To Non-Christians: What are your thoughts on Jesus and Early Christianity?

[George-ananda]

And where are you getting this information about quality and consistency?

From other's experiences and researchers of these subjects.

Since you can't even point to a single, consistent, coherent definition of what this god thing is and no one can show that their experiences have anything, whatsoever, to do with any single consistent, coherent definition of a god, I'm still wondering where you're getting any of this.

You must not have fully read what I said last time. I am not going so far at this point as talking of 'God'. I'm talking about experiences of many types that are antithetical to a materialist worldview. To say 'this is God' has never been my intent in this discussion but you keep returning to that position.

None of which actually has any evidence whatsoever to support it. You're not seeing claims made of ghosts and leprechauns and whatever, you're seeing people having an experience they cannot immediately identify and arbitrarily assigning a "cause" that they are already familiar with. Starting and ending with nothing but the experience itself, you cannot get from what actually happened to the cause that the individuals assign to it. Eastern mysticism, western religion, it doesn't matter. You just can't get from here to there no matter how hard you try.

All I was arguing was that given the full history of mankind the most reasonable position is that paranormal things antithetical to materialism have occurred many, many times. The next logical step is to then consider hypotheses as to what might be going on; that's were I get into the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition.

 

[Cephus]

From other's experiences and researchers of these subjects.

But as I said, you have no way of knowing if these supposed experiences are accurate, nor do these so-called researchers. There is no evidence to back up the claims of the people who say they have these experiences.

You must not have fully read what I said last time. I am not going so far at this point as talking of 'God'. I'm talking about experiences of many types that are antithetical to a materialist worldview. To say 'this is God' has never been my intent in this discussion but you keep returning to that position.

Then substitute whatever you mean for "God", it works out essentially the same way. You have no evidence that there is anything BUT a material world out there. Why would anyone rational accept something for which they cannot provide evidence?

All I was arguing was that given the full history of mankind the most reasonable position is that paranormal things antithetical to materialism have occurred many, many times. The next logical step is to then consider hypotheses as to what might be going on; that's were I get into the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition.

No, the most reasonable position is that people imagine things that aren't real because we, as a species, are genetically programmed to seek out answers and find patterns. It was, at one point, essential to our survival. This is well established. People make lots of mistakes because of these traits. This is also well established. What is not at all established is that any of these claims are representative of factual reality. You can attach whatever label you want to it, the fact remains that you're operating in blind faith, not rational fact.

 

[JoStories]

I'm not aware of the top down mass imposition of a new religion on a population in a short time period though.

Saying Constantine invented Christianity is the history equivalent of saying the moon landings didn't happen, and should be treated with the same lack of respect.

I think that the time period of any development of a religion is the important factor here. Factors played into the development such that it was spread and adopted rather quickly. The same could be for any faith and not just Christianity. What was it about The Buddha that led to the path of Buddhism? Or Islam or whatever faith you care to name? Isn't it possible that now, as we see the numbers of Christians decrease that again, the time is right for something new or simply a dramatic change in the dogma? Conditions being what they are, people are dissatisfied with Christianity and don't see the faith giving its adherents the same comfort as 100 years ago. Politics, economics, culture and more play into the changing rates, IMO. The same could be said for 2000 years ago.

 

[JoStories]

I don't get it. Are you saying that you don't accept this traditional Islamic history? Which history of Muhammad do you choose?

Augustus has a point here. It was bottom up to some degree in that one man or the ideas of one alleged man grew into this faith. OTOH, I also think time frame factors played an integral part of the development of the faith. I believe you both are correct insofar as your arguments go. But I don't believe it as simple as either of you wish to see it as.

 

[JoStories]

I agree, but at some point that threshold can be reached. Who judges when the threshold for extraordinary evidence has been reached? In the end it comes down to each of us making that judgment for ourselves. That is why I believe paranormal things exist; the millions of human events analyzed for quantity, quality and consistency (while of course giving fair consideration to all materialist explanations such as human fallibility).

