Do you believe in God?

[GS]

But a 'delusion' is the exact term to use. I'm fairly certain you've lol'ed at scientologists and would have little problem referring to them as delusional. What's the difference?

A delusion is not the correct term to use because it suggests an inherent lack of respect for the opposing view. I accept your view of religion. It's not mine, but I don't believe it to be wholly illegitimate if you reject the concept of a deity. If you reject agnosticism in preference to a defined opinion either way, then that's your choice to do so. I accept that, in the same way you should accept that people may choose to go the other way. To accept the premise that your rejection of agnosticism for atheism (given you cannot prove it) is not unreasonable, it is therefore incumbent upon you to accept that the rejection of agnosticism for faith (given you cannot disprove it) is not unreasonable either.

It's a shame you feel incapable of extending the same level of respect to people who disagree with you, and their views certainly are not delusional. If you want to continue being deliberately provocative on the issue, it's your choice to be a cunt.

On the scientology issue, I would note the following points:

(i) The historical records for Christianity are reasonably extensive and derive from a range of first, second and third hand sources. They were recorded within living memory of the events, and can be placed in a defined historical period and as occurring in a defined place.

(ii) The narrative itself can also be placed in the context of the wider political events of the day, and mentions several 'real life' historical figures of whose existence we know from other sources e.g. Augustus, Pontius Pilate, Tiberius. Further, sources outside the scriptures make reference to the crucifixion as a historical event (see Josephus).

(iii) We can be reasonably sure, on the balance of probabilities, of the historical 'fact' that Christ existed as a man. One can certainly question whether he was also God, but the vast majority of scholars agree that he existed and that he preached in modern-day Israel / Palestine in the reign of Tiberius.

(iv) One can use other sources to verify certain references within the scriptures e.g. archaeological excavation, exegesis using contemporary sources or through visiting the tangible locations referred to in the texts e.g. the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives. One can subject the material to some degree of historical scrutiny and exegesis.

(v) One can consider the initial years of Christianity in the context of first century Judaism, and its progression from earlier Mosaic scriptures. It comes in the context of a wider 'plain' of religious history, which again can be subjected to some degree of historical scrutiny and exegesis.

(vi) The core texts of Christianity, and the main Abrahamic religions, are matters of public record and are open for modern exegetes to continue their analysis of the material. Further, analysis of contemporary materials in the generation after Christ, and the decisions taken by the early Jewish converts to the faith, demonstrate that something hugely significant and profound happened at the time of the crucifixion, as outlined in a previous post. This is a material of historical record.

None of the above applies to scientology.

The key difference, therefore, is that Christianity can be viewed through the prism of the historical record. One would struggle to refute the historical fact of Jesus' ministry in Judea during the reign of Tiberius. Further, one can see a clear path from the revelation to Jesus' ministry to the crucifixion to the emergence of the Christian faith, its attempt to understand what happened, the development of doctrine etc. all the way up to the religion we have today.

[QE Harold Flair]

A delusion is not the correct term to use because it suggests an inherent lack of respect for the opposing view. I accept your view of religion. It's not mine, but I don't believe it to be wholly illegitimate if you reject the concept of a deity. If you reject agnosticism in preference to a defined opinion either way, then that's your choice to do so. I accept that, in the same way you should accept that people may choose to go the other way. To accept the premise that your rejection of agnosticism for atheism (given you cannot prove it) is not unreasonable, it is therefore incumbent upon you to accept that the rejection of agnosticism for faith (given you cannot disprove it) is not unreasonable either.

It's a shame you feel incapable of extending the same level of respect to people who disagree with you, and their views certainly are not delusional. If you want to continue being deliberately provocative on the issue, it's your choice to be a cunt.

On the scientology issue, I would note the following points:

(i) The historical records for Christianity are reasonably extensive and derive from a range of first, second and third hand sources. They were recorded within living memory of the events, and can be placed in a defined historical period and as occurring in a defined place.

(ii) The narrative itself can also be placed in the context of the wider political events of the day, and mentions several 'real life' historical figures of whose existence we know from other sources e.g. Augustus, Pontius Pilate, Tiberius. Further, sources outside the scriptures make reference to the crucifixion as a historical event (see Josephus).

(iii) We can be reasonably sure, on the balance of probabilities, of the historical 'fact' that Christ existed as a man. One can certainly question whether he was also God, but the vast majority of scholars agree that he existed and that he preached in modern-day Israel / Palestine in the reign of Tiberius.

(iv) One can use other sources to verify certain references within the scriptures e.g. archaeological excavation, exegesis using contemporary sources or through visiting the tangible locations referred to in the texts e.g. the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives. One can subject the material to some degree of historical scrutiny and exegesis.

(v) One can consider the initial years of Christianity in the context of first century Judaism, and its progression from earlier Mosaic scriptures. It comes in the context of a wider 'plain' of religious history, which again can be subjected to some degree of historical scrutiny and exegesis.

(vi) The core texts of Christianity, and the main Abrahamic religions, are matters of public record and are open for modern exegetes to continue their analysis of the material. Further, analysis of contemporary materials in the generation after Christ, and the decisions taken by the early Jewish converts to the faith, demonstrate that something hugely significant and profound happened at the time of the crucifixion, as outlined in a previous post. This is a material of historical record.

