What do you think the Good News of Jesus Christ is?

[serp777]

Your ilk need the religious loons around otherwise your anti-religious crusade would fall apart straight away. Two sides of the same coin. How pathetic.

Why would the alleged crusaders need an alleged crusade if Jerusalem was already conquered?

 

[Riverwolf]

I never really understood why the starfish story was convincing or persuasive. While the old man was uselessly saving individual starfish, an ecologist was preventing chemical dumping which would save millions and millions of starfish.

I'm still left wondering why a few star fish matter at all, which the old man didn't explain.

The old man (or young man, depending on the Bard) didn't explain, because the old man assumed that the listener was intelligent enough to understand. Your wondering about an ecologist is also nothing more than a distraction from the point.

In any case, here's the point: to think about whether things matter on a Cosmic scale, or the scale of Deep Time, is to look upon the face of Cthulhu: therein lies nothing but madness. Therefore, think on a smaller scale. Those few star fish matter to themselves. In the scale of the Earth, do I matter? No. In the scale of my friends and family, do I matter? Heck, yes.

By the way, I edited my post.

 

[Riverwolf]

That small piece is his overall message...it's his gospel.

Ah. So for you, that passage is equivalent to the "That which is detestable to you, don't do to others, that's the whole Torah, the rest is commentary" bit from the Talmud?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Ah. So for you, that passage is equivalent to the "That which is detestable to you, don't do to others, that's the whole Torah, the rest is commentary" bit from the Talmud?

No it is not. It is basically: God wants you to be free and to be healed and to love, so I came here to show you how to be free and to be healed and to show you how to love one another. Be free. Pick up your cross and follow me.

 

[Riverwolf]

No it is not. It is basically: God wants you to be free and to be healed and to love, so I came here to show you how to be free and to be healed and to show you how to love one another. Be free. Pick up your cross and follow me.

I didn't mean in terms of its content being the same, but that it's "the whole Gospel, the rest is commentary".

 

[serp777]

The old man (or young man, depending on the Bard) didn't explain, because the old man assumed that the listener was intelligent enough to understand. Your wondering about an ecologist is also nothing more than a distraction from the point.

In any case, here's the point: to think about whether things matter on a Cosmic scale, or the scale of Deep Time, is to look upon the face of Cthulhu: therein lies nothing but madness. Therefore, think on a smaller scale. Those few star fish matter to themselves. In the scale of the Earth, do I matter? No. In the scale of my friends and family, do I matter? Heck, yes.

By the way, I edited my post.

Maybe the old man was just a nut job though. Why should the smaller scales matter as much as the big scales? You're saying a dollar should matter as much as a million dollars, or a million dollars should matter as much as a trillion dollars. It makes no sense because it defeats the point of scale. Larger scales supersede smaller ones.

"Your wondering about an ecologist is also nothing more than a distraction from the point."

Not really. You missed that point entirely like how you assume I missed the point of the old man. The ecologist represents the big scale, and how much more the big scale matters more than the small scale. While the old man is saving peanuts, the ecologist does important work. The two are comparable only in the sense that the old man is orders of magnitude less important.

Interpretation of historical consensus that has since been refuted has spawned dozens of religions with millions of followers. To say, therefore, that this interpretation is "incorrect and therefore irrelevant" is incredibly naive and insensitive.

You haven't shown how it's naive. The naive thing here is assuming that a bunch of incorrect opinions are somehow reasonable just because a lot of people follow them. The argument from popularity was never a good one since many people were nazis, or genocidal maniacs, or whatever. All of those people were living a lie, but that doesn't justify a relevant interpretation.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I didn't mean in terms of its content being the same, but that it's "the whole Gospel, the rest is commentary".

Jesus didn't say "That which is detestable to you, don't do to others", he said something radically different. He never said the rest is commentary, Hillel did. Jesus said that love was the most important thing and that we should "Do unto others, that which we would do unto ourselves."

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe the old man was just a nut job though. Why should the smaller scales matter as much as the big scales? You're saying a dollar should matter as much as a million dollars, or a million dollars should matter as much as a trillion dollars. It makes no sense because it defeats the point of scale. Larger scales supersede smaller ones.

A single dollar that actually exists now is far more relevant than a million dollars that only exists in the future.

Besides, a million dollars or a trillion dollars, those are still on scales that our minds are capable of comprehending. I was talking specifically about Cosmic and Deep Time scales, which most people are not equipped to fully comprehend.

Not really. You missed that point entirely like how you assume I missed the point of the old man. The ecologist represents the big scale, and how much more the big scale matters more than the small scale. While the old man is saving peanuts, the ecologist does important work. The two are comparable only in the sense that the old man is orders of magnitude less important.

