The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[DieselDaisy]

Is any of you Christians interested in Biblical scholarship, from a more textual-historical perspective? I touched on it when I did (Roman) classics for my degree and found it fascinating. The conundrum over Jesus's birth is a puzzler, "born...in the days of Herod the king" (died 4 BC) yet just prior to the ''Census of Quirinius'' (AD 6)! The two Nativities (Matthew and Luke) can be reconciled but the whole thing becomes a bit artificially hefty (I feel) to accommodate the two accounts, with the Magi, Massacre of the Innocents (ripped-off from Exodus one feels?), Joseph and Jesus' Egyptian sojourn (Matthew) having to be amalgamated with the census, shepherds and Temple (Luke).

From memory, Matthew is overtly Hebraic (''Messiah'', ''King David'') - it sees Jesus as a fulfillment of the Old Testament and is aimed specifically at the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Mark is more Gentile. Luke is Pauline and offers reassurances to Gentile governments.  John is basically a drunken Mel Gibson. 

[SoulMonster]

8 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If you I remember sir, I asked you to PROVIDE this cost-anylsis data you claimed. To which you did not, and even admitted it's just MORE OF YOUR BELIEF. So my initial response is all that is needed.

As for the "theist argument being weak" So you do not think the theist argument is weak? I supposed I assumed that.

In a debate, whomever makes a claim carries the burden of proof. You can't do that, so you have turned to fallacies.

Do you even know what a cost-benefit analysis is? From what I posted way back you should have sufficient info to argue against it. I already listed the major pros and cons.

Of course I know that the theist argument is weak, I just find it refreshingly honest hearing it from a catholic. 

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

You have been implying that the world would be a better place without religion but based on history, maybe not? 

If you think the world will be filled with mass murderers then probably not 

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

I personally do not believe that we "automatically" become immoral without theism.  Every day I come on this forum and I read well thought out posts by atheists like you, Downzy, Dazey, Len...and I know that you, from what you represent in your posts here, are mostly "moral" folks. 

But unfortunately not all of society are as well read as you guys

You think morality comes from reading books? You think reading books make you a better person?

It is becoming increasingly clear that aspects of morality is caused by our genes. We are born with the possibility to be moral individuals. Surely this potential for morality must then, like many of our behaviours, by nurtured through socialisation, which is one of the most important job of parents. This is also important because just as we are born with potential for intra-group-strengthening behaviour (conscience, altruism, empathy towards "like"), we are also born with inter-group-weakening behaviours (xenophobia, potential for violence, aggression) and these behaviours must be weakened. This means model explains the complexity of human nature, why we can be both good and bad, and also why some people can be really fucked up while others can be really fantastic. 

Thanks for providing a rebuttal to Dawkins and Harris. Needless to say, I disagree with lots of what the writer said. But it doesn't really matter. Fact is, and he agreed, that theism can cause wars and violence. That countless people have died due to wars and conflicts motivated entirely or partly be theistic faith. 

The writer then argued that a world without theism would be worse by pointing to atrocities committed by atheists. Naturally, I disagree with parts of his examples, but I also don't it matter much. 

Atheism doesn't come with moral guidance. Atheism isn't a belief system in that regard. It is just the lack of belief in gods. You can be an atheist and follow whatever non-theistic philosophy in the world. It's a blank canvas. Fill it with whatever. The question then is, does it lead to immorality? Your writer has listed a few (spectacular) examples of bad atheists, I could list millions of normal people who are atheists. Likewise, I could list MANY bad theists. So I don't think your argument works. Atheism doesn't make you bad. 

 

[soon]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Is any of you Christians interested in Biblical scholarship, from a more textual-historical perspective? I touched on it when I did (Roman) classics for my degree and found it fascinating. The conundrum over Jesus's birth is a puzzler, "born...in the days of Herod the king" (died 4 BC) yet just prior to the ''Census of Quirinius'' (AD 6)! The two Nativities (Matthew and Luke) can be reconciled but the whole thing becomes a bit artificially hefty (I feel) to accommodate the two accounts, with the Magi, Massacre of the Innocents (ripped-off from Exodus one feels?), Joseph and Jesus' Egyptian sojourn (Matthew) having to be amalgamated with the census, shepherds and Temple (Luke).

From memory, Matthew is overtly Hebraic (''Messiah'', ''King David'') - it sees Jesus as a fulfillment of the Old Testament and is aimed specifically at the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Mark is more Gentile. Luke is Pauline and offers reassurances to Gentile governments.  John is basically a drunken Mel Gibson. 