None of the above applies to scientology.

The key difference, therefore, is that Christianity can be viewed through the prism of the historical record. One would struggle to refute the historical fact of Jesus' ministry in Judea during the reign of Tiberius. Further, one can see a clear path from the revelation to Jesus' ministry to the crucifixion to the emergence of the Christian faith, its attempt to understand what happened, the development of doctrine etc. all the way up to the religion we have today.

Yes, and I do not respect the view and I won't be pressured into doing so. Just as I do not feel I have to respect anyone's views on anything by default. Do you respect my political views? Oh and hardly any of Christianity comes from first hand sources.

Whether Jesus existed is entirely irrelevant. We know for certain Ron Hubbard existed and that he also made outlandish claims. It's just a numbers game, isn't it? You only afford Christianity respect because it's established and believed by a lot more people.

[GS]

Yes, and I do not respect the view and I won't be pressured into doing so. Just as I do not feel I have to respect anyone's views on anything by default. Do you respect my political views? Oh and hardly any of Christianity comes from first hand sources.

Whether Jesus existed is entirely irrelevant. We know for certain Ron Hubbard existed and that he also made outlandish claims. It's just a numbers game, isn't it? You only afford Christianity respect because it's established and believed by a lot more people.

If you refuse to offer a general level of respect to people's views on this issue, then everyone else is quite entitled to call you an intolerant bigoted cunt.

On the subject of first hand sources, several books of the New Testament could conceivably have been written by first hand sources. There is some dispute regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John and Revelations, but they may well have been written by the Apostle. Modern exegesis cannot preclude the possibility, and tends towards the idea that he probably is the author. They also contain several letters and epistles from St Paul. As outlined in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul documents those to whom Christ has appeared and includes himself - "he was seen of me also" (verse 8). If one reads the document solely within its historical parameters, it's making an explicit statement that demonstrate that the author writes as a first hand source. That said, the Synoptic Gospels are likely second or even third hand sources, probably originated from members of the early communities established by the apostles (e.g. St Peter in Rome, of which there is historical evidence).

On the subject of Jesus' existence, it is not irrelevant. One can place his ministry in a defined historical place and in a defined historical time period. It is not a matter of faith to consider Jesus as a historical figure - that is a matter for historical scholarship to determine. Few scholars contend the existence of the historical Jesus, and as mentioned previously there are sources outside the biblical canons which make reference to the crucifixion as a historical event. To ask questions of Jesus' existence as a man does not ask questions of faith - it asks questions of historicity. Therefore Jesus' existence is entirely relevant when compared to scientology, where no such historicity can be ascertained through accepted historical research methods and scholarship. This is why scientology is not afforded the same level of 'respect' by scholars - Hubbard writes of things which happened 75 million years ago, and which are wholly outside the field of historicity. It cannot be considered, tested, subjected to scrutiny in the manner that a text from an Abrahamic religion can be. It has nothing to do with "numbers", rather the complete absence of any ability to consider the texts in their historical parameters - or, as outlined before, historical documents reflecting the best wisdom of their time.

To conclude, therefore, Jesus' existence is entirely relevant. It's considered through historicity. Scientology can't be considered through this prism, hence the difference between the two.

The question of faith comes when you consider the divinity of Christ, or whether the resurrection was a historical fact. This is a wholly separate issue from the above. One can incline towards a belief that the texts in the New Testament recount historical facts, such as they were understood by the authors, without taking the next step and believing that the man whose historical 'story' they recount was also God. Nor should the misinterpretation or otherwise of these texts in past centuries be relevant in making an assessment in the modern day on the merits of the historical arguments themselves.

[QE Harold Flair]

Okay, so how much respect do you have for someone's view that the earth is flat? Respect isn't something that exists regardless of what someone believes. I don't seem to get all that much respect for my views, after all.

Again, Jesus existed. So what? So did other people claiming to be divine.

[GS]

Okay, so how much respect do you have for someone's view that the earth is flat?

Again, Jesus existed. So what? So did other people claiming to be divine.

None, since it can be scientifically proven to be incorrect.

On the latter, I'm not repeating myself. I think you've lost the argument here, and you know it.

[Boydy]

I always had you down as a Presbyterian, GS.

[QE Harold Flair]

None, since it can be scientifically proven to be incorrect.

On the latter, I'm not repeating myself. I think you've lost the argument here, and you know it.

Okay, how much do you respect the view of someone who believes that fairies are real?

How have I lost the argument? If I pretended to respect someone's views when I don't it would be far worse. You're tying yourselves in knots here trying to claim that Christianity is any more legitimate than Scientology. It isn't. It's just more established.

Still, in future I will demand that you respect my views.

[Charlie]

It doesn't 'rule it out'. There's just no evidence to make that claim. And if that something else did exist, you could ask the exact same 'why' question for eternity.

Yes, I am well aware.

[John Arne]

@GS

A few blunt questions, if you don't mind (yes/no answers where possible)....