Then the ecologist is just another old man, capable of saving more star fish faster with more sophisticated tools. The scale, however, has not changed, because the import of the story is that "it mattered to that one". Save a hundred, save a thousand, save a million; it mattered to that one. It doesn't matter to you at all that I was given the care I need to live; but it matters to me. (And I'm talking about practicality, not your ability to empathize.)

The ones to whom this matters most are the star fish themselves. Ecologist old man, or old man walking on the beach, both are equally important to the individual starfish that they respectively save.

You haven't shown how it's naive. The naive thing here is assuming that a bunch of incorrect opinions are somehow reasonable just because a lot of people follow them. The argument from popularity was never a good one since many people were nazis, or genocidal maniacs, or whatever. All of those people were living a lie, but that doesn't justify a relevant interpretation.

...I think we're talking past each other. I didn't say anything about reasonableness. Nazi belief was incredibly dangerous and damaging, but to say it was irrelevant is incredibly naive, because it basically says that history would have gone down exactly the same, and that all people would have acted exactly the same, regardless of whether or not they held Nazi beliefs, or some other completely different belief.

My point is this: a story that can be interpreted in many different ways depending on the needs of the individual is not irrelevant at all; quite the contrary, its relevance is dynamic, making it far more powerful than a story that's supposed to be interpreted a single way. An irrelevant story is one that's not being read by anyone.

 

[Riverwolf]

Jesus didn't say "That which is detestable to you, don't do to others", he said something radically different. He never said the rest is commentary, Hillel did. Jesus said that love was the most important thing and that we should "Do unto others, that which we would do unto ourselves."

I think you're completely misunderstanding what I'm getting at, and to be honest, I'm not sure how else to explain what I'm trying to say.

 

[psychoslice]

Jesus said to his disciples in Matt. 10:7 "go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near." You may think this is the Good News of Jesus Christ--the Gospel, but is this the same as the Good News that saves?

I firmly believe that when God wants to emphasize a matter in his written word such as in John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and 1 John 4:8, He so inspires it that it is difficult, if not impossible to mistranslate.
Learn about the Bible by mail or online-for free!

You have your own way of looking at the bible, you believe your way is the only way, but it isn't, don't be so taken in by your ego demands.

 

[sojourner]

Sadly that is a very common lie found in Christian apologetics. There is a far greater body of historical evidence for many other ancient figures than there is for the NT. For Julius Ceaser for example there are coins, statues, hundreds of legal documents, public records, images etc etc etc - enough to outweigh the evidence for the historicity of Jesus a hundred times over.

Which leads to the second very common lie found in Christian apologetics, that the historicity of Jesus has somehow been established to the point of near certainty - which is simply not the case.

You're forgetting one thing: There is written documentation for Caesar because he was an emperor. In those times, things were only written permanently for imperial business. Jesus was a relatively unknown peasant from a relatively unknown country. To have anything permanent at all written about him is remarkable, and shows that he more than likely did exist in history.

 

[Bunyip]

You're forgetting one thing: There is written documentation for Caesar because he was an emperor. In those times, things were only written permanently for imperial business. Jesus was a relatively unknown peasant from a relatively unknown country. To have anything permanent at all written about him is remarkable, and shows that he more than likely did exist in history.

But you don't have anything 'permanent, written about him' contemporary with his life, and what we do have from the decades and centuries that follow is very, very little and of unknown or otherwise contested origin.

My point still stands, the case for a historical Julius Ceaser is vastly superior to the case for the historical Jesus - contrary to the claim found in Christian apologetics that the case for a historical Jesus is superior to that for any other figure in the ancient world.

 

[sojourner]

But you don't have anything 'permanent, written about him' contemporary with his life, and what we do have from the decades and centuries that follow is very, very little and of unknown or otherwise contested origin.

My point still stands, the case for a historical Julius Ceaser is vastly superior to the case for the historical Jesus - contrary to the claim found in Christian apologetics that the case for a historical Jesus is superior to that for any other figure in the ancient world.

I don't contest that opinion. But to say that it's a mistake to point to the "near certainty" of Jesus' existence is to deny the importance that there was anything written of him. That fact, alone, points to the near certainty of his existence.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't contest that opinion. But to say that it's a mistake to point to the "near certainty" of Jesus' existence is to deny the importance that there was anything written of him.

Can you please explain your logic there? Sorry, but I do not see how that is supposed to make sense.

That fact, alone, points to the near certainty of his existence.

How so? How does the fact that it is a mistake to point to the "near certainty" of god's existence point to the near certainty of his existence?

I am not denying that there was anything written about Jesus - I'm just pointing out that there is nothing contemporary and what little there is from the following century is largely of unknown origin.

 

[sojourner]

Can you please explain your logic there? Sorry, but I do not see how that is supposed to make sense.

How so? How does the fact that it is a mistake to point to the "near certainty" of god's existence point to the near certainty of his existence?

