first which even Jesus has to abide by. The fundamentalist's are backing the creator, not yet another creation who uses double speak far too often. 

Quote

I do believe in the Miraculous, even alongside my believe in the Mundane. I believe that dinosaurs lived roughly 60 to 200 million years ago, and left fossils behind. I do believe that the Universe is vast and full of planets, and potentially life. I do believe that DNA advances by way of natural selection (and domestication).

But the people who provided that very information also provide far better answers than religion does. Are you not picking and choosing to create correlations that do not really exist? Why cut them off and finish scientific theory and discovery with superstition?

Quote

I also do believe that humans are special, and that impossible things happen, and that sometimes caring (and praying) for someone can greatly affect their lives, even if they don't know you are doing it.

I do agree that humans are special because we from relationships, drive evolution and affect most processes on earth. We are special to this place and each other, but very insignificant with regards to the Universe. It seems inevitable that evolution has given rise to many humanoid species who are just as important to their planet as we are to ours. Civilisation I feel is a step almost all evolutionary processes eventually result in.

Quote

I believe in higher beings (angels) who have communicated with humanity in the past, and in demons who do haunt us still today.

There is just no more reason to think so than there is to believe ancient aliens were the God a we speak of. And there is no good reason to consider the ancient alien theory as valid at all.

Quote

I do believe that Jesus died to save mankind, and following his teachings is the best way to live a life as a "good" person.

I do not see that religion makes a better or superior person, but those leading scientific fields do make huge strides forward for the species. We do not need religion to be good people. It's bad that some have become dependent on religion in order to behave, seems a step backwards if anything.

Quote

I also believe that those teachings can be re-imagined... re-seen... as related to the modern day. This is not against the Bible, as Paul clearly says that we (Christians) are not shackled to the laws of the past and can basically pick and chose what we believe and follow, if it is uplifting to Christ. I'll see if I can find the exact quote.

Paul is just a man. The fundamentalists put God before man. Is that not what you protest above? Paul speaking for God sounds more like a cult.

Quote

Long story short... Labeling someone a fundamentalist, in today's world, is more a comment on their intolerance, and wrong headedness, then on their devotion to their religion.

That's not what our own definitions are telling me.

Quote

I'd again disagree. Not that academics are more likely to be secular, but that religion really has anything to do with who is the worse part of society. I'd say (again) that it has more to do with ignorance then with their religion. 

Academia deposed ignorance. The worst societies are the most devout to the untainted alleged word of God. Man seems to recognise God's flaws and makes up for them andto labels it reformation.

Quote

I was just pointing out that the argument you were making can be made from both sides, with individual stories to back it up.

Individual stories are just hearsay. And incomplete. Like the fellow who is no longer gay due to his church involvement, but how many suffered undernude his newfound sense of false superiority?

Quote

To actually claim religion sparks more violence, or kills more people, or insights more hatred, I'd prefer to see actual sociological surveys that showed such to be true.

What about the tragedies We see in modern times?

Quote

I don't think it has to. Each person can have religion, and also have the world as it appears by way of science. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Though, like you said, I could be a bell curve exception. :tu:

An exception to academia. For a the talk of religious scientists not a one has reconciled God's existence or his alleged hand in creation. Long metaphors I feel convolute the issue and remove us from honest resolutions. 

Quote

All speak of putting God before man first, so you can love an enemy, yet look down on him as ignorant. That false sense of superiority that when encouraged and propagated results in an extreme of terrorism. Terrorist aim to be serving the highest order and can feel superior in kmowing the follow God's word not some man's interpretation. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But they are. I'll quote the passages you left but Jesus still says God's will before mankind. He does not say the old does not apply, he just expands and focused on the secondary issue which is us. He quite plainly states that he upholds God's word too, he claims that brining others into the fold is a godly act and saves the "real you" which is the imaginary soul. The fundamentalist's adhere to a very literal interpretation, they do not focus on the secondary issue of mankind and put God's word first which even Jesus has to abide by. The fundamentalist's are backing the creator, not yet another creation who uses double speak far too often. 

Jesus said he did nothing except what he saw the Father wanting him to do. So, whatever Jesus said was what God wanted. And Jesus specifically came to "fulfill the law", right? And what were those laws about? Sin! Right.... And what did Jesus's death on the Cross do? Freed everyone, everywhere from, death from sin. In other words Jesus's death was the Fulfillment of the law, because it was the end of being a sinner being the default, where you had to follow the law, or you died in sin. After Jesus's death you only had to repent of the sins you committed, even as you committed them, and you were good. Oversimplifying? Perhaps, but the point is the same... The Mosiac laws did not bind Christians, unless the Christians decided to bind themselves by those laws.

Quote

But the people who provided that very information also provide far better answers than religion does. Are you not picking and choosing to create correlations that do not really exist? Why cut them off and finish scientific theory and discovery with superstition?

Why are they better? Because no Creator is required? That isn't necessarily better, if is just a different explanation. It is only better to those who's bias demands it be better.

I still hold that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I think those who do think so are closing their minds purposefully.

Quote

I do agree that humans are special because we from relationships, drive evolution and affect most processes on earth. We are special to this place and each other, but very insignificant with regards to the Universe. It seems inevitable that evolution has given rise to many humanoid species who are just as important to their planet as we are to ours. Civilisation I feel is a step almost all evolutionary processes eventually result in.

:tu:

Quote

There is just no more reason to think so than there is to believe ancient aliens were the God a we speak of. And there is no good reason to consider the ancient alien theory as valid at all.

Can you discount the ancient alien idea? Or, is there simply no evidence to support it? Could it have happened? Yes, of course... And most scientists will say the same. But then, of course, they will say what I did... That there isn't any evidence to support the idea.

Quote

I do not see that religion makes a better or superior person, but those leading scientific fields do make huge strides forward for the species. We do not need religion to be good people. It's bad that some have become dependent on religion in order to behave, seems a step backwards if anything.

Do we need science to be good? 

I agree we don't need religion to be good, but I do think that religion (Specifically Christianity) is probably our Best way of securing "good" people at this time.

Quote

Paul is just a man. The fundamentalists put God before man. Is that not what you protest above? Paul speaking for God sounds more like a cult.

Then are they really Christians? If they put God before Jesus? Jesus was God, or at least was the direct representation of God on Earth. Those who don't follow his teachings aren't Christians.

Quote

That's not what our own definitions are telling me.

What then is the definition of Fundamentalist? And can it really be applied to those you are referring to, given that Jesus is God, and one has to follow Jesus and all his teaching to be a Christian? 

Quote

Academia deposed ignorance. The worst societies are the most devout to the untainted alleged word of God. Man seems to recognise God's flaws and makes up for them andto labels it reformation.

Depends on what you mean by Worst. Some of those "worst" societies have super low crime rates, and other positive factors. Point being that "Worst" is subjective.

I'm not convinced that education reduces ignorance. I've met some PhD physicists at Intel who could barely tie their shoes, or drive a car, or use their phone. Being highly educated sometimes only means specialized, and therefore possibly even more ignorant in many meaningful ways.

Quote

Individual stories are just hearsay. And incomplete. Like the fellow who is no longer gay due to his church involvement, but how many suffered undernude his newfound sense of false superiority?

Well then I hope you stop using individual stories in the future. :devil:

Quote

What about the tragedies We see in modern times?

Is there significantly more tragedies that are religious in origin then non-religious? 

Perhaps you are speaking of Radical Islam? I do agree that any religion that becomes radicalized which calls for "War" on everyone else will cause more issues. I'm not sure all religions can be lumped in together on this, and not sure that all Muslims can be lumped in with the criminally insane radicalized Muslims who are bent on killing people.

Quote

An exception to academia. For a the talk of religious scientists not a one has reconciled God's existence or his alleged hand in creation. Long metaphors I feel convolute the issue and remove us from honest resolutions. 

Uhhhh.... If there was a evidence based reconciliation of God's existence, then I think none of us would be discussing this, but would probably be out making converts to save our scientifically proven Immortal Soul.

Quote

All speak of putting God before man first, so you can love an enemy, yet look down on him as ignorant. That false sense of superiority that when encouraged and propagated results in an extreme of terrorism. Terrorist aim to be serving the highest order and can feel superior in kmowing the follow God's word not some man's interpretation. 