Do you believe in heaven and/or hell?
Do you believe the story of Adam and Eve?
Do you belief homosexuality is wrong?
Do you believe that Mother Theresa performed miracles?
Are you awaiting the second coming - do you think it will happen eventually?
Do you believe that any other Gods exist?

You don't have to answer any of these, of course.

[GS]

Okay, how much do you respect the view of someone who believes that fairies are real?

How have I lost the argument? If I pretended to respect someone's views when I don't it would be far worse. You're tying yourselves in knots here trying to claim that Christianity is any more legitimate than Scientology. It isn't. It's just more established.

Still, in future I will demand that you respect my views.

Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions, are more legitimate than Scientology on the bases outlined above. You can continue denying the fundamental point that I've outlined regarding the historical nature of the Abrahamic faiths in comparison to a movement like scientology if you wish, but I'm not going to continue repeating myself on the matter.

One final point I will make before I let you talk to yourself is to state again that you do not possess unique and piercing insight into the issue. I cannot prove God's existence in the same that you cannot disprove it. You take the position you do based on your belief (or faith, if you will) that you are correct, but no more. There is overwhelming and conclusive scientific evidence to refute the doctrine of creationism (certainly in the context of Genesis and the young earth creationist movement), but there is, as yet, no scientific proof that allows us to conclude on the existence of a deity.

Therefore, you adopt your position on the existence of a deity (a separate issue from the wider religious movements based upon belief in the deity) without the necessary scientific foundation for your view. It is a position just as open to scrutiny as those who incline towards belief in a deity, whether that be as outlined in the Abrahamic religions or otherwise. You would do well to recognise this point, as your aggressive assertion of your own correctness is absent scientific foundation.

Unless it's against 'young earth creationists', at which point you're perfectly entitled to lol at their delusion given it can be scientifically torpedoed.

@GS

A few blunt questions, if you don't mind (yes/no answers where possible)....

Do you believe in heaven and/or hell?
Do you believe the story of Adam and Eve?
Do you belief homosexuality is wrong?
Do you believe that Mother Theresa performed miracles?
Are you awaiting the second coming - do you think it will happen eventually?
Do you believe that any other Gods exist?

You don't have to answer any of these, of course.

On point 1 - I believe in life after death, but the exact nature or parameters of life after death is something I accept I cannot know. I would tend towards a belief that heaven, or its equivalent, is a place where you are the best of yourself. This doesn't mean you're sitting on a cloud somewhere like a figure in a Michelangelo painting. I don't believe in hell. I incline towards the universalist belief that all men will be reconciled to God, therefore there is no need for such a place. That said, I accept I cannot know the exact parameters of life after death so I suppose you could argue I adopt an agnostic view on that point.

On point 2 - I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. It is allegory.

On point 3 - I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, and it's a huge shame that this issue remains a point of contention simply because it's one of the few biblical 'prohibitions' or 'condemnations' which remains acceptable to a minority in the modern era. As I said in my original post, adherence to this point requires, by logical extension, adherence to a range of other unpalatable beliefs which are no longer socially acceptable. Gay-bashing is, to some people, still acceptable, and that they find justification for it in the Old Testament whilst discreetly passing over the passages supporting slavery is unacceptable. I believe the scriptures' views on homosexuality are reflective of the views of the time of writing, no more.

On point 4 - I don't believe in the intervention of saints. It's one of the reasons I'm not Roman Catholic.

On point 5 - No, I don't.

On point 6 - No, I don't. I believe man learned of the deity through revelation in the Mosaic age. That precludes accepting the existence of other gods.

[John Arne]

@GS I appreciate the candid answers. Some of them are mental, in my opinion, but fair enough.

[GS]

Which ones are those?

[QE Harold Flair]

Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions, are more legitimate than Scientology on the bases outlined above. You can continue denying the fundamental point that I've outlined regarding the historical nature of the Abrahamic faiths in comparison to a movement like scientology if you wish, but I'm not going to continue repeating myself on the matter.

One final point I will make before I let you talk to yourself is to state again that you do not possess unique and piercing insight into the issue. I cannot prove God's existence in the same that you cannot disprove it. You take the position you do based on your belief (or faith, if you will) that you are correct, but no more. There is overwhelming and conclusive scientific evidence to refute the doctrine of creationism (certainly in the context of Genesis and the young earth creationist movement), but there is, as yet, no scientific proof that allows us to conclude on the existence of a deity.

Therefore, you adopt your position on the existence of a deity (a separate issue from the wider religious movements based upon belief in the deity) without the necessary scientific foundation for your view. It is a position just as open to scrutiny as those who incline towards belief in a deity, whether that be as outlined in the Abrahamic religions or otherwise. You would do well to recognise this point, as your aggressive assertion of your own correctness is absent scientific foundation.

Unless it's against 'young earth creationists', at which point you're perfectly entitled to lol at their delusion given it can be scientifically torpedoed.

Well you say it's more legitimate but I've yet to see a legitimate reason why. Christianity doesn't exist because 'Jesus existed'. His claim to be divine has no evidence above and beyond any cult which believes its leader is divine. I'm also talking to you, not 'myself'. You're the one writing essays to my short replies. Oh and you're not arguing simply for 'a deity', are you? You are using the bible, after all.