Im still fuzzy brained having just woke up.  Yeah, Im into these topics.  Some of my posts of Laura Nasrallah are on these subjects.  Would be thrilled if this stuff was a majority of this thread.  For now Ill just chime in with three little items.

All 4 Gospels can be harmonized.  In Harmony they still have differences as they are four separate accounts.  One can study charts of "The Harmonization of the Gospels" or have an Gospel Harmony Bible that has on each page a column from each gospel presenting them in harmony.  Especially the three Synoptic Gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke are easily harmonized.  Theres traditionally been the notion that a gospel sayings document informed the three.  Its often called "Q" (short for German Quelle = source).  More recently the notion that Mark itself was a source document for the other two is coming into wide acceptance.  That both Mark and Q are source documents, possibly.  But as far as getting into the nitty gritty of harmonization, the hour is too early for me!

When you say "ripped-off from Exodus one feels?"  You're possibly noting what is referred to as an Old Testament Parallel. They're fairly common in Scripture.  The most pointed of which of course being that the last supper is the group celebrating the Passover meal.  Passover from the OT was when the Hebrew households needed to smear the blood of a sacrificial lamb on there doors so that death would passover them.  In the NT Jesus is a parallel to the sacrificial lamb - a replacement even.  One can also get a bible that has inline study aides including OT parallel notes. Or a Concordance is the best way.

About audiences, theres just one over site here.  The gospel of John was written for the Greek/Hellenized audience.  It appeals to the aspirations of philosophical pursuit.  Its key to know this when studying it.  Im not sure where the "drunken" or the "Mel Gibson" comments come from?  Agreed about Matthew.  Mark isnt closed off from a gentile audience, but is still also appealing to jewish audience.  Mark is sometimes considered like a political tract someone hands out in the city square.  Its quick, meant to draw the reader in and for as short as it is seems more focused then the others on Jesus' radical, anti-Empiral political actions and teachings.  Agreed about Luke and would just highlight that he was sent by a benefactor to study this new teaching out of interest more then assurances.  He was an educated person, sometimes referred to as a physician.  He is very thorough.  Later in Acts, which Luke also authored, he switches from saying "they" about the ongoings of the apostles to "we."  

[Len Cnut]

Quote

You have been implying that the world would be a better place without religion but based on history, maybe not? 

I could agree with that to a point, I mean like...the world is how it is and religion has been a huge part of human history, i don't think you can really ignore how much its contributed to morality, as much as the opposite.  This alternate reality of like, 'had religion not been here' is sort of like if my brother had tits he'd be my sister, it didn't happen so how can you rightly say what shit would've been like?  You can't really and its a waste of time thinking about in the end.  Religion has done many good things in the world...not that that excuses the bad its done, which is also plentiful...but the same thing can be said about any number of things.  Its all about how you use it I suppose, like a spoon...you can have your dessert with it but you can also strap a prostitute down and carve her liver out of her torso with it. 

I hate to make any broad assessments of the human condition but i think religion was a helpful force in early human history though, I think, currently, there's a good argument to be made that its perhaps hindering us a bit.  Whether thats right or wrong or should be gotten rid of I don't think I'm qualified to assert one way or the other.  Its a helluva thing isn't it?  Like saying, I dunno, how would society work if we got rid of, say, money or something.  Its a massive part of the way the world works right now, religion and such systems of belief, I'm not sure if we're ready, or will ever be ready, or ever should have to, live in a world without religion.

We all need our delusions, don't we?  Gotta be...invested in something.  The way I see it, if you're not, if you're 100% pragmatic about everything, then whats the point in anything?  There answer is that there isn't any, we just find one cuz its all we got.  But really, from my perspective, all of this stuff, the world around us, the universe, overall, its all fuckin' worthless...we just create value in things and follow that.  The ugly truth is none of this shit matters, your love for your significant other, your family, your peoples, religion or art or sports or whatever the fuck it is you value in life, it could all disappear tommorow...and so what?  Nothing is what.  The value in things is simply what you assign to it, so with that said, how is religion anymore delusional than a belief in anything?

Len the Nihilist

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

Im still fuzzy brained having just woke up.  Yeah, Im into these topics.  Some of my posts of Laura Nasrallah are on these subjects.  Would be thrilled if this stuff was a majority of this thread.  For now Ill just chime in with three little items.

