Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
And he should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how he knows that it is. Thanks
-
Features
120 Reasons to Reject Christianity
- Thread starter kyroot
- Start date
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
No evidence of bookburnings from the 4th century, when it allegedly happened.
But I finally found the quote farther down in the Socrates, Church History, from the 5th century, and from a Syriac writing/translation of 501, claiming to be an "Epistle" of Constantine. So it's true this quote existed by about 450 or so, but it's not clear where Socrates got it from.
Your url website mistitles this as "Part of an Edict against Arius and his followers" -- which it is not, but rather is part of a dubious collection of "epistles" of Constantine, some to private persons, others to a supposed group of Bishops, etc., all dating from later than 400 AD. Sort of like the Letters of Herod and Pontius Pilate to Caesar (or whoever), etc. After 200-300 there are more fraudulent "epistles" or forgeries than authentic letters, from whoever it claims is the author.
For Constantine, all we have is the Edict of Milan, but no Edict against Arius. Your website page implies that there is a whole text for this Edict somewhere, and yet there is no such Edict. But it's true that this is from a later "epistle" claiming Constantine as the author.
And it's true that this quote is buried farther down the list of sources in that website. So it does exist. But it's dishonest to claim this is an edict or to connect it to Athanasius and claim he quoted from it. Because of this dishonesty of that website, misrepresenting this as an Edict, and the dubious origin of these "epistles" ascribed to Constantine, this quote is best regarded as fraudulent, unless someone can show it has an origin earlier than 400 AD. Or if someone can show a good legitimate source for Socrates, the church historian, who might have credibility, but not without some explanation where this "epistle" is available, or where it came from.
However, there are also claims by the historian Sozomen that Arian books were burned by order of Constantine. Nothing is quoted, but reference is made to "edicts" issued to Bishops ordering Arian writings be destroyed. There seems to be no agreement between these two historians about the source of bookburning claims. If the "epistle" was authentic, there should be some mention of it by Sozomen, who instead refers vaguely to "edicts" but no "epistle" of Constantine.
So there's nothing from the 4th century ordering books to be burned or claiming there were any bookburnings by Constantine, when it would have happened. What we have are 2 historians of the 5th century saying this, one claiming there were "edicts" but not quoting from them, and another historian quoting from an alleged "epistle" in which Constantine ordered the burnings.
We do have the Edict of Milan full text, a verified edict from Constantine: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/edict-milan.asp . This is dated 313 AD at the time of Constantine, not something from 150 years later.
There is plenty of condemnation of Arius from the time of the Council of Nicea, by Constantine and by Athanasius, in documents from that time, which we can confirm. The language is harsh, but there is nothing calling for books to be destroyed. But 100+ years later we have 2 historians who make the bookburning claims for the first time. Nothing in the official documents from Nicea, or anything else at that time, calls for any booksburnings.
So the later reference to this can be taken as possible evidence of bookburnings, but no evidence from the time it allegedly happened.
If the bookburnings did happen, it was only books of Arius which were burned, and no others. No pagan books, no other religious or philosophical literature, but Arian writings only. This Arius was a Christian whose teachings were all based on the canonical NT writings-Gospel accounts, and gave no alternative history of the times in contradiction to anything in the Gospels. I.e., no alternate "messiahs" or miracle-workers or other beliefs different than that of the canonical Gospel accounts.
So all that was destroyed, if the bookburnings did happen, were Christian books teaching the same Christ of Galilee-Judea being taught by the early Christ cults or early Church.
No writings contradicting the Gospel accounts, or presenting anything contrary to them, were destroyed by Constantine's bookburning squads, if they existed.
The first source given is Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition, which does not contain this quote. Nor does the 2nd source, the Opitz, Athanasius Werke, which contains the same Defense of the Nicene Definition, in Greek, but also some other Athanasius writings.
But I finally found the quote farther down in the Socrates, Church History, from the 5th century, and from a Syriac writing/translation of 501, claiming to be an "Epistle" of Constantine. So it's true this quote existed by about 450 or so, but it's not clear where Socrates got it from.
Your url website mistitles this as "Part of an Edict against Arius and his followers" -- which it is not, but rather is part of a dubious collection of "epistles" of Constantine, some to private persons, others to a supposed group of Bishops, etc., all dating from later than 400 AD. Sort of like the Letters of Herod and Pontius Pilate to Caesar (or whoever), etc. After 200-300 there are more fraudulent "epistles" or forgeries than authentic letters, from whoever it claims is the author.