I am not denying that there was anything written about Jesus - I'm just pointing out that there is nothing contemporary and what little there is from the following century is largely of unknown origin.

Did you read what I posted earlier? It's not surprising that stuff was written about Caesar. It was expected that there would be permanent writings about imperial matters. But Jesus was a little-known peasant in a little-known country. it's astounding that anything permanent was written about him at all! The singularity of that occurrence is a major indicator of the veracity his existence. Even if the writings weren't "contemporary." (BTW: it may be more contemporary than you think. The source material for the Jesus quotations in Matthew and Luke is quite early -- within 7 years or so of his life.)

 

[serp777]

A single dollar that actually exists now is far more relevant than a million dollars that only exists in the future.

Besides, a million dollars or a trillion dollars, those are still on scales that our minds are capable of comprehending. I was talking specifically about Cosmic and Deep Time scales, which most people are not equipped to fully comprehend.

Then the ecologist is just another old man, capable of saving more star fish faster with more sophisticated tools. The scale, however, has not changed, because the import of the story is that "it mattered to that one". Save a hundred, save a thousand, save a million; it mattered to that one. It doesn't matter to you at all that I was given the care I need to live; but it matters to me. (And I'm talking about practicality, not your ability to empathize.)

The ones to whom this matters most are the star fish themselves. Ecologist old man, or old man walking on the beach, both are equally important to the individual starfish that they respectively save.

...I think we're talking past each other. I didn't say anything about reasonableness. Nazi belief was incredibly dangerous and damaging, but to say it was irrelevant is incredibly naive, because it basically says that history would have gone down exactly the same, and that all people would have acted exactly the same, regardless of whether or not they held Nazi beliefs, or some other completely different belief.

My point is this: a story that can be interpreted in many different ways depending on the needs of the individual is not irrelevant at all; quite the contrary, its relevance is dynamic, making it far more powerful than a story that's supposed to be interpreted a single way. An irrelevant story is one that's not being read by anyone.

First, I thought you understood what I meant by relevance since you never asked what relevance was referring to--it's referring to the truth of reality. It wasn't that the nazi belief wasn't relevant to their treatment of the jews, it's that nazi interpretations don't have any relevance to the truth of whether Jews are evil and greedy or not (which is not the case for those who cannot read and misinterpret my post). Interpretations, without any kind of empirical evidence I should specify, are irrelevant to the truth of reality.

Besides, a million dollars or a trillion dollars, those are still on scales that our minds are capable of comprehending. I was talking specifically about Cosmic and Deep Time scales, which most people are not equipped to fully comprehend.

I don't think people truly understand what a trillion dollars implies actually. Imagining what a trillion dollars can pay for is difficult for anyone. Those deep time scales you refer to actually have the biggest implications for everything in the universe--it's why we have stars and galaxies, and why the universe didn't fly apart or come back together in a big crunch. We wouldn't exist without those deep time and cosmic scales. The fact that people can't comprehend them that well isn't really important. Since when was people comprehending something a good criteria that something was valid? Said no scientist ever.

Save a hundred, save a thousand, save a million; it mattered to that one. It doesn't matter to you at all that I was given the care I need to live; but it matters to me.

The care given to a million people to live matters a million times times more than the single amount of care given for you to live. The fact that it matters to you individually, and therefore is just as significant is pretty self centered.

You keep saying it mattered to that one, like that's supposed to be a good argument. The whole is greater than the individual.

 

[Bunyip]

Did you read what I posted earlier?

Yes, I read it and responded to it,

It's not surprising that stuff was written about Caesar. It was expected that there would be permanent writings about imperial matters. But Jesus was a little-known peasant in a little-known country. it's astounding that anything permanent was written about him at all!

How is it astounding? There are shreds of evidence for thousands of other peasants. Surely such shreds of evidence are commonplace?

The singularity of that occurrence is a major indicator of the veracity his existence.

How so? That doesn't make sense - you are arguing that the lack of evidence is evidence.

Even if the writings weren't "contemporary." (BTW: it may be more contemporary than you think. The source material for the Jesus quotations in Matthew and Luke is quite early -- within 7 years or so of his life.)

And that source material is of unknown origin. How are you figuring that the scarcity of evidence constitutes near certainty?

 

[Riverwolf]

First, I thought you understood what I meant by relevance since you never asked what relevance was referring to--it's referring to the truth of reality. It wasn't that the nazi belief wasn't relevant to their treatment of the jews, it's that nazi interpretations don't have any relevance to the truth of whether Jews are evil and greedy or not (which is not the case for those who cannot read and misinterpret my post). Interpretations, without any kind of empirical evidence I should specify, are irrelevant to the truth of reality.

Well, that wasn't clear.

Thing is, even then, reality is skewed by our biases. The only objective reality that I'm aware of is just a bunch of values.