All 4 Gospels can be harmonized.  In Harmony they still have differences as they are four separate accounts.  One can study charts of "The Harmonization of the Gospels" or have an Gospel Harmony Bible that has on each page a column from each gospel presenting them in harmony.  Especially the three Synoptic Gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke are easily harmonized.  Theres traditionally been the notion that a gospel sayings document informed the three.  Its often called "Q" (short for German Quelle = source).  More recently the notion that Mark itself was a source document for the other two is coming into wide acceptance.  That both Mark and Q are source documents, possibly.  But as far as getting into the nitty gritty of harmonization, the hour is too early for me!

When you say "ripped-off from Exodus one feels?"  You're possibly noting what is referred to as an Old Testament Parallel. They're fairly common in Scripture.  The most pointed of which of course being that the last supper is the group celebrating the Passover meal.  Passover from the OT was when the Hebrew households needed to smear the blood of a sacrificial lamb on there doors so that death would passover them.  In the NT Jesus is a parallel to the sacrificial lamb - a replacement even.  One can also get a bible that has inline study aides including OT parallel notes. Or a Concordance is the best way.

About audiences, theres just one over site here.  The gospel of John was written for the Greek/Hellenized audience.  It appeals to the aspirations of philosophical pursuit.  Its key to know this when studying it.  Im not sure where the "drunken" or the "Mel Gibson" comments come from?  Agreed about Matthew.  Mark isnt closed off from a gentile audience, but is still also appealing to jewish audience.  Mark is sometimes considered like a political tract someone hands out in the city square.  Its quick, meant to draw the reader in and for as short as it is seems more focused then the others on Jesus' radical, anti-Empiral political actions and teachings.  Agreed about Luke and would just highlight that he was sent by a benefactor to study this new teaching out of interest more then assurances.  He was an educated person, sometimes referred to as a physician.  He is very thorough.  Later in Acts, which Luke also authored, he switches from saying "they" about the ongoings of the apostles to "we."  

The specifying of the ''Jews'' as the executioners is most pronounced in John, with an obvious antisemitic implication. True though, I didn't see any mention of ''sugertits''.  

I cannot see how certain elements can be harmonised such as the Herodian (pre 4 BC) and Census (AD 6) Nativities. I have big problems with these two passages. One would make Jesus about 33 at the crucifixion. The other would make him about 24. Only one can be correct; if it is the latter for instance, no Herod the Great and Massacre of the Innocents. There is also the fact that Joseph and Jesus were Galileans which was then a Roman puppet under Herod Antipas. Their participation in a Roman census was not required - even less this weird mass movement to one's place of birth! 

There are discrepancies which are incapable of harmonising, even in the synoptics, such as,

The finders of the uncovered cave. The only constant here is Mary Magdalene. Depending on which Gospel you read, either Magdalene was accompanied by Lazarus's sister or James and John's mother (Salome). I think it is John who even sticks Mary, the mother of Christ, at the actual crucifixion. Too many ''Marys'' in 1st century Palestine! A lot of confusing for our Apostolic writers!

Only one of the Gospels mentions the fact that Antipas was in Jerusalem at the time, so there is a sort of extra trial interpolated between the Sanhedrin and Praetorium. This is curious.

Generally though there is a strong accordance between the four. There is a sort of kernel story which one can salvage there which was disfigured through time, a ''chinese whispers effect'' - and one who is not a Christian would argue ''exaggeration and religious embellishment''. But there is enough of an accordance to establish the salient details of Jesus of Nazareth's life that most historians agree upon. 

Luke is probably the superior historian of the four (he seems to have been influenced by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Josephus). Indeed Acts is one of the most important sources for ''life in the Roman Empire'' however unintended. I feel I am on less surer ground with John, although John is certainly the more interesting philosophically. 

[SoulMonster]

48 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I could agree with that to a point, I mean like...the world is how it is and religion has been a huge part of human history, i don't think you can really ignore how much its contributed to morality, as much as the opposite.  This alternate reality of like, 'had religion not been here' is sort of like if my brother had tits he'd be my sister, it didn't happen so how can you rightly say what shit would've been like?  You can't really and its a waste of time thinking about in the end.  Religion has done many good things in the world...not that that excuses the bad its done, which is also plentiful...but the same thing can be said about any number of things.  Its all about how you use it I suppose, like a spoon...you can have your dessert with it but you can also strap a prostitute down and carve her liver out of her torso with it. 