For Constantine, all we have is the Edict of Milan, but no Edict against Arius. Your website page implies that there is a whole text for this Edict somewhere, and yet there is no such Edict. But it's true that this is from a later "epistle" claiming Constantine as the author.
And it's true that this quote is buried farther down the list of sources in that website. So it does exist. But it's dishonest to claim this is an edict or to connect it to Athanasius and claim he quoted from it. Because of this dishonesty of that website, misrepresenting this as an Edict, and the dubious origin of these "epistles" ascribed to Constantine, this quote is best regarded as fraudulent, unless someone can show it has an origin earlier than 400 AD. Or if someone can show a good legitimate source for Socrates, the church historian, who might have credibility, but not without some explanation where this "epistle" is available, or where it came from.
However, there are also claims by the historian Sozomen that Arian books were burned by order of Constantine. Nothing is quoted, but reference is made to "edicts" issued to Bishops ordering Arian writings be destroyed. There seems to be no agreement between these two historians about the source of bookburning claims. If the "epistle" was authentic, there should be some mention of it by Sozomen, who instead refers vaguely to "edicts" but no "epistle" of Constantine.
So there's nothing from the 4th century ordering books to be burned or claiming there were any bookburnings by Constantine, when it would have happened. What we have are 2 historians of the 5th century saying this, one claiming there were "edicts" but not quoting from them, and another historian quoting from an alleged "epistle" in which Constantine ordered the burnings.
We do have the Edict of Milan full text, a verified edict from Constantine: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/edict-milan.asp . This is dated 313 AD at the time of Constantine, not something from 150 years later.
There is plenty of condemnation of Arius from the time of the Council of Nicea, by Constantine and by Athanasius, in documents from that time, which we can confirm. The language is harsh, but there is nothing calling for books to be destroyed. But 100+ years later we have 2 historians who make the bookburning claims for the first time. Nothing in the official documents from Nicea, or anything else at that time, calls for any booksburnings.
So the later reference to this can be taken as possible evidence of bookburnings, but no evidence from the time it allegedly happened.
If the bookburnings did happen, it was only books of Arius which were burned, and no others. No pagan books, no other religious or philosophical literature, but Arian writings only. This Arius was a Christian whose teachings were all based on the canonical NT writings-Gospel accounts, and gave no alternative history of the times in contradiction to anything in the Gospels. I.e., no alternate "messiahs" or miracle-workers or other beliefs different than that of the canonical Gospel accounts.
So all that was destroyed, if the bookburnings did happen, were Christian books teaching the same Christ of Galilee-Judea being taught by the early Christ cults or early Church.
No writings contradicting the Gospel accounts, or presenting anything contrary to them, were destroyed by Constantine's bookburning squads, if they existed.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
You could not possibly know that. And you should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is. Thanks
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,309
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Do you actually think you're making a good point with that? It's actually just getting incredibly irritating. Obviously no one is going to copy and paste an entire book for your pleasure, especially since it would not accomplish anything. You'd be making the exact same points with exactly the same wording ten minutes later, the only casualty being the many hours it would take someone to, essentially, write another equally long book just for you.
Would you honor a disingenuous request to copy and paste every sentence from, say, the Bhagavad Gita that you consider to be fictional together with "details" of why? No one owes you a response to ridiculous demands, unless you are actually paying them for their time and labor. Even then, I wouldn't feel compelled to write a book for an employer unless they gave me a damn compelling reason to.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
And he should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how he knows that it is. Thanks
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Not until 325 CE when Christianity was officially made a tolerated religion, would the Roman government have given enough power to Christianity to burn or censor books. If up to that time books were burnt, it would have been on an ad hoc and local basis when opportunity presented itself to some local bishop or whomever came across books they thought were worth burning. Within a century, the Roman emperor had banned heretical books upon pain of death.
In 385, the Spanish bishop Priscillian was executed for heresy (practicing magic), along with 5 of his followers. Books burnings probably would not be beyond the pale, even if not documented well.
https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/473991
"[...] we need more conversation about the impact of book‐burning and censorship in late Antiquity. He makes a reasonable case that each did play a role. This book is a must‐read for those interested in ancient book culture."