I don't claim to have unique insight into this. I'm open to evidence, are you? What would make you change your mind about the existence of God? I note how you ignored my point about those with fairies so I'll ask you that again - If someone said they believe in fairies, would you respect that view? You have to understand this isn't 'disrespect' anyt more so that your view of 'Allah' also being a myth. The realm of your God is exactly the same as fairies to me, and there is the same evidsence for both. You're really proving my point - you expect and demand special respect for your religious position. That strikes me as being because you can't defend it any rational way. Well, I don't have any respect for it. And I'm showing you respect by being honest with you about that.

[GS]

I'm writing essays to your short replies because it's a topic which merits in-depth discussion - it cannot be condensed into bite-sized chunks to cope with your limited attention span.

[QE Harold Flair]

But you claimed I was talking to myself? It's almost as if you don't want to be challenged on your beliefs.

[GS]

No, I said "One final point I will make before I let you talk to yourself" i.e. I have engaged you, but you will, henceforward, be talking to yourself. This isn't because I don't want to be challenged on my beliefs, having already been challenged on the issues and responded, rather because you're extremely boring and your debating style is not only anaemic but occasionally lurches into the realms of the truly enfeebled. You will no doubt claim some sort of ill-justified e-victory as you always do, but I think most fair-minded judges would say you have been thoroughly bested here. That said, if you find any relevant YouTube videos on the matter, please don't hesitate to put them up so we can all roundly ignore them.

[Toby]

On point 3 - I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, and it's a huge shame that this issue remains a point of contention simply because it's one of the few biblical 'prohibitions' or 'condemnations' which remains acceptable to a minority in the modern era. As I said in my original post, adherence to this point requires, by logical extension, adherence to a range of other unpalatable beliefs which are no longer socially acceptable. Gay-bashing is, to some people, still acceptable, and that they find justification for it in the Old Testament whilst discreetly passing over the passages supporting slavery is unacceptable. I believe the scriptures' views on homosexuality are reflective of the views of the time of writing, no more.

You've said previously that you think homosexual acts are sinful, do you still think that?

Not trying to be a dick, I'm just curious if your view has changed since I last saw you mention it.

[randomlegend]

I'm entirely with Harold in this specific point, to be honest.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, I said "One final point I will make before I let you talk to yourself" i.e. I have engaged you, but you will, henceforward, be talking to yourself. This isn't because I don't want to be challenged on my beliefs, having already been challenged on the issues and responded, rather because you're extremely boring and your debating style is not only anaemic but occasionally lurches into the realms of the truly enfeebled. You will no doubt claim some sort of ill-justified e-victory as you always do, but I think most fair-minded judges would say you have been thoroughly bested here. That said, if you find any relevant YouTube videos on the matter, please don't hesitate to put them up so we can all roundly ignore them.

I've no need to claim an e-victory when you concede such a clear e-own goal. It's painfully obvious why you won't answer the question I asked about someone who believes in fairies. You know it will directly contradict what you said earlier. Note the person making all the personal attacks here. Not me.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that people of deep faith are so defensive of it that merely challenging them on it is 'disrespectful'. Nothing I've said is actually disprespectful in itself, is it? If I said you're a cunt because you have a faith then fine. But I don't.

[GS]

You've said previously that you think homosexual acts are sinful, do you still think that?

Not trying to be a dick, I'm just curious if your view has changed since I last saw you mention it.

I don't believe I did state that. The only reference I can find is in the "Gay marriage" thread, where Pen asked:

Could you please tell me why refusing gay people is any less discriminating than refusing black people?

And my response in the context of why churches were against gay marriage but not marriage between non-whites was:

It's not sinful to be black. It's sinful to commit homosexual acts.

That's the difference.

That wasn't my saying I think they're sinful - rather highlighting the difference between the two and why the church is against "marriage" within one group (homosexuals) and not another (blacks). I was initially sceptical on gay marriage, but I did change my mind on the issue - largely because I've moved far more towards the need for a much clearer distinction between personal faith and the need to legislate for secular laws within a secular society.

[QE Harold Flair]

Bigoted views are acceptable if they're religious. And that's important.

It's good that you don't believe that, but the church is pretty influential.

[Toby]

I don't believe I did state that. The only reference I can find is in the "Gay marriage" thread, where Pen asked:

Could you please tell me why refusing gay people is any less discriminating than refusing black people?

And my response in the context of why churches were against gay marriage but not marriage between non-whites was:

It's not sinful to be black. It's sinful to commit homosexual acts.

That's the difference.

That wasn't my saying I think they're sinful - rather highlighting the difference between the two and why the church is against "marriage" within one group (homosexuals) and not another (blacks). I was initially sceptical on gay marriage, but I did change my mind on the issue - largely because I've moved far more towards the need for a much clearer distinction between personal faith and the need to legislate for secular laws within a secular society.

Okay, sorry if I've misrepresented you on that then. I did remember discussing gay marriage with you and specifically you being against, or at least uneasy with, gay couples adopting children, so I had in my mind that you had been against it. Should probably have looked for the thread but I assumed it was older than that and therefore gone.