I hate to make any broad assessments of the human condition but i think religion was a helpful force in early human history though, I think, currently, there's a good argument to be made that its perhaps hindering us a bit.  Whether thats right or wrong or should be gotten rid of I don't think I'm qualified to assert one way or the other.  Its a helluva thing isn't it?  Like saying, I dunno, how would society work if we got rid of, say, money or something.  Its a massive part of the way the world works right now, religion and such systems of belief, I'm not sure if we're ready, or will ever be ready, or ever should have to, live in a world without religion.

We all need our delusions, don't we?  Gotta be...invested in something.  The way I see it, if you're not, if you're 100% pragmatic about everything, then whats the point in anything?  There answer is that there isn't any, we just find one cuz its all we got.  But really, from my perspective, all of this stuff, the world around us, the universe, overall, its all fuckin' worthless...we just create value in things and follow that.  The ugly truth is none of this shit matters, your love for your significant other, your family, your peoples, religion or art or sports or whatever the fuck it is you value in life, it could all disappear tommorow...and so what?  Nothing is what.  The value in things is simply what you assign to it, so with that said, how is religion anymore delusional than a belief in anything?

Len the Nihilist

I suppose I have a lot more faith in humanity than you have. 

I am sure that IF we realize that theism is harmful, if this was a realization shared by most people, then we'd look at ways to minimise the harm. We are really good at that. As a species we are great at that. Of course we can't ban faith, no more than we can ban, say, stupidity, but I am sure there are things that could be done to limit the damage. For instance, we know that the uneducated and poor are more easily prone to belief in gods, so this would add incentive to fight poverty and inequality and ignorance. Similarly, by identifying why people choose to believe in something for which no evidence exist, often despite considerable doub, ww might be able to provide people with the same benefits (comfort, purpose, community) in secular settings. 

But we need to agree that theism is sufficiently harmful before we can even consider ways to reduce its harm, and we have a long way to go before we are there. 

SoulMonster the optimist

Edited February 23, 2018 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I suppose I have a lot more faith in humanity than you have. 

I am sure that IF we realize that theism is harmful, if this was a realization shared by most people, then we'd look at ways to minimise the harm. We are really good at that. As a species we are great at that. Of course we can't ban faith, no more than we can ban, say, stupidity, but I am sure there are things that could be done to limit the damage. For instance, we know that the uneducated and poor are more easily prone to belief in gods, so this would add incentive to fight poverty and inequality and ignorance. Similarly, by identifying why people choose to believe in something for which no evidence exist, often despite considerable doub, ww might be able to provide people with the same benefits (comfort, purpose, community) in secular settings. 

But we need to agree that theism is sufficiently harmful before we can even consider ways to reduce its harm, and we have a long way to go before we are there. 

SoulMonster the optimist

I think thats quite reductive as an approach, I don't think its necessarily to do with ignorance or a lack of education.  Broadly it would probably make a difference but at the same time I don't think its quite enough.  Honestly, I think its just a human propensity. 

For arguments sake, what do you like...derive value from in life, from a Soulie perspective, whats the point in all this, is there a point?  I mean, without meaning to be rude or anything, you, your family, the things you hold dear, whats the value in it, really and truly speaking?  I mean its there but its there for you personally...and who are you, what consequence are you in the broader scheme of things?  Not tryna be rude here, you could substitute you for me here.

Cuz to me, none of this is really worth a wank, its all about making the most of what you've got simply because it is all you've got...but thats not really like, very substantial is it? 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Iron MikeyJ]

The mistakes that MANY people make in regards to analyzing the bible (old and new testament), is they PREDATE science and history. So trying to analyze it from either a scientific or historical perspective will of course raise questions. What we forget is that the scientific method is a fairly recent invention, so using it to analyze a text that was written without any knowledge of it will create problems. This is the #1 problem I see when someone from a scientific background uses science to "try" and disprove religion. You could do the same with ANY ancient writings, but those tend to get a pass, while the bible gets scrutinized. 

As for historical writings, much of the same principals applies. The ENTIRE text should be considered a B.C.E. text, not an A.D. one. Which when it comes to dates during those times, it's sketchy across the board, not just with the bible. In those days, the calender "reset" every time a new leader took power. That's why most dates from this time are as follows "6th year of Augustus" or "2nd year of Ceasar" etc. That's how ancient people kept track of time, how many years into a rule of somebody it was. So inconsistencies in regards to years were quite common, across the board not just with the bible. So ANY historian or scientist that tries to disprove Jesus by measuring dates CLEARLY has an agenda and is actually doing a disservice to their readers. Any historian worth a grain of salt KNOWS how sketchy time and dates were recorded in THOSE days. 

