Biochemist Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jesus Christ, central figure in the document ever existed. LG- It would be reasonable for you to admit that you are talking through your hat. There are mountains of archaeological support for the OT, and reams of support for ths historicity of Jesus. I don't think there is even a credible minority of scholars that content that Christ never existed. Non-christian contemporaries of Jesus even tacitly acknowledge the resurrection (Josephus is most often cited) or at least acknolwedge that Jesus' followers were shocked by some significant event. Lots of folks argue about the veracity of lots of events (particularly the "miracles") but almost no one contends that He never existed. If you are going to content that you follow the scientific method, you should retract your suggestion pretty quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 The OT is a religious document compiled, mostly by Catholics... By Catholics????? You gotta be kidding. I am really chuckling about this. I am about to withdraw your right to advocate the scientific method.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 The NT does not even perport to be historical. I have to admit I am having WAY too much fun with this. ;) Some of the NT CERTAINLY purports to be historical. I suspect that the Acts of the Apostles had something to do with recording the Acts of the Apostles. Just a guess. And Luke (the author of Luke and Acts) has been corroborated through archaeology so many times in the face of "scholarly" critique, that many folks now consider it a little dangerous to critque details of Acts. Luke was quite the compulsive fact checker, apparently. I really am intending to be good hearted about this. I'd be happy to buy you a brewski if you get to Portland. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 I go to church every week with my family and I go through the motions out of courtesy. (I do refuse communion, and I will not recite the Apostles' Creed.) An honorable position. Tell me why you go to church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 No need to read the bible (although feel free - both the bible and the q'uran are good reads). Read up on religious thought instead. Read philosophy. This is at odds with the scientific method if the investigaiton is serious. This is akin to reading reviews of studies in stead of the source studies. Reasonable upon occasion, but not if understanding the source is important. If you want to read Kafka or Kant, read the originals, not books about Kafka or Kant. Ditto with the Bible. These things all get filtered pretty poorly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 This is at odds with the scientific method if the investigaiton is serious. This is akin to reading reviews of studies in stead of the source studies. Reasonable upon occasion, but not if understanding the source is important. If you want to read Kafka or Kant, read the originals, not books about Kafka or Kant. Ditto with the Bible. These things all get filtered pretty poorly. Granted, to discuss the bible it would help to have read it. To discuss religion, no. I was responding to orb's original question. There are also several versions of the Bible (for example, the Norwegian version differs from the KJ version). Also, if he is on the lookout for what people are thinking then reading the bible will not help. Your comparison with Kafka and Kant is not apt - reading about literature is as important as reading books. It is impossible to read every book. Sometimes a book on contemporary literary criticism is a much better read than a lot of the contemprorary books, if you get my drift. Although if anyone's only experience with books are Cliff Notes then I agree there is a problem... ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Granted, to discuss the bible it would help to have read it. To discuss religion, no. I was responding to orb's original question....Your comparison with Kafka and Kant is not apt - reading about literature is as important as reading books...Although if anyone's only experience with books are Cliff Notes then I agree there is a problem... ;) I think we agree Tormod. I was just pulling on the "importance" lever. If the objective is to be exposed to an idea, meta-literature is fine. If the objective is to understand it, I am a little suspect of reviews. Good post, Tormod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 If the objective is to understand it, I am a little suspect of reviews. That is a very important point. I review a lot of popular science books over here, on national radio. When I started doing that I used to try to be critical and use the "hard critic" approach. Then I realized that these are books that most people probably will *not* run out and buy. So I changed the tactic and started picking little stories from the books - like, one funny anecdote that caught my attention or some aspect of a theory that intrigued me - and suddenly we started getting feedback from listeners and even from stores because books were sold out (ie, all three copies). So the important thing about books (and scientific theory) is to understand *what* it is about, how it is being interpreted, and why interpretations differ. Sometimes that does require going straight to the source and finding out for yourself. I can only wish that people don't stop reading books in the future...my life would be very boring without them!