Brian J. Wright, in: Religious Studies Review 43 (2017), 285, [url]https://doi.org/10.1111/rsr.13133[/URL]
"The thesis of this book is that, if a ‘wide definition of censorship’ is adopted (p. 301), Christian censorship did more injury to the classical tradition than we have been wont to imagine."
Mark J. Edwards, in: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 68 (2017), 825-827, [url]https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046917001506[/URL]
In 385, the Spanish bishop Priscillian was executed for heresy (practicing magic), along with 5 of his followers. Books burnings probably would not be beyond the pale, even if not documented well.
https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/473991
"[...] we need more conversation about the impact of book‐burning and censorship in late Antiquity. He makes a reasonable case that each did play a role. This book is a must‐read for those interested in ancient book culture."
Brian J. Wright, in: Religious Studies Review 43 (2017), 285, [url]https://doi.org/10.1111/rsr.13133[/URL]
"The thesis of this book is that, if a ‘wide definition of censorship’ is adopted (p. 301), Christian censorship did more injury to the classical tradition than we have been wont to imagine."
Mark J. Edwards, in: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 68 (2017), 825-827, [url]https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046917001506[/URL]
couch_sloth
Member
Isn’t it thought that the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts were probably hidden by a monastery, to prevent church authorities from destroying them?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Does God need to get with the Program and demand something different than FAITH from his humans?
...
...
Last edited by a moderator:
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Yes. Under Theodosius, all Gnostic books were ordered destroyed. Having them in one's possession was a capitol offence. Probably why these Gnostic texts were carefully hidden. I have a copy and have read it. Gnosticism was pretty silly stuff, and thus boring.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
More make-believe, paranoia
You're making up stories. There's no evidence whatever for this.
Or you're slurping this up from your favorite modern debunker-guru-pundit.
You're making up stories. There's no evidence whatever for this.
Or you're slurping this up from your favorite modern debunker-guru-pundit.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,295
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Well, you started it.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
https://southerncrossreview.org/2/gnostic.html
- Eileen Pagels
"Mohammed Alí could not have imagined the enormous implications of his accidental find. If they had been found 1,000 years earlier, the Gnostic texts within would surely have been burned for their heresy. Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon c. 180, wrote five volumes entitled The Destruction and Overthrow of Falsely So-called Knowledge. By the time of the Emperor Constatine's conversion in the fourth century, possession of books denounced as heretical became a criminal offense. Copies of Gnostic books were confiscated and burned. But someone in Upper Egypt, possibly a monk from the nearby monastery of St. Pachomius, took the banned books and hid them from destruction in the jar where they remained buried for almost 1,600 years. Today we read them differently -- as a powerful alternative to orthodox, organized Christianity. "
Bark, bark, bark! Bark!
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Forget your guru pundit propagandist and seek for real evidence from the time the alleged events happened.
What's the source for this from the historical period in question?
I thought so.
There's no source from the period in question supporting these claims about books being burned, by Theodosius or Constantine (though see my paragraph below). Yes, there are modern debunker-guru-fanatic-pundits who say these things. But they have no evidence from the time. You don't have to take the word of these gurus that it happened.
In an earlier post I acknowledged a claim in 2 different 5th-century historians saying that Constantine ordered Arian books to be burned, but no Gnostic or other books. These sources are dubious, however it is a small amount of evidence that Constantine burned some ARIAN books only. Their accounts differ.
So I was wrong earlier to say there was no evidence whatever of bookburnings. I found these 2 references, from 5th-century sources, maybe credible, saying that ARIAN books (no others) might have been burned. But they date more than 100 years after the alleged event, and so are not very good evidence, as we should have something from earlier, like an official EDICT from Constantine. There is plenty of documentation from around 325 when the decisions were made, condemning Arius and his writings, but no bookburnings.
One of the 2 5th-century historians quotes from an alleged Epistle of Constantine, but we have no evidence that this Epistle existed outside that one quote.
The other refers to "edicts" Constantine issued, but we have no evidence of those, outside this one reference. No quotes from any of the alleged edicts.
Other than these 2 doubtful references, there is no evidence of any such bookburning.
But if there was any, it was ONLY ARIAN BOOKS which were destroyed. No Gnostic books. You believe this false claim only because it makes you feel good, not because there's any evidence for it. Arius was not a Gnostic.
If you search hard enough you can find a very late document, centuries later, saying a pagan library at Antioch was burned by Christians in 363. It's possible there was a mob scene there, and they burned down a pagan temple, which had just had a library added to it, and some Greek philosophy books perished. The library was not the target. You have to go back to the original document we have, written about 800 years later, but claiming to quote from a 7th-century source telling of the incident.
If you don't go back to these original sources, you are just trusting the recent crusader-debunker-fanatic-pundit of your choice, who will tell you any garbage you want, just to make you feel good. These 20th- and 21st-century sources have no credibility for what happened 1500 years ago if they are not willing to cite the original sources from the time.
What's the source for this from the historical period in question?
I thought so.
There's no source from the period in question supporting these claims about books being burned, by Theodosius or Constantine (though see my paragraph below). Yes, there are modern debunker-guru-fanatic-pundits who say these things. But they have no evidence from the time. You don't have to take the word of these gurus that it happened.
In an earlier post I acknowledged a claim in 2 different 5th-century historians saying that Constantine ordered Arian books to be burned, but no Gnostic or other books. These sources are dubious, however it is a small amount of evidence that Constantine burned some ARIAN books only. Their accounts differ.
So I was wrong earlier to say there was no evidence whatever of bookburnings. I found these 2 references, from 5th-century sources, maybe credible, saying that ARIAN books (no others) might have been burned. But they date more than 100 years after the alleged event, and so are not very good evidence, as we should have something from earlier, like an official EDICT from Constantine. There is plenty of documentation from around 325 when the decisions were made, condemning Arius and his writings, but no bookburnings.
One of the 2 5th-century historians quotes from an alleged Epistle of Constantine, but we have no evidence that this Epistle existed outside that one quote.
The other refers to "edicts" Constantine issued, but we have no evidence of those, outside this one reference. No quotes from any of the alleged edicts.
Other than these 2 doubtful references, there is no evidence of any such bookburning.
But if there was any, it was ONLY ARIAN BOOKS which were destroyed. No Gnostic books. You believe this false claim only because it makes you feel good, not because there's any evidence for it. Arius was not a Gnostic.
If you search hard enough you can find a very late document, centuries later, saying a pagan library at Antioch was burned by Christians in 363. It's possible there was a mob scene there, and they burned down a pagan temple, which had just had a library added to it, and some Greek philosophy books perished. The library was not the target. You have to go back to the original document we have, written about 800 years later, but claiming to quote from a 7th-century source telling of the incident.
If you don't go back to these original sources, you are just trusting the recent crusader-debunker-fanatic-pundit of your choice, who will tell you any garbage you want, just to make you feel good. These 20th- and 21st-century sources have no credibility for what happened 1500 years ago if they are not willing to cite the original sources from the time.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Lumpy, wasn't that your initial stance on the miracles performed by Joseph Smith?
That there were no such things? Totally made-up?
No corroborating testimony?
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
You should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is. Thanks.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Why the Jesus miracle stories are much more credible than the JS miracle stories.
Once again, the differences between them. This time Pay Attention!
No, it isn't that there was no evidence at all for the JS reported miracles. The reason for the lower credibility in his case is:
At the reported JS miracle events
There were only disciples present, no non-disciples.
We know all the stories are reported by JS disciples only.
All happened at private locations only, with no outsiders, no one knowing of it except disciples.
All healing miracles performed on disciples only, never a non-disciple healed.
But at the reported Jesus miracle events
Usually there were NON-disciples present, who outnumbered the disciples.
We don't know who reported the stories, but the text says some non-disciples went out and told others.
Usually happened in public locations, with outsiders seeing it.
Almost all the healing miracles were performed on NON-disciples, not disciples.
The quantity of literature reporting the miracle claims in each case:
A further important difference is the ratio of the quantity of total existing literature of the time to the quantity of literature reporting these miracle events, i.e., literature reporting the Jesus miracles vs. literature reporting the JS miracles.
This ratio is vastly greater for the JS reported miracles.
In other words, the JS miracle stories are a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny (etc.) fraction of the total quantity of literature existing in the 19th century.
While the Jesus miracle stories are a much larger fraction of the total quantity of literature existing in the 1st century.
So there could have been some Joseph Smiths running around in the 1st century (perhaps a dozen or so), but they were so unimportant that virtually nothing was recorded about them, because they were not taken seriously enough. Whereas by the 19th century, anything and everything was published, including many charlatans and regular preachers and gurus and prophets and so on (not all bad people, but few or none having any real power to perform miracle healings), and so we have many published stories of these would-be miracle-workers.
But in the 1st century these types were not recorded for posterity.
Already-existing belief in the ancient miracle legend or deity invoked by the miracle-worker
And one further difference, which you have forgotten, because you did not pay attention, is that Joseph Smith performed all his miracle acts in the name of an ancient healer miracle-worker legend, i.e., the Jesus miracle-worker tradition, whose name he always invoked whenever he performed his healing act. As all successful preachers reportedly doing these miracles invoked the name of Christ or other ancient healing deity.
Whereas Jesus never invoked the name of an ancient healing deity/legend (e.g., Elijah, Moses, Yahweh, etc.) when he performed his miracles.
So Joseph Smith had the advantage that his followers already believed in the ancient miracle tradition he invoked, as did the worshipers of Asclepius and other disciples who made claims of being healed, including the worshipers of Serapis who reportedly were healed by the Emperor Vespasian in the name of that ancient healing god. Whereas Jesus Christ invoked no ancient healing legend already believed in by those present at the reported miracle events.
Once again, the differences between them. This time Pay Attention!
No, it isn't that there was no evidence at all for the JS reported miracles. The reason for the lower credibility in his case is:
At the reported JS miracle events
There were only disciples present, no non-disciples.
We know all the stories are reported by JS disciples only.
All happened at private locations only, with no outsiders, no one knowing of it except disciples.
All healing miracles performed on disciples only, never a non-disciple healed.
But at the reported Jesus miracle events
Usually there were NON-disciples present, who outnumbered the disciples.
We don't know who reported the stories, but the text says some non-disciples went out and told others.
Usually happened in public locations, with outsiders seeing it.
Almost all the healing miracles were performed on NON-disciples, not disciples.
The quantity of literature reporting the miracle claims in each case:
A further important difference is the ratio of the quantity of total existing literature of the time to the quantity of literature reporting these miracle events, i.e., literature reporting the Jesus miracles vs. literature reporting the JS miracles.
This ratio is vastly greater for the JS reported miracles.
In other words, the JS miracle stories are a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny (etc.) fraction of the total quantity of literature existing in the 19th century.
While the Jesus miracle stories are a much larger fraction of the total quantity of literature existing in the 1st century.
So there could have been some Joseph Smiths running around in the 1st century (perhaps a dozen or so), but they were so unimportant that virtually nothing was recorded about them, because they were not taken seriously enough. Whereas by the 19th century, anything and everything was published, including many charlatans and regular preachers and gurus and prophets and so on (not all bad people, but few or none having any real power to perform miracle healings), and so we have many published stories of these would-be miracle-workers.
But in the 1st century these types were not recorded for posterity.
Already-existing belief in the ancient miracle legend or deity invoked by the miracle-worker
And one further difference, which you have forgotten, because you did not pay attention, is that Joseph Smith performed all his miracle acts in the name of an ancient healer miracle-worker legend, i.e., the Jesus miracle-worker tradition, whose name he always invoked whenever he performed his healing act. As all successful preachers reportedly doing these miracles invoked the name of Christ or other ancient healing deity.
Whereas Jesus never invoked the name of an ancient healing deity/legend (e.g., Elijah, Moses, Yahweh, etc.) when he performed his miracles.
So Joseph Smith had the advantage that his followers already believed in the ancient miracle tradition he invoked, as did the worshipers of Asclepius and other disciples who made claims of being healed, including the worshipers of Serapis who reportedly were healed by the Emperor Vespasian in the name of that ancient healing god. Whereas Jesus Christ invoked no ancient healing legend already believed in by those present at the reported miracle events.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Does God need to get with the Program and demand something different than FAITH from his humans?
This is to replace my post 3928 09-23 on p. 393 having incorrect link to the earlier quoted post/source. Other than correcting this, there is no edit.
Does God need some lessons on how to better manage his little ant farm?
That's all?
Maybe it matters what we believe, or that we believe. Why are you so sure that it doesn't matter? What test instead should the "entity" make as a criterion? How are you sure that the belief test is wrong?
What makes it wrong for the "entity" to care what we believe? or care whether we believe in the "entity" itself? How do you know it's wrong? How do you know what it's right or wrong for the "entity" to want from us?
You are saying, "Well, if I were to create a religion having an all-powerful entity impose a criterion onto us, my criterion would not be about belief in the entity itself, but about . . ."
But why does it matter what kind of religion you would create? or what you would want the entity to require as a criterion for humans? Who is asking you to create such a religion and determine what the "entity" should impose as a criterion?
If there is any such "entity" or evidence showing that he/she/it exists and has an interest in us, it makes more sense to ask what this "entity" has communicated to us as a criterion, if there is any, rather than for us to tell him/her/it what criterion to require of us.
Endless Walls of Text could be written on what the nature of "faith" or "belief" is, and why God would ask us to believe in him/her/it, or would not, and what criterion or test he/she/it should require of us if not the belief criterion. And how you know what criterion or test would be the right one for such an "entity" to impose.
We can't prove what the "entity" should want from us, or, what the "entity" should NOT want from us. If we have an indication that the "entity" wants belief from us, there's nothing logical we know of which says this cannot be. There's nothing in math or science or logic which says any self-respecting "all-powerful entity" would never demand belief in itself from us.
That this "entity" wants "human belief in itself as a criterion" is not something we can disprove or show to be fallacious or contrary to science or logic. We don't have facts or data or axioms to show that it would be incorrect for an "all-powerful entity" to make "tests of human belief in itself" a criterion
"Faith"/"believe" in the New Testament
Along with the evidence that Jesus did miracles, we see the word "faith" and "believe" over and over, in the NT writings, way beyond anything in other literature or philosophy or religion before the 1st century.
There are two Greek words here: pistis ("faith") and pisteuo ("believe"), which mean about the same, except one is a noun and the other a verb.
Either one of these two words far outnumbers any other significant word in the New Testament. Words for "love" or "God" or "justice" or "Law" or "commandments" or "righteous" or "obedience" etc. etc. -- all the important words -- are far outnumbered by either the pistis or the pisteuo word alone.
Jesus is quoted using these two words over and over, in the Synoptic Gospels, not to mention John and the Paul epistles where believing "in Christ" or faith "in Christ" appears over and over. In the Synoptic Gospels the "in Christ" words are not added to the "faith" and "believe" words as they are in Paul and John. But in the Synoptics his saying "Your faith has saved you" is quoted seven times: Mt 9:22, Mk 5:34, 10:52, Lk 7:50, 8:48, 17:19, 18:42.
You mean a whole-hazard way of toying with them would have been better?
You're basically complaining that somehow it's wrong for this "all-powerful entity" to care what humans believe, or if they believe. That's your instinct. But maybe the "entity" does care what we believe and if we believe.
My instinct is that the "entity" also wants us to think critically and choose our beliefs based on good reasons and on evidence, which contradicts much of what is taught in religion. However, the belief that Jesus had power, shown in the miracle acts, is based on evidence and is reasonable. While many other beliefs promoted by religion are not reasonable, and so probably the "entity" does not require them of us.
"Christianity" includes the unreasonable as well as the reasonable parts, and thus some parts to be rejected. How could there be anyone who does not find some fault, here or there, in all of "Christianity"?
So this topic, "reasons to reject Christianity," can mean reasons to reject or not reject the basic Christ belief, and not all the other religious beliefs, some of which are unreasonable -- and "half hazard" or whatever you want to call them. So I'm addressing why the basic Christ belief is reasonable and not to be rejected, whether there might also be some rejectable parts.
If this includes asking why the "entity" would care WHAT we believe, or IF we believe, an answer might be that he/she/it would care about our thinking, or what happens in our minds where the believing takes place, because the thinking or consciousness or mind activity is the most important part of us.
How about with 7 children?
What are you saying is "callous"? You mean it's callous for the "entity" to care what we believe?
If you know what it should be called and what it's OK for a "god construct" to be, it's OK with me. You lost me back there with the 6 "half hazard" children and the "eternal Auschwitz" metaphor.
Didn't they repeal eternal torment in a referendum vote?
Hah! That'd serve 'em right.
And how about Purgatory for those who didn't volunteer to help get out the vote to repeal eternal torment?
