Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
I - an atheist - am morally better than the Christian God
Collapse
X
-
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post…which would be a problem for those who hold to an inerrant view of scripture."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhy allow good to be hurt?Last edited by 37818; 08-22-2020, 09:57 AM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostQumran has nothing to do with the NT texts."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostIt would be like the three laws of logic needs a fourth law, where the three laws of logic are not possible to be broken. Where bad logic is not possible. Where lies are not possible. Only then can good be made never to be hurt. The new creation promised, Isaiah 65:17, will prohibit any kind of evil per Revelation 21:27.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI don't buy the inherent claim that for us to categorise a thing that the person doing the thing has to categorise it the same way.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI consider them reasonably unreliable. However, they paint a plausible picture of Jesus as a social reformer who is concerned for the poor and social outcasts and who is leading an apparently non-violent movement.
The notion of social reform is a much later concept.
I’d also ask what extraneous evidence are you citing that demonstrates his movement was "apparently non-violent".
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThis is a largely coherent and plausible depiction of a person, and is familiar to us today in people like Martin Luther King Jr.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIn Josephus' works he depicts a couple of dozen different reform and revolutionary groups with a variety of agendas over this period, so it was clearly an active time.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostA couple of the groups he mentions were apparently pacifist.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostSure. It seems possible even that Jesus' father was killed by the Romans in one of the fights/massacres in the area.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostBut this doesn't equate to Jesus being violent himself. He could equally have drawn the lesson from this that military resistance against the Romans was doomed to fail.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostSome of his words in the gospels imply he sees his countrymen on a path toward a serious military uprising against the Romans and he doesn't see it working out well for them.
Your subject confusion aside, in all seriousness citations would be useful in support of that contention.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostObviously that's a good candidate for words-put-into-Jesus's-mouth-after-the-fact if any are, but it's also a plausible view for a thoughtful person in Jesus's time to have had.
Furthermore, in what respect are you assuming a first century ascetic Jew from Galilee might be" thoughtful" or quiescent?
Originally posted by Starlight View PostBasically, given the gospels paint a plausible general picture of a person leading a movement to help the poor,
His desire was to establish “the Kingdom of God”. God and a just King would then establish a completely just society and therefore abolish all social injustices.
Nor did the phrase “[i]the Kingdom of God”[i] convey the same meaning to many first century Jews as it was later interpreted to mean by Christianity. The” Kingdom of God” was a real theocracy within Israel with a King at its head. It was not something up in the sky as Christianity would later interpret it.
To establish such an earthly kingdom required the removal [somehow] of foreign rulers and their quislings/clients. That might be accomplished solely by divine intervention or by force with possible assistance from the divine. Once again there are plenty of parallels in Jewish scripture for just such an event.
Originally posted by Starlight View Postand given Josephus tells us a huge variety of movements and reformers
Originally posted by Starlight View Post, I think we can take the general gospel outlines of Jesus as plausible, and not reject them in favour of assuming without much evidence that Jesus must have been the average of all anti-Roman reformists and revolutionaries we know about from that era.
However, given the situation for fledgling Christianity after 70 CE it was certainly politic for Christians to distance their eponymous founder, a Jew who was also executed by a Roman governor for suspected rebellion and sedition, from those recent rebellious Jews whose actions had led to the First Jewish War.
The short answer to all this is that we can never know the real Jesus of Nazareth nor what his position might have been. However, it has been noted that for Jews in first century Judaea religion and politics were inexorably interlinked."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostHere's why: I know how to rid the universe of evil without impacting the free will of its inhabitants. Even better, I will do this the instant I'm granted the ability to do so.
The Christian God already has this ability, and refuses to use it.
This makes me morally superior to him.
---
The problem of evil can be solved instantly in this way: prevent the birth of anyone who will freely choose to do evil.
This avoids forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make themselves. Free will conundrum resolved, and all evil stopped; the universe becomes as sinless as heaven, and the need for Hell is gone.
---
How do I apply for the promotion to godhood?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAs I wrote earlier, we must agree to differ. Nor can we retroject later ways of thinking back to the ancient past.
He was not a social reformer. You make him sound like some sort of first century pacific Che Guevara.
The notion of social reform is a much later concept.
I’d also ask what extraneous evidence are you citing that demonstrates his movement was "apparently non-violent".
The tenets of altruism are enshrined in Judaism, to wit the well known remark by Hillel, a near contemporary.
Given what we know of the region in the late first century BCE and early first century CE your remark might be considered something of an understatement.
Could you cite the passages in Josephus to which you refer?
That is pure imagination.
Certainly Josephus later took that view. However, what you are suggesting is nothing but speculation.
Who? The Romans? With legions in Syria and Egypt?
Your subject confusion aside, in all seriousness citations would be useful in support of that contention.
Of course these words are put into Jesus’ mouth. No one was following him taking dictation.
Furthermore, in what respect are you assuming a first century ascetic Jew from Galilee might be" thoughtful" or quiescent?
His movement was not to help the poor. Protecting the widow and helping the poor or homeless was, and still, is an integral part of Judaism. Such ideas were not unique to Jesus of Nazareth.
His desire was to establish “the Kingdom of God”. God and a just King would then establish a completely just society and therefore abolish all social injustices.
Nor did the phrase “[i]the Kingdom of God”[i] convey the same meaning to many first century Jews as it was later interpreted to mean by Christianity. The” Kingdom of God” was a real theocracy within Israel with a King at its head. It was not something up in the sky as Christianity would later interpret it.