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 LG- It would be reasonable for you to admit that you are talking through your hat. There are mountains of archaeological support for the OT, and reams of support for ths historicity of Jesus. I don't think there is even a credible minority of scholars that content that Christ never existed. Non-christian contemporaries of Jesus even tacitly acknowledge the resurrection (Josephus is most often cited) or at least acknolwedge that Jesus' followers were shocked by some significant event. Lots of folks argue about the veracity of lots of events (particularly the "miracles") but almost no one contends that He never existed. If you are going to content that you follow the scientific method, you should retract your suggestion pretty quickly. You have not done your homework. All of the supposed evidence to corroberate the existance of the Jesus Christ has been disputed and most bible scholars agree that they are for the most part obvious forgeries posted by zealous monks, particularly the passage attributed to Josephus that is quoted most often. The archeological evidence is quite contradictory to biblical sites such as Nazareth and Bethlehem. Before you go off on a tangent, you should read both sides of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 You have not done your homework. All of the supposed evidence to corroberate the existance of the Jesus Christ has been disputed and most bible scholars agree that they are for the most part obvious forgeries posted by zealous monks, particularly the passage attributed to Josephus that is quoted most often. The archeological evidence is quite contradictory to biblical sites such as Nazareth and Bethlehem. Before you go off on a tangent, you should read both sides of the story. Can you give some scholarly support for these statements? I've never seen a serious critique of most of these sources of evidence. I've seen biased ones... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 All of the supposed evidence to corroberate the existance of the Jesus Christ has been disputed and most bible scholars agree that they are for the most part obvious forgeries..... (emphasis added) LG- I don't think this is defensible. I haven't heard a position this severe in quite a while. Luke's writings, in particular are particularly well supported becasue he offers so much detail that could be investigated. I am not motivated to take this any further, because I think your position is unsupportable. If I had a copy of Josephus, I would plow through it, but I don't. But heck, I still like you. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadojla Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 An honorable position. Tell me why you go to church?Because my family wants me to accompany them, and because I didn't want to upset my daughter when she was little. I enjoy the music, I have been a member of the handbell choir for years. I help out with various activities like mission suppers and food drives. The pastor has a penchant for sermons with a lot of history in them, which I enjoy.Is there some reason why I shouldn't do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Absolutely no reason not to do it, in fact i would i didnt want to let someone i know feel bad or down. I hear that the music is great, and some pastors are people who know things and can relate religion to them. Although i dont beleive in the concept of, or rather human perception of what it is supposed to be, there's nothing bad with going to church for a good time, so I'm with you Z (can i call you "Z", because I cant pronounce your name, never mind remembering how to type it?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Is there some reason why I shouldn't do this? Goodness, no, there is nothing wrong with going to church. I do think it is good that you are straight with you own feelings/thoughts about attendance. And I personally think that not observing the local rites (reciting the creed, communion) when you don't believe them shows respect for those who do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 I agree in being polite to others for the most part. I've attended church on a few occasions when my kids were say involved in some play or show at the church and I've always been polite with the Pastor and other Church members. Deep down I'm only there for the kids and I have no interest on a personal level in say that nights sermon, except sometimes in learning a bit about another persons point of view. The few times one of my children ask me about what I believe I am upfront with them about my own views. But I also try to not downplay their own either. My oldest Daughter, for example, tends to believe. But she does like some aspects of my own way of seeing things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadojla Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 (can i call you "Z", because I cant pronounce your name, never mind remembering how to type it?)Off-topic here, but "zadojla" is not my name. It is actually the logon ID assigned to me at work, and I see no reason to remember more than one. It is usually spoken "zaddo-j-l-a". It means :"z" - data center staff"ad" - administration"o" - operations"j" - first initial"la" - first two letters of last nameMost folks here call me "Zad", except beccareb, who calls me "Daddy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadojla Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 And I personally think that not observing the local rites (reciting the creed, communion) when you don't believe them shows respect for those who do.Exactly. It acknowledges that those rituals have special meaning, and I would be lying if I participated. Many members have figured out why I behave this way, and I have never taken any flak for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.