[ScousePig]

Being surrounded by people who do and praying several times a day can be a little surreal.

[Spammer]

A mate of mine wrote an interesting (though long) article on the Bible and gays if anyone's interested. He talks about what the references to homosexuality were likely to mean in context. https://roymondous.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/1694/

[QE Harold Flair]

I wonder what gymnastics he uses to defend the advocation of slavery.

[Spammer]

I wonder what gymnastics he uses to defend the advocation of slavery.

Who? My guy? I don't think he really mentions slavery. The article is about the Bible and homosexuality.

[QE Harold Flair]

Ask him for me. Tell him it's Harold ftom TTH.

[Spammer]

He's an Atheist, so I don't know if it's relevant.

[QE Harold Flair]

Are you sure? Most atheists wouldn't go to great lengths to defend the obviously bigoted bible verses.

[Spammer]

Yeah but he used to be a Christian, knows a fuckton about the Bible and the historical context and knows a lot of people who use the Bible as a justification for being homophobic. The main aim was to reduce homophobia and he thought it'd be more fruitful to meet people half-way and talk about other Biblical interpretations, rather than just having a dig at everyone.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well yes, people can use bits they like for anything. Which is kind of the point about it being a completely redundant guide to anything.

It's great if he actually believes what he's saying rather than just trying to placate.

[Spammer]

....but with an understanding of the context behind it some people might be convinced, which is the point.

He does believe what he's saying. I've talked to him about it length.

[QE Harold Flair]

Who's understanding? Any time you ever debate with someone of faith you run into this 'context' argument any time it's something they something find hard to defend. It's very slippery and dishonest most of the time. There are certain passages which really stand alone, aren't there? The ten commandments, for example. The order of genocide, for example.

[Spammer]

His hope was that it might make some Christians look at it in a different way. That's it. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. Either way, he's had a go.

If you want to debate about it, you can always read the article and chat to him about it in the comments section.

[Henry]

I agree with a lot of what's been said, Harold's stupidity notwithstanding. Picking out some points though...

No-one should be sheltered from a genuine discussion on the merits of faith in a spirit of goodwill. That last caveat is vital. Where you have arguments suggesting that people of faith are "delusional", or implications that to believe in a deity is "insupportable by evidence", it tends to become very nasty.

Seeing as "insupportable by evidence" is basically the atheist position, that's pretty much the same thing. I think you can discuss that without being nasty, which I agree is counterproductive and unjustified.

On the basis that we simply do not and cannot know, agnosticism is probably the "reasoned" position to take.

I think that that's only consistent with solipsism, since we really cannot "know" anything in a philosophical sense. Weak atheism is the reasoned position otherwise.

What I find unpalatable is the firm entrenchment that certain "vocal" atheists exhibit for their belief in their own correctness. When I refer to "taking someone's faith", this means in the context of attacking and deliberately seeking to undermine the fundamental tenets of one's belief. That is a discussion absent goodwill and it is on issue of fundamental importance that goes to the very core of what it means "to be". It should never, ever be used as a football to score cheap points, nor should anyone - on either side - be aggressively asserting their belief in their own correctness over proponents of the opposite view.

And again I think you're conflating aggressiveness with making the argument at all - which will always tend to "undermine the fundamental tents", however it's put forth. If those tenets are undermined, and the person decides to change their views upon being exposed to others, what's wrong with that? The alternative is perpetual shelter from disagreement.

In terms of interpreting Christ's ministry and the crucifixion, clearly something profound happened.

The rest of your historical commentary is quite impressive, but you've said that twice and I wonder if you can elaborate. It's not "clear", since we can easily posit that the events surrounding Jesus and his execution were all quite banal and routine based on available evidence. Unless you refer to the mass movement that was created in the following decades as being profound in itself.

On point 2 - I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. It is allegory.

In line with much of the rest of what you say, wouldn't it be easier to regard this as a primitive attempt at explanation by a pre-scientific culture, rather than as allegory, which implies some element of "truth"?

On point 5 - No, I don't.

Re: the second coming.

That's interesting. What is your eschatological view?

[QE Harold Flair]

Explain the 'stupidity' I have displayed. One quote will do.

Or is that just a baseless personal attack from the big man who bullies 13 year old boys?

[mikem]

@Henry

I think you've pointed out the how the generic debate is subverted by people who just want to score points instead of having a discussion. And you are not doing that, so:

Where you may be "aggressive" is if you leave the discussion of faith purely in the the terms of a logical act, which is how you perceive it. But faith is an intentional going beyond, in the same way that an act of love is. When you ask people about their loved ones you get rational reasons but you also get all those generalities like "I just knew". Without that component of faith / choice, love becomes purely rational and almost sociopathic. Defining the debate in only how you see the issue leaves us nowhere to go and can be as aggressive as me saying "I have the capacity to love in this way. What makes you so flawed that you can't love right?" It comes down to deciding to approach the decision in two different ways.

Which is not to say that you can't love or I can't be rational. I choose to extend my ability to love to this realm of my life and you do not. Ted Cruz is odious because he chooses (or is capable of) such a limited realm of rationality, but so to is an atheist neo-nazi. And sociopaths and psychopaths can't love or process emotions correctly.

