Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Rival]

It depends on what quote you use from them. A claim that Pan leaped across the Rubicon leading Julius Caesar would not be taken seriously. Horatio at the bridge is similarly not taken as reality, but as a fabrication to encourage Roman youth.

So why would some people dismiss the whole of the Gospels as unreliable? If we can (and do) agree that supernatural and other fantastical elements can be interrogated in ancient texts and the rest broadly assumed to have some truth, why is it some dismiss even Jesus' existence, crucifixion etc. even though these elements are neither fantastic nor supernatural? This is my contention.

 

[Audie]

It depends on what quote you use from them. A claim that Pan leaped across the Rubicon leading Julius Caesar would not be taken seriously. Horatio at the bridge is similarly not taken as reality, but as a fabrication to encourage Roman youth.

Its just the usual attempt to pass off a charge of
hypocrisy as a legit argument.

 

[Rival]

Its just the usual attempt to pass off a charge of
hypocrisy as a legit argument.

No.

It's an attempt to understand why people take Suetonius more seriously than the Gospel writers when they're writing the exact same genre.

 

[Polymath257]

I think some folks are overcomplicating this thread.


1) Do you believe Christians were put to death by Rome? (for any reason)

Yes, absolutely. We even have letters asking what should be done with Christians that refuse to do the appropriate homages to the emperor. The answer was to put them to death if they consistently refuse.

We have other examples, especially during the reign of Diocletian.

2) Do you believe Paul was a Christian and was intent on spreading what he believed is the Gospel?

At that point, the term 'Christian' was much, much broader than it was even a couple of centuries later. The gospels were, as yet, unwritten. So this question raises a host of definitional issues.

Paul was certainly in conflict with those that knew Jesus. This conflict is even described in Acts.

3) Do you believe Jesus existed? (in any form)

Sure. An itinerant preacher saying that people needed moral reform is not at all unusual for that region at that time. In fact, we know of several others.

4. Do you believe, as scholarship argues, that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biography in the tradition of other Greco-Roman biographers?

Not sure. there is also a strong early Christian tradition of writing texts and attributing them to the apostles. These were less 'biography' and more imaginative writing. Both views seem to be recognized by scholars as possibilities.

If you answered yes to at least 3 of these questions, you're not the problem. I have come across RFians who would answer no to all of them.

 

[Zwing]

Whichever concept of God makes most sense to you.

That response is very revealing. It reveals that “God concepts” do not refer to real Gods, but rather imaginary figures of the mind. Is this not what God is to all people, a figment of the imagination? If God is not a real being, then why bother with it? Are we so psychologically needful that we cannot live our lives without conjuring up fantasies to help support our emotional complexes, to “get us through” it? Does an aspect of truth have so little value that it is outweighed by our need for that support?

 

[Polymath257]

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

Yes, most ancient historical writings have a lot of nonsense. And that is recognized by historians.

And yes, writings about Alexander don't appear until a couple of centuries after his adventures. BUT, we do have contemporary coins, remains of battles, the fall of Persia, interaction of Greeks and others all the way to India, the subsequent states from the break-up of Alexander's conquests, the formation of several cities with names based on 'Alexander' that date from that time, etc.

NO historical text is taken only at face value. They are ALL compared to other texts of the time. The social milieu is considered, the question of exageration is discussed, the issues involving propaganda are dealt with.

If the books on the Bible are treated in the same way as other historical texts, much of what they say would be dismissed. Much of the rest would be seen as propaganda to followers.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes (and I find the Father of Lies appellation quite funny) but these authors are still used by the people whom I'm referencing who subsequently throw out the Gospels. For example, were I to cite Herodotus on RF I believe it would be given a far fairer reception than the Gospels in such instances. It's this kind of hypocrisy I am pointing out. Ancient authors often write to suit themselves and yet are bandied about with much more popular support than is generally warranted. I do not believe these authors are completely useless, just as I don't believe the Gospels are completely useless.

There is an example from Herodotus that is self-validating that I really like.