Having said that, the simple fact that this single book single handedly records the transition from B.C.E. To A.D. is remarkable, from both a scientific and historical perspective. Which on a side note when I hear people say things like "funny little story book" or other derogatory terms, I have to laugh at THEIR ignorance. Whether you believe or not, it's STILL the most remarkable text that exists from ancient times. That fact alone deserves more respect, even from Athiesists. 

[soon]

43 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The specifying of the ''Jews'' as the executioners is most pronounced in John, with an obvious antisemitic implication. True though, I didn't see any mention of ''sugertits''.  

I cannot see how certain elements can be harmonised such as the Herodian (pre 4 BC) and Census (AD 6) Nativities. I have big problems with these two passages. One would make Jesus about 33 at the crucifixion. The other would make him about 24. Only one can be correct; if it is the latter for instance, no Herod the Great and Massacre of the Innocents. There is also the fact that Joseph and Jesus were Galileans which was then a Roman puppet under Herod Antipas. Their participation in a Roman census was not required - even less this weird mass movement to one's place of birth! 

There are discrepancies which are incapable of harmonising, even in the synoptics, such as,

The finders of the uncovered cave. The only constant here is Mary Magdalene. Depending on which Gospel you read, either Magdalene was accompanied by Lazarus's sister or James and John's mother (Salome). I think it is John who even sticks Mary, the mother of Christ, at the actual crucifixion. Too many ''Marys'' in 1st century Palestine! A lot of confusing for our Apostolic writers!

Only one of the Gospels mentions the fact that Antipas was in Jerusalem at the time, so there is a sort of extra trial interpolated between the Sanhedrin and Praetorium. This is curious.

Generally though there is a strong accordance between the four. There is a sort of kernel story which one can salvage there which was disfigured through time, a ''chinese whispers effect'' - and one who is not a Christian would argue ''exaggeration and religious embellishment''. But there is enough of an accordance to establish the salient details of Jesus of Nazareth's life that most historians agree upon. 

Luke is probably the superior historian of the four (he seems to have been influenced by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Josephus). Indeed Acts is one of the most important sources for ''life in the Roman Empire'' however unintended. I feel I am on less surer ground with John, although John is certainly the more interesting philosophically. 

Like I say, Id like to get into harmonization specifics with a clearer head.  I think you've raised some interesting and some meaty topics to discuss. I do want to note that we seem to be in agreement about there being differences in the Gospels. I wrote "In Harmony they still have differences as they are four separate accounts." 

You'll want to read John again I think.  He doesn't at any point specify the Jews as the executioners.  The classic point of confusion is John 19:14-16.  However directly following this we have Pilate write the sign on the Cross and multiple references  to the soldiers who crucified Jesus (John 19:23).  The Gospel of John clearly states that the Soldiers executed Christ by Pilates order. And in John 19:38 Jesus loved ones ask Pilate for Jesus dead body back.  

Important to read John 18 and 19 as a whole.  In fact twice Pilate says to the Jewish authorities 'judge him your self' and 'execute him yourself' and both times the Jewish community refuses. 

John is a Jew, I doubt he was an anti-semite. Remember too that much later John received the Revelation which is built on OT references and is for a jewish audience.  John did not reject or think poorly of his community and embraced his Judaism throughout his writings. One can easily say that a perversion of scripture has been utilized by anti-semites, but to say Johns narration is in itself anti-semetic is not supported by the text.  It is fact that the jewish community pleaded for Rome to execute Jesus.  There are 4 Gospels to communicate 4 ways of seeing things.  It makes sense to me that 1/4 of them would underscore that a majority voice of the Jewish Authorities petitioned for his execution.  Its that cruel mystery about why the other 3 accounts highlighting the Roman political motivations for execution didnt breed anti-Latinism.  

 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

You'll want to read John again I think.  He doesn't at any point specify the Jews as the executioners.  The classic point of confusion is John 19:14-16.  However directly following this we have Pilate write the sign on the Cross and multiple references  to the soldiers who crucified Jesus (John 19:23).  The Gospel of John clearly states that the Soldiers executed Christ by Pilates order. And in John 19:38 Jesus loved ones ask Pilate for Jesus dead body back.  

Important to read John 18 and 19 as a whole.  In fact twice Pilate says to the Jewish authorities 'judge him your self' and 'execute him yourself' and both times the Jewish community refuses. 

I didn't mean literally (that they executed Jesus)! I meant more in terms of stylistic emphasis.

[soon]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I didn't mean literally (that they executed Jesus)! I meant more in terms of stylistic emphasis.