I would agree up to a point. In my extensive research into the phenomena of mystical experiences, the commonalities were irrefutable but only insofar as they shared common themes and factors. However, that being said, there was absolutely no scientific corroboration of the experiences. Each and every one is subjective. That they share commonalities is interesting but isn't it possible that one experience was related, either written or oral or both, and that led to others 'seeing' and experiencing what they then expected to see?

 

[JoStories]

Only if you have very low standards. I do not. You apparently do.

I don't think that is entirely fair. I agree that there is no evidence and never really has been but to dismiss the experiences of hundreds of millions as bunk seems a bit harsh to me. Are you really saying that well over 90% of the world is deluded? The sheer numbers alone seem to suggest there is something to be had in the experiences of faith. You are welcome to dismiss it as your opinion but to say that all these people but you have low standards is myopic at best.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think that is entirely fair. I agree that there is no evidence and never really has been but to dismiss the experiences of hundreds of millions as bunk seems a bit harsh to me. Are you really saying that well over 90% of the world is deluded? The sheer numbers alone seem to suggest there is something to be had in the experiences of faith. You are welcome to dismiss it as your opinion but to say that all these people but you have low standards is myopic at best.

Yes, I find many atheists to be overconfident in their positions,

 

[JoStories]

But you're not advocating open minded skepticism, you're openly advocating the fallacy argumentum ad populum. Just because lots of people believe a thing has no bearing on whether or not that thing is factually true. The people who supposedly have these religious experiences, none of them, not a single one, ever, can demonstrate that it actually happened as they assert that it did. They cannot prove that any god had anything whatsoever to do with what they claim happened. They are making a blind assertion, without evidence, without reason, for an experience that they do not have a handy explanation for, just because they really want to understand what happened. You might as well be asserting that leprechauns were responsible. It is that fact that nobody has ever, and likely will ever be able to demonstrate that these experiences actually occur with a real god that actually exists in factual reality that any skeptic worth their salt is going to reject these claims for lack of credible evidence. They have no more credibility than people who believe in ghosts and fairies and leprechauns. Or should we take those seriously because there are plenty of tales of people who believe?

You make a good argument but to say that we should dismiss all of these accounts merely because you say so, or point to the lack of scientific proof, a thing that is constantly evolving btw, is unfair and dismisses the fact that your position is in the sheerest of minorities. Yes, it cannot be proven at this time but that doesn't mean it won't be. Being open minded would suggest, at least to me, that one does not dismiss this just because there is no proof as of yet. There may never be proof but to simply dismiss this based on that seems wrong to me. You are essentially saying that 90% or more of the world are deluded and only you have the straight of it.

 

[JoStories]

Yes, I find many atheists to be overconfident in their positions,

As do I and thank you so much for enlarging the font. And the color is nice too!!

 

[JoStories]

No, the most reasonable position is that people imagine things that aren't real because we, as a species, are genetically programmed to seek out answers and find patterns. It was, at one point, essential to our survival. This is well established. People make lots of mistakes because of these traits. This is also well established. What is not at all established is that any of these claims are representative of factual reality. You can attach whatever label you want to it, the fact remains that you're operating in blind faith, not rational fact.

And yet it is the patterns and commonalities that argue FOR this position. Why do you think that over all of the recorded and un-recorded history we have that every group of humans to date has had some form of a faith? Seeking out answers and/or patterns may explain a part of this but it doesn't explain it all. What exactly is factual reality? Do you get to define the characteristics? Why you? Why your position only? That intimates bias.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All I was arguing was that given the full history of mankind the most reasonable position is that paranormal things antithetical to materialism have occurred many, many times.

Your language betrays you: describing a phenomenon as "paranormal" suggests that if it does happen, it's so infrequent that it's materially different from the "normal".