He is discussing Egyptian sea voyages and relates that the Egyptians claimed to circumnavigate Africa. Herodotus is skeptical of their claims because they said that the sun was on the right as they moved westward. Herodotus notes that the sun is *always* on the left when moving westward, so dismissed the story. And yet, in the southern hemisphere, if you go west, the sun *is* on the right.

Now, did the Egyptians actually circumnavigate Africa? Who knows? But this little bit from Herodotus does support the possibility.

 

[Rival]

Yes, most ancient historical writings have a lot of nonsense. And that is recognized by historians.

And yes, writings about Alexander don't appear until a couple of centuries after his adventures. BUT, we do have contemporary coins, remains of battles, the fall of Persia, interaction of Greeks and others all the way to India, the subsequent states from the break-up of Alexander's conquests, the formation of several cities with names based on 'Alexander' that date from that time, etc.

NO historical text is taken only at face value. They are ALL compared to other texts of the time. The social milieu is considered, the question of exageration is discussed, the issues involving propaganda are dealt with.

If the books on the Bible are treated in the same way as other historical texts, much of what they say would be dismissed. Much of the rest would be seen as propaganda to followers.

I think my problem is trying to get online people to take a more scholarly approach when really all they want to do is take an argumentative, emotional one People will throw Jesus out the window simply because they don't like Jesus and find evidence to back up their dislike of Jesus. I study Theology at uni as a non-Christian so I'm inundated with the back and forth of historical analysis on the Bible, Jesus, etc. Perhaps I'm holding people to an unreasonable requirement.

 

[Rival]

There is an example from Herodotus that is self-validating that I really like.

He is discussing Egyptian sea voyages and relates that the Egyptians claimed to circumnavigate Africa. Herodotus is skeptical of their claims because they said that the sun was on the right as they moved westward. Herodotus notes that the sun is *always* on the left when moving westward, so dismissed the story. And yet, in the southern hemisphere, if you go west, the sun *is* on the right.

Now, did the Egyptians actually circumnavigate Africa? Who knows? But this little bit from Herodotus does support the possibility.

The Greeks always said that the Egyptians do everything backwards to everyone else It's because the Nile flows 'the wrong way' and empties into the Mediterranean, so they saw the world 'upside down'.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That response is very revealing. It reveals that “God concepts” do not refer to real Gods, but rather imaginary figures of the mind. Is this not what God is to all people, a figment of the imagination? If God is not a real being, then why bother with it? Are we so psychologically needful that we cannot live our lives without conjuring up fantasies to help support our emotional complexes, to “get us through” it? Does an aspect of truth have so little value that it is outweighed by our need for that support?

God concepts - I’ve borrowed the term from Carl Jung, and am using it in the manner he did - refers to the way diverse cultures and individuals have related to the infinite and the divine; as far as I’m aware every human culture has a history of such relationships.

Jung was mostly concerned with the therapeutic value of spiritual experiences; the point being that throughout human history, people have recorded life changing spiritual experiences, which have enabled them to turn existential crises into revitalising personal transformation. Whether they put these experiences down to Yahveh, Siva, Christ, Krishna, the Great Spirit, an underlying creative intelligence, or even self hypnosis, necessarily varies from culture to culture and person to person.

And yes, many of us do need this spiritual support, and would no more choose to neglect the spirit, than we would the mind or body.

 

[Polymath257]

I think my problem is trying to get online people to take a more scholarly approach when really all they want to do is take an argumentative, emotional one People will throw Jesus out the window simply because they don't like Jesus and find evidence to back up their dislike of Jesus. I study Theology at uni as a non-Christian so I'm inundated with the back and forth of historical analysis on the Bible, Jesus, etc. Perhaps I'm holding people to an unreasonable requirement.

I find a similar things happens in medieval studies. The reality is far different than the images most people have.

For example, persecution of witches, while they did happen, were NOTHING like what happened during the Reformation. There was also considerable freedom of thought in the universities and that formed the ground work for the later scientific revolution.

