If a modern claim wasn't supported by anything but "written words and dry bones" (which bones, BTW?), would belief in it become more reasonable with the passage of time?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To Non-Christians: What are your thoughts on Jesus and Early Christianity?
- Thread starter George-ananda
- Start date
This is a very common response given when people are forced to acknowledge the lack of evidence and reason for a claim of "God". And it is just such a wonderful perversion of reason and rational thought. Obviously if there was good evidence for the position, people would use this evidence to support their position. And when there is no good evidence people us the lack of good evidence to support their position. Either way they win. Wonderful, and perverted.
The Great Douglas Adams demonstrated just how perverted this reasoning is with the babelfish argument.
Of course any rational person can see that such reasoning is a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys.
No, but this is not a oral tradition I have studied or thought about much.
Do you believe yourself to be informed enough to credibly judge the evidence at hand?
I believe some things people tell me are highly likely to be true and some things not likely to be true. Both without physical proof. I consider everything and use my best judgment in each individual case. I am sure that is what you do too.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
I'm not too sure about this. In about 50 years the percentage of Americans claiming to be Christians dropped from like 99% to something like 70-75%, depedning on where you look. The number shrinks every year as the number of "nones" grows. When the boomers start to die out this is going to drastically increase, and younger generations just aren't buying into the old school idea of a literal, personal God. There will be a tipping point where belief in the Abrahamic God goes from generally acceptable to being considered silly and superstitious, and I think we're getting darn close to that point already.
Consider something I read recently about carnivals in the early 1900's. In those days...not very long ago at all...if an audience could see the strings as a side show magician levitated a woman, they would riot and accuse the magicial of being a "phony." These people were going en masse to these shows with the expectation of seeing "real magic." Just one generation later, no one goes to see Penn and Teller expecting that they actually have mystical powers. Everyone in 2015 understands that magic is performance art, and that there is no such thing as wizardry.
Back in ancient Greece it probably seemed like people were never going to stop worshiping Zeus and Co. But one day they did. The same will happen with the Abrahamic God, and I believe it's happening now and very rapidly. We understand too much about the universe and our world for people to continue to believe in something so specific as Angry Yahweh who tinkers with the outcomes of our lives, saving some from disaster while letting other die, and damning some people to a place of enternal torture for not believing in him.
So, it is possible that it is rationally justified if you studied it?
And why did you not study it? Are there extraordinary claims out there that deserve more attention than others?
Ciao
- viole
It would have to judge knowing all the details. I will say Mary's continued involvement (controversial) with the world as just one example of additional evidence in the passage of time arguing that we are dealing with 'beyond the normal' powers. Also the many Saints of the Christian tradition are evidence (not proof).
You are arguing against the dualistic perspective (God and creation are two). The ultimate truth I believe is non-dual (God and creation are not-two). We are that God in a process of Self-Realization of that fact. As information and education increase I think the days of dualistic Abrahamic religious thinking are on the decline to be replaced by more sophisticated New Age (or ancient eastern/Indian) thinking.
I know by supporting the existence of Jesus and the likeliness of supernatural occurrences associated with Him people here are misinterpreting me to be a dualistic Christian. Jesus worked with people were they were at culturally and intellectually. But all indications even from the Gospel is that He had much more to teach them but they were not ready yet.
Then let's assume those details.
Whatever ancient evidence you see for the truth of Christianity, assume that some modern religion emerged that had exactly this sort of evidence. Would you or I be justified in believing it?
Why do you say that Mary has "continued involvement" with the world? In what way do you think she's "involved"?
Evidence in what way?
It's possible.
Nobody can study everything. My personal interests are spiritual and paranormal subjects and I won't live long enough to study everything. Jesus is a very important figure in my culture.
(I have not been arguing for the 'truth of Christianity' just that Jesus existed and was likely associated with 'beyond the normal' supernatural events)
This is not a hypothetical question with me. In fact I do believe modern spiritual figures have emerged in the eastern/Indian traditions and I do believe in them.
I find in the Marian miracles claims evidence that something supernatural likely occurred. Same with certain saints of the Christian tradition.
Feel free to respond to my hypothetical on that basis, then:
Say the followers of a recent modern-day "holy man" can produce similar evidence to the evidence available today that Jesus was associated with supernatural events, only for the person they follow. Do you accept it as reliable?
Can you give an example? Preferably one of the most well-supported.
I agree with your first statement but disagree with the second. IMO, there is too much negative attached to the idea and theory of Jesus, mostly owing to the Paulian dogma, for me to consider Jesus as a good example. I agree that his teachings are much to meditate on but the plain and simple fact that the RCC and Christianity has made such a mess out of it makes me take it with a grain of salt. I don't agree or disagree that for some, his is the right path but it is not for me.
I don't consider Wikepedia to be a credible source of much of anything.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Some others have hit the nail on the head, but here is my 2 cents. Jesus probably was a guy. Maybe even a good guy who said some good things. But a meal with a bunch of people where he thanked god for 'providing' the food, turned into the miracle of fishes. Praying for someone to be healed turned into miraculous healing. Time does this with stories passed down verbally. Many of the ideas and stories were probably pulled from other beliefs with similar messages.
Keep in mind that the new testament consist of hundreds of different documents compiled into one in the UK some 1600 years ago. If everything in the New Testament were factual "gospel" that would be as much of a miracle as walking on water. Bits like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas were thrown out even though many at the time thought they were gospel. Hermas was most interesting as it talks about the Son of God as if he was a separate entity from Jesus. There are also the gospels of the Ebonites and the Nazoreens (If I spelled those right) among many, many others.... many of which we will probably never know about as the church was pretty good at burning anything they didn't like back then.
Keep in mind that the new testament consist of hundreds of different documents compiled into one in the UK some 1600 years ago. If everything in the New Testament were factual "gospel" that would be as much of a miracle as walking on water. Bits like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas were thrown out even though many at the time thought they were gospel. Hermas was most interesting as it talks about the Son of God as if he was a separate entity from Jesus. There are also the gospels of the Ebonites and the Nazoreens (If I spelled those right) among many, many others.... many of which we will probably never know about as the church was pretty good at burning anything they didn't like back then.
Last edited:
I'm sorry I don't understand particularly the 'only for the person they follow'. What are you trying to ask me? Please re-word.
I don't want this to turn into another debate about particular paranormal events. Debating that has proven endless and fruitless and not the point of this OP..
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
That's up to you. However, what is true is true whether you believe it or not and what is false is false no matter how much you believe it. Your belief doesn't even come into it. If you are actually trying to determine what is factually true and what is factually false, your feelings shouldn't be a factor either, only the evidence.
You missed my point I think. If someone you know and trust tells you something reasonable you are inclined to believe it right? If a crazy man tells you of a pink elephant you are inclined not to believe it correct? That was all I was saying; we judge the quality, quantity and consistency of information all the time.
dust1n
Zindīq
Meet Islam.