[Henry]

Where you may be "aggressive" is if you leave the discussion of faith purely in the the terms of a logical act, which is how you perceive it. But faith is an intentional going beyond, in the same way that an act of love is

I don't see that as a good analogy. There's a qualitative difference, in that while love may go beyond logic, religious belief requires a leap of logic.

I am interested however in your views, since I do appreciate the cultural, philosophical and moral influence that adherence to religious tradition can have. It sounds like you (in common with a lot of jews) run with that stuff and aren't that interested in the metaphysical or teleological questions? I mean, don't you care what lies after death?

[mikem]

I am saying we are using different criteria in how we choose. The act of love requires a leap - the leap of logic that it will be returned. What is the point of love that is not active or returned? Humans make lots of these decisions all the time and we all have various levels of comfort with it. I am comfortable extending it here (not consciously) and you are not. So we will never convince each other because we are not using the same inputs. For me that leap or trust is valuable as it lets me feel like I am actively participating. Judaism would likely be horrified by that answer but I'm just comparing it to how I make other decisions.

To your second question - not as anything other than idle curiosity. Maybe because we get a strong sense of identity now?

[QE Harold Flair]

Love in a non voluntary emotion. Quite different.

[GS]

I agree with a lot of what's been said, Harold's stupidity notwithstanding. Picking out some points though...

Seeing as "insupportable by evidence" is basically the atheist position, that's pretty much the same thing. I think you can discuss that without being nasty, which I agree is counterproductive and unjustified.

I think that that's only consistent with solipsism, since we really cannot "know" anything in a philosophical sense. Weak atheism is the reasoned position otherwise.

And again I think you're conflating aggressiveness with making the argument at all - which will always tend to "undermine the fundamental tents", however it's put forth. If those tenets are undermined, and the person decides to change their views upon being exposed to others, what's wrong with that? The alternative is perpetual shelter from disagreement.

The rest of your historical commentary is quite impressive, but you've said that twice and I wonder if you can elaborate. It's not "clear", since we can easily posit that the events surrounding Jesus and his execution were all quite banal and routine based on available evidence. Unless you refer to the mass movement that was created in the following decades as being profound in itself.

In line with much of the rest of what you say, wouldn't it be easier to regard this as a primitive attempt at explanation by a pre-scientific culture, rather than as allegory, which implies some element of "truth"?

Re: the second coming.

That's interesting. What is your eschatological view?

I think it depends on your reading of the sources and how far you accept the historical facts of the narrative contained therein. If you accept the events leading up to the crucifixion as being (mostly) accurately recounted as historical events, the key question one would have is what would merit Jesus being brought before the Sanhedrin. Where one considers this through the Judaism of the day, Jesus' preaching must have been of profound concern to the Jewish leadership to warrant the steps taken to suppress his ministry. A preacher wandering around Judea and telling parables, albeit with a growing following, would not have presented an 'existential threat'. Therefore, we can posit that his ministry was considered to be something 'out of the ordinary' which the Jewish leadership of the day believed required extraordinary steps to eliminate / suppress it.

Where one considers the events after the resurrection itself, you again have to consider the Judaism of the day. I touched on this point earlier, but the importance placed upon the Sabbath in first century Judaism, the early moves by the Christian church to change their day of the Sabbath to align with their 'new church' would have been considered outrageous by the Jewish leadership, as a rejection of long-standing Jewish orthodox views. That the early church undertook such a move suggests they believed something of a 'game changing' nature in Judaism had taken place (the early church in Jerusalem being, effectively, an offshoot of Judaism at the time - the wider church for the Gentiles only started to take root through the mission of Paul and later St Peter's establishment of the church in Rome).

Where one considers the missions of the apostles, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they 'must' have witnessed, or believed themselves to have witnessed, something of profound importance which was 'game changing' in the context of first century Judaism. I keep referring to 1 Corinthians 15, but I think it's quite important here in terms of this point:

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.

In essence, Paul is saying that to preach the resurrection without believing in it would be to bear false witness (again, first century Judaism and the Ten Commandments are relevant here). If Christ was not resurrected, then "is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" i.e. belief in it is absolutely fundamental to the early church (this seems overwhelmingly obvious in modern theology, but this epistle was written a single generation after the crucifixion and would therefore be absent of any later agreed doctrinal positions adopted by the church). Paul says he has witnessed the risen Christ - he writes as a first hand source, and he dedicates his life to spreading the message throughout the Mediterranean. There is no stronger evidence that St Paul witnessed something 'game changing'. The evidence which supports Peter's early ministry in Jerusalem and Antioch, and his later martyrdom in Rome, also suggests he had a similar missionary zeal. Other apostles and members of the early church (e.g. James the Just) can be similarly categorised.

Obviously you could expand on several of the above points to the nth degree of detail, but they are some examples of what I was referring to when I suggested that there 'clear' evidence of something profound and game changing which occurred, and which resulted in a significant re-thinking of Judaism at the time. Whether you make the leap to believe in the resurrection, or in the divinity of Jesus, is a separate issue I think. However, where one considers the historicity of the sources and places the events from Gethsemane through to, say, the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, there is a strong body of evidence that something 'significant' occurred in Judaism. That it evolved (and how it evolved) into the religion we have today is a separate issue.

On the point re: Adam and Eve, that's a perfectly fair interpretation and one I would have no problem accepting.

On the final point, I simply don't know. I can't claim to have fully settled all of this in my head either, so I may come to a more decided viewpoint in the future.

[Henry]

I think it depends on your reading of the sources and how far you accept the historical facts of the narrative contained therein.

Not very far, then...
I mean, the appearance before the Sanhedrin is probably invention. Pilate just probably signed a death warrant without bothering to look into it too much, as he would often have done, being the cunt that he was. But the political climate in which the gospels were being composed demanded that the Jewish authorities be blamed instead.

Where one considers the events after the resurrection itself, you again have to consider the Judaism of the day. I touched on this point earlier, but the importance placed upon the Sabbath in first century Judaism, the early moves by the Christian church to change their day of the Sabbath to align with their 'new church' would have been considered outrageous by the Jewish leadership, as a rejection of long-standing Jewish orthodox views. That the early church undertook such a move suggests they believed something of a 'game changing' nature in Judaism had taken place (the early church in Jerusalem being, effectively, an offshoot of Judaism at the time - the wider church for the Gentiles only started to take root through the mission of Paul and later St Peter's establishment of the church in Rome).

This is new to me. When did they change the day of the Sabbath (and what is the evidence that they did it at this point)?
If it was after the schism with Judaism then that's no biggie, but it is interesting if it happened beforehand.

Where one considers the missions of the apostles, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they 'must' have witnessed, or believed themselves to have witnessed, something of profound importance which was 'game changing' in the context of first century Judaism.

That's pretty much uncontestable, but religious fanatics who take their fanaticism very seriously are ten a penny unfortunately. I don't think you can conclude much about the content of their beliefs from that, and even less about the veracity of their beliefs.
Your quote is from Paul, so I'm not sure how it's connected. Being openly hostile toward the apostles, and not having met Jesus himself (at least not in an earthly sense), the "we" here could hardly be them. And of course his ubiquitous usage of the term "Christ" rather than "Jesus" (among other things) demonstrates that he relates to that figure in mystical terms rather than historical terms. He never shows that much interest in the historical Jesus.

The "something profound" that happened was a philosophical and historical innovation, certainly. We take proselytising, monotheistic, universal religion for granted, but this was novel, and therefore wildly successful. But I don't think you can conclude anything further.

[GS]

Not very far, then...
I mean, the appearance before the Sanhedrin is probably invention. Pilate just probably signed a death warrant without bothering to look into it too much, as he would often have done, being the cunt that he was. But the political climate in which the gospels were being composed demanded that the Jewish authorities be blamed instead.

This is new to me. When did they change the day of the Sabbath (and what is the evidence that they did it at this point)?
If it was after the schism with Judaism then that's no biggie, but it is interesting if it happened beforehand.

That's pretty much uncontestable, but religious fanatics who take their fanaticism very seriously are ten a penny unfortunately. I don't think you can conclude much about the content of their beliefs from that, and even less about the veracity of their beliefs.
Your quote is from Paul, so I'm not sure how it's connected. Being openly hostile toward the apostles, and not having met Jesus himself (at least not in an earthly sense), the "we" here could hardly be them. And of course his ubiquitous usage of the term "Christ" rather than "Jesus" (among other things) demonstrates that he relates to that figure in mystical terms rather than historical terms. He never shows that much interest in the historical Jesus.

The "something profound" that happened was a philosophical and historical innovation, certainly. We take proselytising, monotheistic, universal religion for granted, but this was novel, and therefore wildly successful. But I don't think you can conclude anything further.

My view would be that the appearance before the Sanhedrin isn't a wholly fabricated account. The Romans, broadly speaking, allowed Judaism insofar as it didn't threaten the secular power of the Empire. It was designated as a 'religio licit', and the Jewish authorities exercised authority over matters falling within religious parameters. If we accept the historical facts of the accusations against Christ (as outlined in the Gospel accounts), it's a matter which would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the religious authorities and not the Roman authorities. Therefore, the appearance before the Sanhedrin would be consistent with the expected legal process of a first century 'prosecution' of an accused person on the basis of contravening Jewish law.

On the second point, there are several references in the scriptures which refer to the first day of the week as the meeting time for early communities - these are 1 Corinthians 16: v1-2 (written circa AD50-55) and Acts 20: 7 (written circa AD80-90). There's also letters from early Christian leaders from the first century which refer to it, but these are probably within the latter quarter of the century. It's impossible to ascribe a specific timeframe to the transition, but it seems to have been well established by twenty years after the crucifixion. Given the importance placed on the Decalogue by Jewish communities at the time, it is simply not conceivable that it would have been issues of theological trivia which would have prompted such a change in observance of the Sabbath.

On your latter point, the reference I made previously to 1 Corinthians 15 is quite apt in this context. Paul must be placed in the context of first century Judaism and his own place therein as a first century Jew. In its simplest terms, he is preaching that God raised Christ. If they are preaching that God raised Christ and he hasn't done so, then they are "found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up". Similar to the above, "thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of the Ten Commandments outlined in Exodus. Therefore, early Jewish converts (in this instance, Paul) would not be preaching the resurrection of Christ without a conviction of its veracity given to bear false witness against God would be unthinkable.

In terms of what that conviction is founded on, that's up to people to decide individually. Whatever it was, it had a profound effect on a great number of people and it changed the course of history. You may not believe it was 'divine', but I would argue that you're on solid historical ground when you say something 'profound' happened.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, because people would never tell a lie.

[Henry]

It's a legitimate point to make that they wouldn't suffer persecution and death for a lie.

The persecution of Christians is probably overstated in the historical record, but it did exist, so at the very least, these people did believe what they were saying.

[Henry]

Therefore, the appearance before the Sanhedrin would be consistent with the expected legal process of a first century 'prosecution' of an accused person on the basis of contravening Jewish law.

Well, that's somewhat at odds with your earlier statement claiming that such an appearance would have been "extraordinary".

Given the importance placed on the Decalogue by Jewish communities at the time, it is simply not conceivable that it would have been issues of theological trivia which would have prompted such a change in observance of the Sabbath.

Okay, so let's say we attribute it to the belief in the resurrection among Pauline Christians (Corinthians and Acts both being from that perspective) who were already separating themselves from Judaism in important ways, by not requiring circumcision and so forth. What does that indicate other than a strong conviction?

Paul must be placed in the context of first century Judaism and his own place therein as a first century Jew.

I think this is the crux - I don't agree with this at all. Paul was anything but a regular Jew. He was a hellenised Jew who was trying to innovate and spread what was a mixture of Judaism, neo-Platonic and eastern mysticism to a bunch of gentiles. He had a hostile relationship with Jesus's actual followers, who were still behaving as Jews. Either way, again all we're establishing here is conviction.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's a legitimate point to make that they wouldn't suffer persecution and death for a lie.

The persecution of Christians is probably overstated in the historical record, but it did exist, so at the very least, these people did believe what they were saying.

More a delusion, then. Much like Muslims today will kill themselves, and others, for a similar delusion. It serves as no evidence of anything being true.

[Serj]

I think this is the crux - I don't agree with this at all. Paul was anything but a regular Jew. He was a hellenised Jew who was trying to innovate and spread what was a mixture of Judaism, neo-Platonic and eastern mysticism to a bunch of gentiles. He had a hostile relationship with Jesus's actual followers, who were still behaving as Jews. Either way, again all we're establishing here is conviction.

For what it's worth, this is exactly what the professor for fundamental theology at my university (Vienna) summed it up as being. Jesus and his circle, according to him, were something of a reform movement, but definitely stayed firmly within the parameters of contemporary Judaism, even after the crucifixion. The "profound" change only happened afterwards when Paul and consorts carried lots of other stuff into it and worked on it getting a bit more "mass appeal", aggrieving the original circle in the process.

[GS]

Well, that's somewhat at odds with your earlier statement claiming that such an appearance would have been "extraordinary".

Okay, so let's say we attribute it to the belief in the resurrection among Pauline Christians (Corinthians and Acts both being from that perspective) who were already separating themselves from Judaism in important ways, by not requiring circumcision and so forth. What does that indicate other than a strong conviction?

I think this is the crux - I don't agree with this at all. Paul was anything but a regular Jew. He was a hellenised Jew who was trying to innovate and spread what was a mixture of Judaism, neo-Platonic and eastern mysticism to a bunch of gentiles. He had a hostile relationship with Jesus's actual followers, who were still behaving as Jews. Either way, again all we're establishing here is conviction.

On the first point, such an appearance would only been 'extraordinary' because the 'movement' must have been doing something which was deemed to be sufficient serious as to warrant the intervention of the Jewish authorities i.e. it wasn't just a preacher from Galilee telling a few parables. I think the two points aren't related in this context.

On the second and third points, we're probably lacking a sufficient amount of material on the early church and a) when exactly certain innovations or transitions happened and b) which communities adopted them and when. To that end, your points certainly aren't unreasonable.

For what it's worth, this is exactly what the professor for fundamental theology at my university (Vienna) summed it up as being. Jesus and his circle, according to him, were something of a reform movement, but definitely stayed firmly within the parameters of contemporary Judaism, even after the crucifixion. The "profound" change only happened afterwards when Paul and consorts carried lots of other stuff into it and worked on it getting a bit more "mass appeal", aggrieving the original circle in the process.

As with Henners' point above, this certainly isn't an unreasonable point to make. I don't think it matters a great deal in terms of the wider faith, but it's certainly an interesting discussion when trying to understand the historicity of the early church.

[Bartholomert]

I think this poll/thread encapsulates most perfectly the underlying reasons for the downfall of Western Civilization. Sad. Whatever you may believe, the fact that the views of most individuals on the subject are voiced in a matter of fact yet apathetic way, despite the existence at the very least of compelling philosophical / rational reasons on both sides of the argument, underlines the failure of our secular leftist education system.

We'll see how you feel in twenty years, once your mortality becomes less theoretical.