It's like that joke: what do you call alternative medicine that's been demonstrated to be effective in rigorous clinical trials? Medicine.

What do you call something "paranormal" that has been conclusively demonstrated to be real? Normal.

The paranormal isn't "antithetical to materialism". If it was demonstrated to actually be real, materialists would accept its existence; they'd just assume that its existence is material somehow.

 

[dust1n]

Augustus has a point here. It was bottom up to some degree in that one man or the ideas of one alleged man grew into this faith. OTOH, I also think time frame factors played an integral part of the development of the faith. I believe you both are correct insofar as your arguments go. But I don't believe it as simple as either of you wish to see it as.

I enjoy his posts and Islam, and will respond to them while I have time. I already conceited to Augustus's point regarding top-down approaches. In the strictest terms "Christianity as a 3rd Century top down construct is both ahistorical, and vastly overinflates the power and influence of the ruler. To simply create a religion out of thin air and quickly impose it on the population without any existing support is fantastical." Is true.

It is impossible to create a religion out of thin air, whether the imposition it top to down, or down to top.

 

[George-ananda]

Your language betrays you: describing a phenomenon as "paranormal" suggests that if it does happen, it's so infrequent that it's materially different from the "normal".

It's like that joke: what do you call alternative medicine that's been demonstrated to be effective in rigorous clinical trials? Medicine.

What do you call something "paranormal" that has been conclusively demonstrated to be real? Normal.

The paranormal isn't "antithetical to materialism". If it was demonstrated to actually be real, materialists would accept its existence; they'd just assume that its existence is material somehow.

Theoretically science will accept anything proved by the scientific method. However, people who are proponents of types of so-called paranormal phenomena like myself believe science's reach is too limited at this time to be our only source of knowledge about the universe. Human experiences are also to be considered.

 

[George-ananda]

There is no evidence to back up the claims of the people who say they have these experiences.

If fleeting ghostly phenomena exists; what evidence would you expect?

 

[Cephus]

I don't think that is entirely fair. I agree that there is no evidence and never really has been but to dismiss the experiences of hundreds of millions as bunk seems a bit harsh to me. Are you really saying that well over 90% of the world is deluded? The sheer numbers alone seem to suggest there is something to be had in the experiences of faith. You are welcome to dismiss it as your opinion but to say that all these people but you have low standards is myopic at best.

Why? If you are concerned with what is actually true in reality rather than what is emotionally comforting to irrational people, why wouldn't you reject unjustified and unsupported stories? And no, 90% of the world's population do not have these experiences, the overwhelming majority of believers believe because it is socially acceptable to do so and they have been indoctrinated from birth to do so. But of the people who do have these supposed experiences, none of them can justify them. They can only show that they had an experience for which they cannot immediately provide an explanation and they arbitrarily assign some supernatural agent as the cause. A lot of these supposed experiences are just so ridiculously mundane, such as "I found my car keys, therefore God", as to be utterly laughable. These people are just picking "God" as an option out of a hat. They cannot show that God actually exists or that God demonstrably had anything whatsoever to do with the experience. All of this is just "something happened and it makes me feel really good to think that God did it, therefore that's what I'm going with". And you call me myopic?

 

[Cephus]

You make a good argument but to say that we should dismiss all of these accounts merely because you say so, or point to the lack of scientific proof, a thing that is constantly evolving btw, is unfair and dismisses the fact that your position is in the sheerest of minorities. Yes, it cannot be proven at this time but that doesn't mean it won't be. Being open minded would suggest, at least to me, that one does not dismiss this just because there is no proof as of yet. There may never be proof but to simply dismiss this based on that seems wrong to me. You are essentially saying that 90% or more of the world are deluded and only you have the straight of it.