Thanks for clarifying.  Im not sure I can get from the fact that the narrative tells that a majority of the Jewish Authorities petitioned for Chrsits execution to it therefore being an anti-semitic text though.  I can agree that anti-semites have utilized it in that perverted way though.

[SoulMonster]

 

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

For arguments sake, what do you like...derive value from in life, from a Soulie perspective, whats the point in all this, is there a point?  I mean, without meaning to be rude or anything, you, your family, the things you hold dear, whats the value in it, really and truly speaking?  I mean its there but its there for you personally...and who are you, what consequence are you in the broader scheme of things? 

Many questions. 

The point in life? Does there have to be one? It kinda implies we are here for a reason. I don't think we are. We are just one of many outcomes of evolution and we have to do the best out of the situation. Which in my case isn't hard at all. I love existing. I am extremely grateful for having been born and get to experience life. I don't see any deeper meaning to it all - we are born and later we die so let's do the best out of it. 

What consequence I am? Pretty insignificant, as almost everyone else. But we all have an effect on everybody around us. At least for them I can try to be a positive influence, help them enjoy life a little bit more. 

Not sure I at all answered your question, and my apologies if I went in a completely different direction 

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The mistakes that MANY people make in regards to analyzing the bible (old and new testament), is they PREDATE science and history. So trying to analyze it from either a scientific or historical perspective will of course raise questions. What we forget is that the scientific method is a fairly recent invention, so using it to analyze a text that was written without any knowledge of it will create problems. This is the #1 problem I see when someone from a scientific background uses science to "try" and disprove religion. You could do the same with ANY ancient writings, but those tend to get a pass, while the bible gets scrutinized. 

Utter nonsense. By following that attempt at logic everything the predates the development of the scientific method would be out of reach of science, including cosmology, research on dinosaurs and ancient literature studies. Science has been developed to be used on any physical phenomenon, regardless of when it happened. 

The bible is a book like anyone else and can be studied through normal linguistic and historical methods, just like any other book from any other time period. Additionally, through archaeology and research in history, we can shed further light on the events described in the bible. 

And the reason why the bible is being particularly studied, is of course that so many people today believe it conveys messages from their god. 

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

Many questions. 

The point in life? Does there have to be one? It kinda implies we are here for a reason. I don't think we are. We are just one of many outcomes of evolution and we have to do the best out of the situation. Which in my case isn't hard at all. I love existing. I am extremely grateful for having been born and get to experience life. I don't see any deeper meaning to it all - we are born and later we die so let's do the best out of it. 

What consequence I am? Pretty insignificant, as almost everyone else. But we all have an effect on everybody around us. At least for them I can try to be a positive influence, help them enjoy life a little bit more. 

Not sure I at all answered your question, and my apologies if I went in a completely different direction 

Nah, you answered it completely and perfectly man, cheers...thats sort of the point I was getting at, you have like...an optimistic approach to it which, to me, appears to be like...pragmatic, sensible.  But in the end, the whole fuckin' thing is meaningless.  And like yourself I'm cool with that but like...I don't have any illusions about it either.  So you kinda accept that its meaningless but because you enjoy it you adopt like, a positive approach.  Its kind of a choice, isn't it?  A choice because the other option ain't logical sensible or functional for you.  So here you are, a meaningless being having a meaningless conversation with another meaningless being, with substantially the only thing keeping us going is appreciation of the meaningless experience we are having.  So think how extra specially beautiful all this shit must be to people who DO see meaning in it all, even if it is self serving and delusional, if we're delusional enough to embrace meaninglessness as we're doing. 

Practically speaking whoose the more insane, the people who believe they have a meaning or the ones that carry on despite meaninglessness?  Peas in a pod if you ask me.  The ability to divorce yourself from the meaninglessness of existence to carry on because of the immediate overall good feeling you get from life seems as insane to me as believing in a God and fairytale books which are quite clearly full of a load of mythical bollocks.  You might perhaps give us extra points for the better constitution of the two parties but thats about it.

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So ANY historian or scientist that tries to disprove Jesus by measuring dates CLEARLY has an agenda and is actually doing a disservice to their readers. 

This was an intriguing statement. Are there many historians and scientists who attempt to disprove Jesus? And they do it by pointing to inconsistencies in biblical dates? I thought it was fairly well accepted that Jesus was a historical figure. 