Depends... If God is real, then the superiority isn't false. But, assuming God is real and Jesus was real, that is not how Christians should treat people. Superiority does not always result in terrorism, it often results in education and uplifting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading the Jesus Christ Pesher:

http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com/

 

In 141 BC Alexander Janneus conquered Jerusalem and replaced the Sadducee high priest with a puppet of his own.  The Essenes left Jerusalem and moved back into their village at Qumran.  Nevertheless, they considered themselves to be the rightful high priests and believed they were only in temporary exile.  There was ongoing strife between Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes for over  a hundred years.  In 64 BC, the Roman General Pompey occupied Jerusalem and added to the confusion.  Now there were the Romans, the three Jewish factions and many subdivisions all ready to kill each other.  Intrigue was rife.

To keep enemies from reading their writings, scribes at Qumran hid the true meanings in innocent-sounding stories - "children's stories."   But the Pesher was hidden in these stories.  It is an interpretation of scripture based on instructions found in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran.

These texts have a "ring of truth" to them.  Many are, or at least claim to be, eye-witness accounts.  They explain the "miracles" as children's stories, meant for the uninitiated.  The texts explain the "miracles," including the virgin birth and resurrection with physical explanations.  Ex.:  "walking on the water" was a priest actually standing on a pier.

The story of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection are included.  But the writings indicate that this is the true story of Jesus and those other things that have come down to us are children's stories.  The "true story" of Jesus is quite a bit different from the ones I grew up with.  All I can say is read them and get your mind blown.

1.  The Crucifixion took place at Qumran, not Jerusalem.

2.  Jesus survived the crucifixion and eventually moved to Rome where he lived to a ripe old age.  The Pesher tells how this was accomplished.

3.  Could the original version of Mark (proto-Mark) have been written by John Mark, a gentile?

4.  Paul and Seneca knew each other and wrote letters back and forth.  Did Seneca write a play based on the "children's stories" and did it eventually get included in what we call "the Gospels?"

It's challenging reading, but well worth your time if you think Jesus might have been historical.

Comments?

Thanks to 8 Bits for pointing me to it.

Doug

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, it's the religion about him. Christianity is the religion of Paul.

Contradistinctive to what Paul said about the good news, the good news Jesus proclaimed was not that he died for the redemption and atonement of mankind's original sin, and that faith in this errant idea would be all that is required to be saved. 

Why? Because Jesus was still alive when he went about preaching the good news. If he had announced that the good news was that he would be tortured to death to save mankind, no one would have taken him seriously.

So, what is the good news that Jesus proclaimed, before his followers changed his message into Christianity after his departure? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in Israel it constantly amused me how both Jews and Muslims accepted the existence of a historical Jesus (often with supernatural aspects) but would, unsolicited (but most challenging and enjoyable) argue with me that Christians got it him all wrong. I was in a tour group with some very loud atheist brits who managed to unify the various Jews, Muslims, and Christians with their offensiveness and mockery.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tampa Turtle said:

When I was in Israel it constantly amused me how both Jews and Muslims accepted the existence of a historical Jesus (often with supernatural aspects) but would, unsolicited (but most challenging and enjoyable) argue with me that Christians got it him all wrong. I was in a tour group with some very loud atheist brits who managed to unify the various Jews, Muslims, and Christians with their offensiveness and mockery.

There are loud-mouthed louts of every persuasion.  I personally know an atheist who fits your description.  I also know a number of Baptists who do, too.

I don't know about Brits, but here in the US, atheists are constantly attacked and harassed by religious conservatives who think they are doing god's work by acting badly.  After awhile one has to defend himself and when that doesn't stop the attacks, one gets aggressive, even obnoxious.  That's what makes ill-mannered atheists.

I have attended a number of very fundamentalist churches and heard atheists ridiculed from the pulpit.  If someone wanted to convert them to Christianity, I couldn't imagine a worse way to go about it.  I think both sides need to seek the thing they hate about the other in themselves.  Jesus said, "Where there is love, there am I also."  Why not actually practice His teachings/

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was raised Catholic (but am a Methodist now) but recall my Dad on a business trip taking me to a Baptist Church once in a pinch. The majority of the sermon centered on the evils of the Pope and Roman Catholicism. Not a high moment in Ecumenicism. LOL. 

I did not take the Atheists on that trip for anymore than the UK version of the Ugly American. I have known and co-existed with some lovely atheists. As for the Jews and Muslims that I was challenged by on that trip it was never personal and usually followed by hospitality in the form of some Tea or Ice Cream. In the infinite diversity of human belief we all Scream for Ice Cream! *

* except for the Lactose Intolerant. Not sure where they fit in God's plan. :) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.