Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Clockwork_Spirit

Former atheists who became christians

182 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

eight bits

Clockwork

Quote

To bring this thread back on track, ...

The announced topic is former atheists who became Christians. Neither term used in the phrase is self-explanatory. For example, the adult Albert Einstein was an avid admirer of Jesus as a historical wisdom teacher (as Einstein believed him to be), and so a Christian in the most fundamental sense. At the same time, Einstein believed that there was no personal god, one meaning of the term atheist.

What you mean by Christian is altogether unclear from your posting. Your denunciations of "dogma" imply that you do not mean Nicene Christianity (the billions-sold extant form which is defined by a verbatim acceptance of a fixed text of dogma, the creed of the same name).

What you do mean must be ineffable, since you do not waste your readers' time by explaining what you're talking about. On behalf of a grateful audience, thanks.

Under the circumstances, I don't see how this topic could be pursued without an examination of the possible varieties of Christian experience, some of which an atheist could embrace while remaining an atheist, and others whose embrace would require a renunciation of atheism.

If you have further guidance to offer, then please share. Meanwhile, you can be even more frugal with your readers' time by skipping the snide wisecracks.

As to Dr. Collins, as he said, "I didn't take philosophy in college." Well, actually he didn't need to say that, it shows. Also a pro-tip to someone who is by far my intellectual superior: don't quote-mine Kant, lol. No good can come of it.

_

@Clockwork_Spirit

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Hello Davros Kitty
On 3/16/2018 at 3:33 AM, eight bits said:

davros

However, you would be happy as a clam, and you would mention chemistry. I know you :) .

You will be there saying "It's unknowable" in an unnecessary  long overblown paragraph. I know you. ;)

On 3/16/2018 at 3:33 AM, eight bits said:

Kinda. The manuscripts in question are Fourth Century, so themselves a bit late to settle what was in a First Century composition. The "Third Oldest," as its owners like to bill it, which is of similar date, not only has 16:9-20, but the Freer Logion besides (all searchable).

My own estimate is that 16:9-14 is authentic, and 15-20 is the problem (those verses fit into the rest of the Gospel about as well as the Flavian Testimony fits into Antiquities).

My estimate is that Mark was cut back to 16:8 to provide a proof text that women are unfit for church leadership positions. Churchmen could afford to do that after they had other sources in later Gospels for what they lost by cutting Mark back to 16:8, especially that Jesus rose when he said he would, on the third day (not established until 16:9).

"Kelhoffer argues (in MAM) that the LE was composed between 120-150 A.D. and possibly originated in a text other than Mark and was transferred. Other scholars have concluded the same. And I have presented considerable evidence supporting this conclusion. However, none of the evidence, even that Kelhoffer presents, establishes the conclusion that the LE had already been appended to Mark by the end of the 2nd century. As I have argued, even the testimony of Irenaeus and the Diatessaron are doubtful. However, it's certainly possible. The LE must have become appended to a copy of Mark at least by the end of the 3rd century, and there is no reason to suppose this can't have happened in the 2nd century. And whenever it occurred, all the same evidence confirms that this is indeed what happened: the LE was appended to Mark, a century or more after Mark was originally written."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends2

On 3/16/2018 at 3:33 AM, eight bits said:

I think you and I have discussed this before. Paul says he persecuted the James Gang, so we may fairly conclude he knew what they were on about before he ever met their risen Lord. What he then got from their Lord was Paul's "gospel," which is a coined word. In context, it seems to mean what distinguished Paul's teaching from competing visions of the Christian message, but in any case is not a synonym for "ostensibly factual information about Jesus."

Wait untill my next thread.

On 3/16/2018 at 3:33 AM, eight bits said:

No. He doesn't physically interact with Jesus (14:51-52).

You're right. The authorities did. I was working from the top of my head.

On 3/16/2018 at 3:33 AM, eight bits said:

Not "history" in the academic genre sense, certainly, but is it based on factual information about the human past? If only we knew.

So was the boy who cried wolf.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Davros Kitty

@Clockwork_Spirit

What's more important, faith, or evidence?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Clockwork

Quote

faith can be based on evidence.

Like a conspiracy theory? Interesting take.

 

davros

Quote

Kelhoffer argues (in MAM) that the LE was composed between 120-150 A.D...

OK, I am aware that what I identified as "my estimate" is an estimate, and just mine. Even if both 16:9-14 and 16:15-20 were "later additions," the Guild assumption that they were both written at the same time by the same person as a single unit is unwarranted.

If 16:9-14 is a "later addition," then it is a later addition by somebody who has appreciated the work up to that point. In contrast, like the Freer Logion (whose authenticity has no constituency that I know of), the 15-20 block is a shameless apology for the James Gang as sole inheritors of the true Word. While I think Mark's "Paulism" is often exaggerated by critics, a sudden fawning personal endorsement of the Gang by the Boss grates badly against all that precedes it.

Timeline is an interesting problem, since it is often framed as if Mark were strictly singly authored, at a single time and place, resulting in a unique "autograph," a single definitive and final version of the work. "Authenticity" is then defined as the character-by-character fidelity of that autograph's transmission.

Ironically, even the scholarly books and articles that insist on that view of a Gospel are not themselves produced that way. The difference, apparently, is the (poorly) hidden assumption that Mark passively took dictation from God. I trust it is clear that that is an assumption I do not share.

Quote

Wait untill my next thread.

OK.

Quote

So was the boy who cried wolf.

I see it more like the Shakespeare "history" plays. Suppose one of them was unearthed a few centuries after some civilization-extinguishing disaster. Nobody actually knows anymore who Henry V was, or whether he was at all.

But there is this one "play" whose main character is a King of England who miraculously and devastatingly vanquishes a King of France. Unfortunately, that's where the oldest and best manuscript ends.

While that story must be BS (except on the interdrums, all scholars know that England never ruled France, so there is a fantasy wish-fulfillment element here by the obviously English-speaking author), the issue of whether Henry (the English King) is a historical figure rages. He is obviously derivative of another "English King" with French roots, an even more ancient ruler supposedly named Arthur.

And yet, maybe there really was a historical Henry V. Maybe he was a clan leader rather than a king, and maybe he fought off some French pirates rather than annihilate an entire French army. We all know how these hero stories grow in the retelling. In fact, a high point of the play is a rousing description of how  an "oral tradition" will develop after the battle is won. Survivors, says the "King," will tell their stories for the rest of their lives "with advantages.".

And so on.
-

@Clockwork_Spirit@davros of skaro

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
10 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The two are not mutually exclusive: faith can be based on evidence.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evidence_and_christian_faith.html

If you have evidence, faith is unnecessary, so yes, they are mutually exclusive. 

I think definition 2B in 'Faith' and 1B in 'Evidence' illustrate this plainly enough.

Definition of faith

plural faiths play \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāt͟hz\
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
  • lost faith in the company's president
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions
  • acted in good faith
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
  • clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
  • the Protestant faith

 

Definition of evidence

1 a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
 
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Davros Kitty
On 3/18/2018 at 4:35 AM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The two are not mutually exclusive: faith can be based on evidence.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evidence_and_christian_faith.html

You need a lot of faith to believe that dubious so called evidence.

Instead of another apologetic link, why not convey your reasons to come to belief?

@Nuclear Wessel

Why do Theists avoid facts that go against their beliefs?

Is there another group of people that have irrational thoughts/behaviours that when confronted with reason they get upset, and, or run from the discussion?

  • Like 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.