 

[Polymath257]

God concepts - I’ve borrowed the term from Carl Jung, and am using it in the manner he did - refers to the way diverse cultures and individuals have related to the infinite and the divine; as far as I’m aware every human culture has a history of such relationships.

Jung was mostly concerned with the therapeutic value of spiritual experiences; the point being that throughout human history, people have recorded life changing spiritual experiences, which have enabled them to turn existential crises into revitalising personal transformation. Whether they put these experiences down to Yahveh, Siva, Christ, Krishna, the Great Spirit, an underlying creative intelligence, or even self hypnosis, necessarily varies from culture to culture and person to person.

And yes, many of us do need this spiritual support, and would no more choose to neglect the spirit, than we would the mind or body.

So, myths to live by.

 

[Kfox]

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

@Augustus @exchemist @RestlessSoul @Brickjectivity

I think one of the main reasons there is far more scrutiny applied to claims of Jesus vs claims of Alexander the great, is if the claims of Alexander the great are right or wrong, it has no effect on my life. However; if the claims of Jesus are right or wrong, that has major effect on my life; so before I accept something that is going to have such an effect on how I live my life, I am going to make sure I have a legitimate reason to believe it.

 

[Rival]

I find a similar things happens in medieval studies. The reality is far different than the images most people have.

As an obsessive Mediaevalist this is so true. It baffles me the nonsense that is peddled.

 

[Polymath257]

Whichever concept of God makes most sense to you.

Why would that matter? If there is a real deity, what makes sense to me is irrelevant. Conversely, if 'whatever makes sense to you' is the standard, it is *all* personal opinion and not an overarching truth.

Many things about reality don't initially make sense. Quantum Mechanics is notorious about being counter-intuitive. And yet, from all the evidence, it is how the universe really is. Even very simply things in the physics of rotating bodies is counter-intuitive to most people.

So, 'making sense to you' is a very poor filter for truth.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So, myths to live by.

In a sense, yes. Though it’s my perception that there are profound, perhaps ineffable truths buried in the myth. And that in any case, some truths can only ever be approached obliquely.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why would that matter? If there is a real deity, what makes sense to me is irrelevant. Conversely, if 'whatever makes sense to you' is the standard, it is *all* personal opinion and not an overarching truth.

Many things about reality don't initially make sense. Quantum Mechanics is notorious about being counter-intuitive. And yet, from all the evidence, it is how the universe really is. Even very simply things in the physics of rotating bodies is counter-intuitive to most people.

So, 'making sense to you' is a very poor filter for truth.

Rather than a filter for truth, a concept of divinity which makes sense to the individual, may be a gateway to deeper understanding.

That much about our world appears, upon examination, to make little sense, is reason to be imaginative when trying to make sense of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would that matter? If there is a real deity, what makes sense to me is irrelevant. Conversely, if 'whatever makes sense to you' is the standard, it is *all* personal opinion and not an overarching truth.

Many things about reality don't initially make sense. Quantum Mechanics is notorious about being counter-intuitive. And yet, from all the evidence, it is how the universe really is. Even very simply things in the physics of rotating bodies is counter-intuitive to most people.

So, 'making sense to you' is a very poor filter for truth.

The problem is that using a strong version of only objective evidence means that there are no morality, rights, propose, usefullness or even relevance possible.
So when you say something is useful to you, you don't live up to your own standard for truth. So your idea of useful, may be relevant to discuss over drinks with fríends, but it is not true.

 

[Audie]

No.

It's an attempt to understand why people take Suetonius more seriously than the Gospel writers when they're writing the exact same genre.

Oh, ok. But I don't think you are correct in belief.

The bible has some reasonably accurate history.
But it's not really about history, as such.

Personally, I discount all the magic realism
in the bible. I do not believe any of it has anything
to tell about real events.

A person who accepts said in one source but
rejects it in another is just acting in accordance
with some agenda and is betraying a lack of intellectual
Iintegrity.

Whp do you think is guilty of that, and ( specifically)
why? Examples?

 

[Audie]

Whichever concept of God makes most sense to you.

That does not sound much like learning about
anything outside your own head.