To establish such an earthly kingdom required the removal [somehow] of foreign rulers and their quislings/clients. That might be accomplished solely by divine intervention or by force with possible assistance from the divine. Once again there are plenty of parallels in Jewish scripture for just such an event.
Who were these reformers and where, within his extant works, does Josephus mention them?
What anti-Roman reformists and revolutionaries do we know of from that period? In my opinion you are retrojecting far later motives and ideas back to a first century ascetic Galilean Jew. Such tendencies lead to erroneous assumptions about society in previous periods of history. It is akin to regarding the legendary folk heroes William Tell or Robin Hood as some form of social justice warriors [N.B. not in the modern terminology of that phrase]. It also completely ignores the known situation within Judaism at that period when there was an expectation of the End Times among many Jewish people and the distinct social and religio-political tensions among of the Jews of, once again, being under the heel of foreign heathen rulers.
However, given the situation for fledgling Christianity after 70 CE it was certainly politic for Christians to distance their eponymous founder, a Jew who was also executed by a Roman governor for suspected rebellion and sedition, from those recent rebellious Jews whose actions had led to the First Jewish War.
The short answer to all this is that we can never know the real Jesus of Nazareth nor what his position might have been. However, it has been noted that for Jews in first century Judaea religion and politics were inexorably interlinked."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostNor can we retroject later ways of thinking back to the ancient past.
He was not a social reformer.
You make him sound like some sort of first century pacific Che Guevara.
The senior pastor at the last church I attended did a lengthy sermon series with a picture of Che-Jesus on his slides, presenting Jesus in the role of a semi-revolutionary social reformer. It was honestly the most enjoyable series of sermons I ever had in 20 years of church attendance because for once I actually agreed with everything said.
The notion of social reform is a much later concept.
The OT is full of books of the prophets whining about all the things wrong with Israel and wanting laundry lists of changes. Ancient Greek writings from the time of Plato are the same. People wanting social changes, and activists and revolutionaries fighting for them, is nothing new.
I’d also ask what extraneous evidence are you citing that demonstrates his movement was "apparently non-violent".
His movement was not to help the poor.
His desire was to establish “the Kingdom of God”. God and a just King would then establish a completely just society and therefore abolish all social injustices.
Nor did the phrase “the Kingdom of God” convey the same meaning to many first century Jews as it was later interpreted to mean by Christianity. The” Kingdom of God” was a real theocracy within Israel with a King at its head. It was not something up in the sky as Christianity would later interpret it.
Another variant was those who thought that if they were sufficiently pure and obedient to God in their lives, then he would overthrow the Romans, e.g. by raising up some 3rd party kingdom, or causing the Roman empire to crumble. If they made Israel worth saving, God would save it.
Another variant is those who opted for sub-kingdoms of God in the form of communes. Thus having a community where God was king that was separate from, though within, the wider kingdom ruled by the Romans.
And obviously there is also the spiritualist view where the kingdom of God is something that happens in the hearts of individuals. While this is a popular view among much later Christians, it's hard to be sure that it wasn't present in first century Judea. There's plenty in both Old and New Testaments that encourages this sort of idea, which is obviously why it's so appealing to later Christians.
The way I read the gospels, Jesus and his movement, like the community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, leans more toward those last three meanings of the Kingdom of God, than he does toward the first one. It doesn't seem warranted to me to simply assume that Jesus used it with its first meaning, and that therefore he was a violent revolutionary just because you've chosen to assume that's what he was meaning.
Who were these reformers and where, within his extant works, does Josephus mention them?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostYou have contradicted yourself. If "we can never be absolutely certain" we cannot be "very sure of what the originals must have said". You cannot have it both ways.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNonsense. You can be very sure of something without being absolutely certain."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostHere's why: I know how to rid the universe of evil without impacting the free will of its inhabitants. Even better, I will do this the instant I'm granted the ability to do so.
The Christian God already has this ability, and refuses to use it.
This makes me morally superior to him.
---
The problem of evil can be solved instantly in this way: prevent the birth of anyone who will freely choose to do evil.
This avoids forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make themselves. Free will conundrum resolved, and all evil stopped; the universe becomes as sinless as heaven, and the need for Hell is gone.
---
How do I apply for the promotion to godhood?
Second, you're proposal would be rather draconian. No evil has been committed yet you're punishing the individual beforehand by denying existence. So is punishment for future immorality morally good? At least we mere mortals wait until such immorality (or at least illegality) occurs before we pass judgement. Surely we are more just and good than you.
Third, what you propose is basically Minority Report.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThen you don't understand textual criticism. That is it's purpose.
The purpose of textual criticism with regard to ancient texts is to attempt to establish the wording of an original text insofar as it is possible to do so and on the basis of the examples of that text that we have, in order to come to some approximation of understanding as to what the original of that text may have contained.
It is then necessary to determine how, when, why, and where that text came to be altered over the course of its transmission.
That process requires a huge array of disciplines and is based on external evidence including; the number of supporting witness documents/fragments, the age of supporting witness documents/fragments, the geographical diversity of fragments/documents; and also internal evidence from the various MSS of each text.
However, at the end of the day the result is only a determination [albeit expertly considered] and I sincerely doubt any textual scholar dealing with these ancient MSS would ever categorically state that we know with certainty what the original autograph contained. It comes down to probability and likelihood."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
14 responses
53 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:13 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
78 responses
414 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 10:50 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment