The Vanity of Knowledge

[FireDragon76]

That's a very broad, speculative viewpoint though. Ancient people did lots of things, including simply reporting the truth. It's not as if we have to question Tacitus's or Pliny's or Josephus's or Herodotus's honesty or writing style just because they were of the ancient world.

That's not my point. It's not unheard of for ancient histories to have supernatural or fantastical elements, and it's just not honest to pretend that the Gospels are unique in that regard.

The only "supernatural" element that has any kind of solid consensus by scholars about the life of Jesus, was that he had a reputation as a faith healer and that drew people to his ministry. The withering of the fig tree, the walking on water, the "herd" of pigs (which is scientifically inaccurate, as pigs do not live in large herds, indicating the source likely knew nothing about pigs), are all generally considered to be religious allegories or miracle stories superimposed over a deeper corpus of sayings attributed to Jesus.

 

[fhansen]

That's not my point. It's not unheard of for ancient histories to have supernatural or fantastical elements, and it's just not honest to pretend that the Gospels are unique in that regard.

The only "supernatural" element that has any kind of general consensus by scholars about the life of Jesus, was that he had a reputation as a faith healer and that drew people to his ministry. The withering of the fig tree, the walking on water, the "herd" of pigs (which is scientifically inaccurate, as pigs do not live in large herds, indicating the source likely knew nothing about pigs), are all generally considered to be religious allegories or miracle stories superimposed over a deeper corpus of sayings attributed to Jesus.

Another problem is that we can pick and choose our own scholars, with equally educated scholars often disagreeing with each other over these matters. And in any case, 2000 year old accounts of any supernatural happenings are simply improbable and unprovable by their nature-even though that fact in itself doesn't make them untrue.

 

[FireDragon76]

Another problem is that we can pick and choose our own scholars, with equally educated scholars often disagreeing with each other over these matters. And in any case, 2000 year old accounts of any supernatural happenings are simply improbable and unprovable by their nature-even though that fact in itself doesn't make them untrue.

It's true there are a spectrum of opinions, but the majority of reputable biblical scholars don't believe that there is good evidence every detail in the Gospel accounts actually happened the way they are presented, especially knowing what we do about how ancient histories were written.

 

[fhansen]

It's true there are a spectrum of opinions, but the majority of reputable biblical scholars don't believe that there is good evidence every detail in the Gospel accounts actually happened the way they are presented, especially knowing what we do about how ancient histories were written.

No, I agree with that. And yet most biblical scholars agree that the disciples were attesting to an authentic, physical resurrection in their own minds.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, I agree with that. And yet most biblical scholars agree that the disciples were attesting to an authentic, physical resurrection in their own minds.

Again, this is a case of where there are a spectrum of opinions. The earliest accounts we have don't have alot of details. Paul's authentic writings don't mention actually encountering a Jesus with a physical body, only that Christ has ascended to a glorified status, and the Gospel of Mark ends abruptly with an empty tomb and women running away frightened.

 

[fhansen]

Again, this is a case of where there are a spectrum of opinions. The earliest accounts we have don't have alot of details. Paul's authentic writings don't mention actually encountering a Jesus with a physical body, and the Gospel of Mark ends abruptly with an empty tomb and women running away frightened.

We also have the testimonies of beliefs from the ECFs, which support the continuous historic beliefs of the church. But either way there are plenty of decent reasons for not believing any of it, whether the story is true or not.

 

[FireDragon76]

We also have the testimonies of beliefs from the ECFs, which support the continuous historic beliefs of the church. But either way there are plenty of decent reasons for not believing any of it, whether the story is true or not.

I believe there was a real "Easter event", but I don't rule out other explanations, and I certainly don't believe Jesus walked as a rescuscitated body out of a tomb.

Now days we know that a phenomenon called "after death communication" isn't rare, but people in the ancient world may have attributed religious significance to it, whereas now days people class it with paranormal or anomalous experiences.

Of course, a materialist atheist isn't likely to accept after death communication as an explanation, either. But it's one I've seen offered by some mainline Protestant pastors of a liberal persuasion.

 

[fhansen]

I believe there was a real "Easter event", but I don't rule out other explanations, and I certainly don't believe Jesus walked as a rescuscitated body out of a tomb.

Now days we know that a phenomenon called "after death communication" isn't rare, but people in the ancient world may have attributed religious significance to it, whereas now days people class it with paranormal or anomalous experiences.

Of course, a materialist atheist isn't likely to accept after death communication as an explanation, either. But it's one I've seen offered by some mainline Protestant pastors of a liberal persuasion.

From our limited human perspective, it's all speculation at his point. Again, we can come up with a variety of alternative interpretations-there's virtually no end, in fact, it seems. But a physical resurrection is what was attested to, and that resurrection is really what Christianity stands or falls on. And if we tend to have an anti-supernatural bent, we won't believe any of it, in any way truly meaningful to us, however. IMO

 

[Valletta]

If Christianity satisfies your questions about life, and the universe, and gives you peace of mind, then go for it. But it doesn’t work for everyone. Heck, I’m just past retirement age. In all honesty, even from my pre-teen years—I’ve been highly skeptical of religion and anything claimed to be supernatural. As my avatar notes, I’m a naturalist. I believe in matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. To me, all the gods, of all religions, are products of the human imagination. So what if we don’t have a complete naturalistic explanation for the appearance of life on this planet? That doesn’t mean we never will. (Off-topic: I’ll make a prediction that before the end of this century, we’ll have a realistic and plausible model for the appearance of nucleic acids--specifically RNA. Which is the first early step towards life.) Also, I’ve never felt my life was empty or devoid of purpose. Whatever meaning there is in life is what you give it. Your life is in your hands. It’s always seemed rather sad to me that anyone would need a supernatural entity to feel secure and fulfilled.

And BTW, though I don’t believe in any kind of god, I do believe in a higher power. It’s called my wife.

Science shows something cannot come from nothing, what was there at the moment of the Big Bang we refer to as God. If you took a bunch of matter and blew it up, as happened with the Big Bang, what do you think the probability is that life would form? Many many scientists see a "guiding hand." What do you think was present just before the Big Bang, and do you think it was beyond nature?

 

[Bradskii]

If you took a bunch of matter and blew it up, as happened with the Big Bang...

If I'm going to ridicule something I find it's a good idea to find out what actually happened before doing so, otherwise people complain that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Pommer]

Science shows something cannot come from nothing, what was there at the moment of the Big Bang we refer to as God. If you took a bunch of matter and blew it up, as happened with the Big Bang, what do you think the probability is that life would form? Many many scientists see a "guiding hand." What do you think was present just before the Big Bang, and do you think it was beyond nature?

Science has not “observed” that something comes from nothing, but this remains a distinct possibility.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Science shows something cannot come from nothing,

Depends on you definition of "nothing".

what was there at the moment of the Big Bang we refer to as God.

Not by science. You may have a religious interpretation of the origin of the Universe, but that is not science.

If you took a bunch of matter and blew it up, as happened with the Big Bang,

Not what happened in the Big Bang.

what do you think the probability is that life would form?

one (from the actual Big Bang, not this "explosion of matter"")

Many many scientists see a "guiding hand."

Yes, but that is no where near universal.

What do you think was present just before the Big Bang, and do you think it was beyond nature?

Stuff, some kind of stuff. That's my best guess. Natural stuff. Not sure what kind (yet).

 

[jayem]

Science shows something cannot come from nothing, what was there at the moment of the Big Bang we refer to as God. If you took a bunch of matter and blew it up, as happened with the Big Bang, what do you think the probability is that life would form? Many many scientists see a "guiding hand." What do you think was present just before the Big Bang, and do you think it was beyond nature?

I don't know what was present before the Big Bang. My training and expertise is in medicine, not cosmology. I recall seeing some articles postulating that matter/energy has always existed in some form. And that the existence of life on our planet was inevitable, given the surface temperature, chemical makeup, and presence of liquid water. But in any case, there are dozens, if not hundreds of origin beliefs in the world. Other than faith, how do you know yours is correct? And why should I believe it?

 

[Valletta]

I don't know what was present before the Big Bang. My training and expertise is in medicine, not cosmology. I recall seeing some articles postulating that matter/energy has always existed in some form. And that the existence of life on our planet was inevitable, given the surface temperature, chemical makeup, and presence of liquid water. But in any case, there are dozens, if not hundreds of origin beliefs in the world. Other than faith, how do you know yours is correct? And why should I believe it?

What are the chances that from one point of origin, one big bang, just the right combination of "Surface temperature, chemical makeup, and presence of liquid water" would be first present and then present long enough for man's development? I would hope that everyone would at least leave God open as a possibility. To me the testimony of the Nobel prize winning Doctor Carrell and his observation at Lourdes is great food for thought.

 

[Bradskii]

What are the chances that from one point of origin...

You really should investigate what the big bang was. Whoever is giving you your information has it all wrong. There was no 'one point of origin'.

 

[Valletta]

You really should investigate what the big bang was. Whoever is giving you your information has it all wrong. There was no 'one point of origin'.

A Catholic priest, Father Lemaître, although his ideas were widely ridiculed. I know there has been a lot of postulations by scientists since then.

 

[Bradskii]

A Catholic priest, Father Lemaître, although his ideas were widely ridiculed. I know there has been a lot of postulations by scientists since then.

Knowing who first proposed it and understanding what he proposed are two entirely different things. There was no explosion (the term 'big bang' was a sarcastic comment by Hoyle, as he didn't accept the theory) and there wasn't a point at which it happened. There is no 'centre of the universe'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What are the chances that from one point of origin, one big bang, just the right combination of "Surface temperature, chemical makeup, and presence of liquid water" would be first present and then present long enough for man's development?

One. It already happened.

I would hope that everyone would at least leave God open as a possibility. To me the testimony of the Nobel prize winning Doctor Carrell and his observation at Lourdes is great food for thought.

A surgeon who fell for faith healings is hardly an expert on cosmology, physics, or planetology no matter how many non-physics Nobel Prizes he had.

 

[jayem]

We don't know much about Zarathustra's life, even when he lived.

Zarathustra was the first known religious teacher to adopt monotheism. Which influenced both Judaism and Christianity,

Muhammed appears to have derived alot of his religious ideas from his contact with Jews and Christians in Arabia.

Islam is the youngest Abrahamic religion. It is somewhat related to Judaism. Muslims believe Muhammad was a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael, his first born child. Who was sent away, with his mother Hagar. Muslims generally follow the Hebrew dietary laws. (With the exception that alcohol is forbidden.) But Islam has a major doctrinal difference with Christianity. Muslims--like traditional Jews--are exclusively and devoutly unitarian. The idea of a trinitarian God is anathema.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Zarathustra was the first known religious teacher to adopt monotheism.

He also has that cool song (technically a tone poem) about him...