[soon]

24 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The mistakes that MANY people make in regards to analyzing the bible (old and new testament), is they PREDATE science and history. So trying to analyze it from either a scientific or historical perspective will of course raise questions. What we forget is that the scientific method is a fairly recent invention, so using it to analyze a text that was written without any knowledge of it will create problems. This is the #1 problem I see when someone from a scientific background uses science to "try" and disprove religion. You could do the same with ANY ancient writings, but those tend to get a pass, while the bible gets scrutinized. 

As for historical writings, much of the same principals applies. The ENTIRE text should be considered a B.C.E. text, not an A.D. one. Which when it comes to dates during those times, it's sketchy across the board, not just with the bible. In those days, the calender "reset" every time a new leader took power. That's why most dates from this time are as follows "6th year of Augustus" or "2nd year of Ceasar" etc. That's how ancient people kept track of time, how many years into a rule of somebody it was. So inconsistencies in regards to years were quite common, across the board not just with the bible. So ANY historian or scientist that tries to disprove Jesus by measuring dates CLEARLY has an agenda and is actually doing a disservice to their readers. Any historian worth a grain of salt KNOWS how sketchy time and dates were recorded in THOSE days. 

Having said that, the simple fact that this single book single handedly records the transition from B.C.E. To A.D. is remarkable, from both a scientific and historical perspective. Which on a side note when I hear people say things like "funny little story book" or other derogatory terms, I have to laugh at THEIR ignorance. Whether you believe or not, it's STILL the most remarkable text that exists from ancient times. That fact alone deserves more respect, even from Athiesists. 

Lots of good points here, Mikey.  I agree that many people insists on analyzing scripture according to standards that we know it wasnt written within.  I tend to figure that a majority do that based on faulty assumptions and poor training.  Some though no doubt understand what they are doing and that is unfortunate.  But I think its mostly done form a place of good faith.  When someone continues to insist it be scrutinized in the method one scrutinizes modern texts we can be sure that they are disingenuous.

Im curious about the idea that both texts be read as BCE?  Certainly the NT was early on in CE, is that why its best read as BCE?

[DieselDaisy]

27 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The mistakes that MANY people make in regards to analyzing the bible (old and new testament), is they PREDATE science and history. So trying to analyze it from either a scientific or historical perspective will of course raise questions. What we forget is that the scientific method is a fairly recent invention, so using it to analyze a text that was written without any knowledge of it will create problems. This is the #1 problem I see when someone from a scientific background uses science to "try" and disprove religion. You could do the same with ANY ancient writings, but those tend to get a pass, while the bible gets scrutinized. 

As for historical writings, much of the same principals applies. The ENTIRE text should be considered a B.C.E. text, not an A.D. one. Which when it comes to dates during those times, it's sketchy across the board, not just with the bible. In those days, the calender "reset" every time a new leader took power. That's why most dates from this time are as follows "6th year of Augustus" or "2nd year of Ceasar" etc. That's how ancient people kept track of time, how many years into a rule of somebody it was. So inconsistencies in regards to years were quite common, across the board not just with the bible. So ANY historian or scientist that tries to disprove Jesus by measuring dates CLEARLY has an agenda and is actually doing a disservice to their readers. Any historian worth a grain of salt KNOWS how sketchy time and dates were recorded in THOSE days. 

That is nonsense I'm afraid!

Heck, Herodotus, ''the father of history'', was writing in the 5th century BC!! Science? When was Archimedes and Pythagoras active?

And transferring dates from the Roman method (of consulships and emperors) to the Gregorian calendar is a fairly easy and precise method.  

31 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Having said that, the simple fact that this single book single handedly records the transition from B.C.E. To A.D. is remarkable, from both a scientific and historical perspective. Which on a side note when I hear people say things like "funny little story book" or other derogatory terms, I have to laugh at THEIR ignorance. Whether you believe or not, it's STILL the most remarkable text that exists from ancient times. That fact alone deserves more respect, even from Athiesists. 

Apart from Homer's Iliad/Odyssey, Hesiod's Theogony, Aeschylus and Sophocles' tragedies, Virgil's Aeneid, Livy, Suetonius and Tacitus, Horace, Martial, Juvenal, etc etc?

Not that I am disputing there are some brilliant stories in the Bible such as Samson and Delilah, Ruth and Esther. 

 

[soon]

In addition to the harmonization of the Gospels Id also love to dive into the book of Ruth!

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, soon said:

Lots of good points here, Mikey.  I agree that many people insists on analyzing scripture according to standards that we know it wasnt written within.  I tend to figure that a majority do that based on faulty assumptions and poor training.  Some though no doubt understand what they are doing and that is unfortunate.  But I think its mostly done form a place of good faith.  When someone continues to insist it be scrutinized in the method one scrutinizes modern texts we can be sure that they are disingenuous.