It has nothing to do with me saying so, it's because they don't meet a minimum standard of proof for any claim. If someone went into a courtroom in a murder trial and took the stand and gave the same kind of testimony that you get out of these religious claims, they'd be laughed out of the courtroom. "I know the murder happened, I can't explain it, therefore Joe must have done it!" It's really idiotic. And if it cannot be proven right now, then you should not believe it is true right now. The time to believe any claim is when, and only when, it is demonstrated to be actually true. To do so beforehand is patently irrational.

 

[Cephus]

And yet it is the patterns and commonalities that argue FOR this position. Why do you think that over all of the recorded and un-recorded history we have that every group of humans to date has had some form of a faith? Seeking out answers and/or patterns may explain a part of this but it doesn't explain it all. What exactly is factual reality? Do you get to define the characteristics? Why you? Why your position only? That intimates bias.

Because human experience is common. We all have similar base genetic programming, we all look for patterns, we all seek to answer questions, why is it unreasonable that we would end up with similar cultural ideas? But these are not at all similar ideas, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of different religions and different gods that man has made up for himself to worship. If there is one real god, why did man come up with so many false ones? You can't all be right but you all can be wrong. I don't get to define the characteristics, reality does. I just have to accept the characteristics that accurately portray objective reality. I do. You do not.

 

[Pocongsetengahsalmon]

Muslims respect and venerate Jesus Christ. They consider him to be one of God’s greatest messengers to humankind. The Qur’an re-affirms his miraculous birth and his miraculous abilities. Furthermore, his mother Mary is regarded as one of the most pure and exalted women of all creation. As the Quran says:

“Behold! the angel said: ‘God has chosen you and purified you and has chosen you above the women of all nations. O Mary! God gives you the good news of a word from Him, whose name shall be Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, honored in this world and the hereafter, and one of those brought near to God’” (3:42).

Muslims believe Jesus is a Prophet of God
Islam regards its teachings to be a re-affirmation and culmination of the teachings of previous monotheistic religions like Judaism and Christianity. Hence, all Muslims believe in Moses and Jesus as Prophets of God. (Click here to read more about prophets in Islam.)

Prophet Muhammad was commanded to recite in the Quran:

“Say, we believe in God and that which was revealed unto us, and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob, and the tribes and that which was entrusted unto Moses and Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord We make no distinction between any of them and unto Him we have submitted” (3:84).

A Muslim never refers to him simply as “Jesus,” but always adds the phrase “upon him be peace.” (Read more: Who was Jesus?)


Miraculous birth of Jesus
The Quran confirms his virgin birth, and an entire surah (chapter) of the Quran is entitled “Mary.” The Quran describes the Annunciation as follows:

“She said: ‘O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me?’ He said: ‘Even so; God creates what He wills. When He decrees a thing, He says to it, “Be!” and it is.’” (Quran 3:42-7)

Jesus was born miraculously through the same power that had brought Adam into being without a father:“Truly the likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust and then said to him, ‘Be!’ and he was.” (Quran 3:59)

During his prophetic mission, Jesus performed many miracles. The Quran tells us that he said: “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I make for you out of clay, as it were, a figure of a bird, and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by God’s leave. And I heal the blind, and the lepers, and I raise the dead by God’s leave.” (Quran 3:49)
Neither Muhammad nor Jesus came to change the basic doctrine of the belief in One God, brought by earlier prophets, but to confirm and renew it. (Learn more: Who was Jesus according to Jesus?) In the Quran, Jesus is reported as saying that he came: “To attest the law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you; I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear God and obey me.” (Quran 3:50)

Have a jolly good day all

 

[Cephus]

If fleeting ghostly phenomena exists; what evidence would you expect?

That's irrelevant. We do not accept that it exists until evidence is found to support it. You're looking at things backwards, you want it to exist, therefore you believe in it without evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If fleeting ghostly phenomena exists; what evidence would you expect?

You mean something like neutrinos?

I would expect something like the evidence we have for neutrinos.

Edit: but Cephus is right. If something can't be demonstrated with evidence, then you don't lower your standard; you just say "I don't know."