A children show that I loved and still love, despite itself being high quality by the standards of childrens' shows, both at the time and now, but being fairly average when placed next to shows and stories for older audiences, has one of the single most profound statements I've ever heard from any children's show, which I didn't understand until well into adulthood: "We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are." Didn't even have anything to do with the plot of the episode, it was just kinda there. It's not possible for a human being to truly see the world in an objective, unbiased manner, because everyone is biased. Even the so-called "unbiased view" is in fact quite biased in its attempt at being unbiased (I love paradoxes. ^_^) That's why the peer-review system was created: it reduces that bias to an absolute minimum so that we can get as close to the objective reality as possible.

With those biases come interpretations. That's why in some scientific matters there can still be conflicting interpretations of the same set of data. Interpreting things is just part of who we are as humans. Even my preference to trust the consensus of scientists, scholars, historians, etc. in their respective fields, instead of my own personal observations, is an interpretive bias.

I don't think people truly understand what a trillion dollars implies actually. Imagining what a trillion dollars can pay for is difficult for anyone. Those deep time scales you refer to actually have the biggest implications for everything in the universe--it's why we have stars and galaxies, and why the universe didn't fly apart or come back together in a big crunch. We wouldn't exist without those deep time and cosmic scales. The fact that people can't comprehend them that well isn't really important. Since when was people comprehending something a good criteria that something was valid? Said no scientist ever.

None of those facts have any immediate impact on my life. At this point, they're just geeky curiosities. Sure, they may be possible "how we exist" in terms of the distant past, but going that far back, whether the Big Bang actually happened or is a 3D illusion brought on by a 4D black hole (...if I understood that new hypothesis correctly), doesn't matter. How I exist is because Mommy and Daddy loved each other very much, etc.

...for the record, that doesn't mean I don't find cosmology fascinating myself. I'm a geek as well, with my own geeky curiosities, and find the cosmos incredibly fascinating. (Though my primary areas of geeky interest are culture, religion, linguistics, computers, and game design.)

A trillion dollars can buy all the video games, consoles, and personal computers old and new, that are available on the market. Plus all the individual ports. And a big, big room to put them all in. ^_^

The care given to a million people to live matters a million times times more than the single amount of care given for you to live. The fact that it matters to you individually, and therefore is just as significant is pretty self centered.

You keep saying it mattered to that one, like that's supposed to be a good argument. The whole is greater than the individual.

I am wondering if we're talking past each other.

So star fish who are saved should never feel good about it because others weren't? Do you think that the old man should just stop saving those star fish? Selfishness is not bad as long as it exists alongside selflessness. Contrary to the common (mis)conception that probably owes its existence to puritanical Christianity, selfishness and selflessness are not mutually exclusive.

It matters to one individual as much as it matters to any other individual. It doesn't mean that an individual is inherently worth more than many, which doesn't even make sense. Needs of the many, and all. Thing is, that was meant to apply when the needs of the many and the few/one are in some kind of conflict. Here, there's no such conflict.

What it does mean, however, is that the individual is not worthless. To imply that an individual is worthless in the face of a whole, means that the whole is itself worthless, since there's no individual worth to add to the whole.

Besides, I don't think star fish are social species. A human equivalent would be a tribe, not an individual human, since we're a tribal species.

 

[sojourner]

How is it astounding? There are shreds of evidence for thousands of other peasants. Surely such shreds of evidence are commonplace?

Yes, but many [permanent] documents about Jesus? you have to understand that most writing (when it was done at all) was done on wax tablets. But these documents are on material that was permanent. That implies -- not only that Jesus was real, but that he was an important person.

How so? That doesn't make sense - you are arguing that the lack of evidence is evidence.

No. I'm saying that "any evidence -- no matter how 'insignificant' it may seem -- is enormous, given the context."

And that source material is of unknown origin. How are you figuring that the scarcity of evidence constitutes near certainty?

Because it's there -- it exists. Writing such as this -- especially quotations -- simply didn't exist then, unless the individual was real and seen as important.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, but many [permanent] documents about Jesus? you have to understand that most writing (when it was done at all) was done on wax tablets. But these documents are on material that was permanent. That implies -- not only that Jesus was real, but that he was an important person.

No. I'm saying that "any evidence -- no matter how 'insignificant' it may seem -- is enormous, given the context."

Because it's there -- it exists. Writing such as this -- especially quotations -- simply didn't exist then, unless the individual was real and seen as important.

All it points to is that there was likely an individual, or perhaps a few individuals that later got confused into one person, that served as the inspiration.

The King Arthur comparison shines bright here.

Now, granted, Jesus does have a bit more going for him that King Arthur, because the earliest accounts of Jesus were written a bit less than a century after his death, whereas I understand that the earliest accounts of King Arthur are many centuries after the Battle of Baden Hill.