Im curious about the idea that both texts be read as BCE?  Certainly the NT was early on in CE, is that why its best read as BCE?

Yet the original people who analysed scripture in such a manner were the original Patriarchal Fathers themselves, the compilers of The Bible!

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Nah, you answered it completely and perfectly man, cheers...thats sort of the point I was getting at, you have like...an optimistic approach to it which, to me, appears to be like...pragmatic, sensible.  But in the end, the whole fuckin' thing is meaningless.  And like yourself I'm cool with that but like...I don't have any illusions about it either.  So you kinda accept that its meaningless but because you enjoy it you adopt like, a positive approach.  Its kind of a choice, isn't it?  A choice because the other option ain't logical sensible or functional for you.  So here you are, a meaningless being having a meaningless conversation with another meaningless being, with substantially the only thing keeping us going is appreciation of the meaningless experience we are having.  So think how extra specially beautiful all this shit must be to people who DO see meaning in it all, even if it is self serving and delusional, if we're delusional enough to embrace meaninglessness as we're doing. 

Practically speaking whoose the more insane, the people who believe they have a meaning or the ones that carry on despite meaninglessness?  Peas in a pod if you ask me.  The ability to divorce yourself from the meaninglessness of existence to carry on because of the immediate overall good feeling you get from life seems as insane to me as believing in a God and fairytale books which are quite clearly full of a load of mythical bollocks.  You might perhaps give us extra points for the better constitution of the two parties but thats about it.

I think looking for an outside meaning to existence is a waste of time. We have to find internal meaning (our own motivation), otherwise life can be hard. And most of us find that meaning in love, family, hobbies, careers, etc. But looking for an outside meaning is pointless, in my opinion, both because I see no reason why there would be, but mostly because it seems to make people confused and depressed. All this searching for meaning when we should just enjoy our lives.

And there can only be one answer to the question of outside meaning to life, it presupposes a divinity that has created us for a purpose. So in a sense the result of the hunt for meaning is already given: either you accept the question is pointless and we aren't here with because of any outside meaning and just have to find internal meaning with going through life, or you realize that your question means there is a god and you add that dimension to your life. 

Does adding god into your life make you happier because you now have an outside meaning? I am sure adding god to your life can be valuable for other reasons (like comfort, belief in an afterlife, etc), but I don't think having an answer to a question that really shouldn't have been raised to begin with, adds much happiness. 

[soon]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet the original people who analysed scripture in such a manner were the original Patriarchal Fathers themselves, the compilers of The Bible!

Sure, some of the methodology would overlap.  Thats a far cry from them possessing the models Mikey is discussing.  

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think looking for an outside meaning to existence is a waste of time. We have to find internal meaning (our own motivation), otherwise life can be hard. And most of us find that meaning in love, family, hobbies, careers, etc. But looking for an outside meaning is pointless, in my opinion, both because I see no reason why there would be, but mostly because it seems to make people confused and depressed. All this searching for meaning when we should just enjoy our lives.

And there can only be one answer to the question of outside meaning to life, it presupposes a divinity that has created us for a purpose. So in a sense the result of the hunt for meaning is already given: either you accept the question is pointless and we aren't here with because of any outside meaning and just have to find internal meaning with going through life, or you realize that your question means there is a god and you add that dimension to your life. 

Does adding god into your life make you happier because you now have an outside meaning? I am sure adding god to your life can be valuable for other reasons (like comfort, belief in an afterlife, etc), but I don't think having an answer to a question that really shouldn't have been raised to begin with, adds much happiness. 

Perhaps it isn't divinity, perhaps the breadth and limitations of our understanding only allow for divinity thus far so thats the best we can think of, whatever the case may be.  See the internal meaning thing seems like a cop out, which is what I mean, we can't find a meaning because there is no meaning so we create an illusory one based on our personal pleasures and enjoyment...which is no more of a delusion than believing in God.  The internal meaning we lean on is no less illusory than the God that the other lot believe in.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

Sure, some of the methodology would overlap.  Thats a far cry from them possessing the models Mikey is discussing.  

To actually say that we shouldn't judge the New Testament by scientific-historical methods is to do it a bit of a disservice, as a lot of The Bible holds up. The Pilate Stone (discovered 1961) confirms the Pilate governorship independent of The Bible. The Pool of Bethesda, commonly thought to be a bunch of bollocks, was discovered by archaeologists.