"custom"? Is that supposed to mean something bad?
Here's an example of my "theology" (from Mt 9):
The question "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" is important, plus the "Your faith has saved you" phrase in some other passages. It doesn't matter if you get a charge by calling this "custom deism" or some other jargon. What difference does it make what you call it?
I'm also intrigued by the "See that no one knows it" and "they went away and spread his fame" phrases, as having significance.
It's true that there is much emphasis on that theme. However, those same Christians, or 98% of them, also affirm that the events which happened 2000 years ago, including the Jesus miracles and his Resurrection, are indispensable elements, as facts of history, and are part of "the big thing" along with the theological interpretation of sin and blood sacrifice. Virtually none of them say that it's only the "sacrificing himself for our sins" thing which matters, divorced from those historical facts about his miracle acts, or from faith or believing.
You won't find many "Christians" who say those historical facts need to be expunged from "the big thing" part because they're not important.
And is your depiction. Anything sounds pathetic if you choose the right buzz-words to make it sound as nutty as possible.
If you say so.
But the miracles of Jesus were not human machinations. The evidence is that these were real events, and then afterwards came the theological interpretations and rhetoric which sometimes got bogged down, deteriorating from god-talk to god-babble, maybe because the mystics or gnostics or existentialist-type philosophers tried to put Jesus into their word-puzzles and actually botched it up rather than explaining it more clearly as they thought they were doing.
But that's what "Christian theology" generally does, i.e., "seems to make Jesus The God" -- though seldom using those words, as I don't use them. What is "discombobulated" about Jesus and God being connected, if we're discussing/debating Christian theology?
If "normative Christian theological constructs" are not something about Jesus and God being connected, then what are they about?
If I were Ed McMahon, I'd say: It's all right there, EV'rything in the world you could ever want to know about toppled gods is right there in that one Epigram!
You said, "he sure never did a good job getting the word out..."
"he" being God.
And you mean the number of believers is decreasing, because God did a poor job of making the Gospel get out there better or more efficiently.
But we don't really know if the number of believers is increasing or decreasing, because it's impossible to measure this.
But if you're right and the number is decreasing, the best explanation for this is that with the passing of time, centuries, there is a numbing effect which sets in, and an illusion that what allegedly happened so long ago cannot have any relevance today.
And this is an illusion, because the facts don't change with the passage of time. They just become less vivid, as the thinking creatures -- humans -- are overcome by the lower instincts which demand Present NOWNESS Impact over rational belief based on evidence. Some events could cause a change in this trend, so that Christ belief might increase again, for a period, but in the long run it may be true that any belief eventually decreases with the passage of time.
There may be nothing God could do to "get the word out" better without compromising something essential. A sudden huge cataclysmic event could be sent to force everyone to believe, but this kind of "belief" might not be the kind he wants.
So maybe he/she/it has done the best possible to "get the word out," because the "all-powerful entity" is making maximum use of its "tests of human belief in itself as a criterion" to achieve the desired end, e.g., saving the maximum number possible.
However one puts it, the complaint that "he sure never did a good job getting the word out" is not a "reason to reject Christianity," but just another knee-jerk. Or maybe a recommendation that God enroll at Trump University to improve his marketing and promotionalizing and pandering and snake-oil-selling skills.
This is to replace my post 3928 09-23 on p. 393 having incorrect link to the earlier quoted post/source. Other than correcting this, there is no edit.
Does God need some lessons on how to better manage his little ant farm?
That's all?
Maybe it matters what we believe, or that we believe. Why are you so sure that it doesn't matter? What test instead should the "entity" make as a criterion? How are you sure that the belief test is wrong?
What makes it wrong for the "entity" to care what we believe? or care whether we believe in the "entity" itself? How do you know it's wrong? How do you know what it's right or wrong for the "entity" to want from us?
You are saying, "Well, if I were to create a religion having an all-powerful entity impose a criterion onto us, my criterion would not be about belief in the entity itself, but about . . ."
But why does it matter what kind of religion you would create? or what you would want the entity to require as a criterion for humans? Who is asking you to create such a religion and determine what the "entity" should impose as a criterion?
If there is any such "entity" or evidence showing that he/she/it exists and has an interest in us, it makes more sense to ask what this "entity" has communicated to us as a criterion, if there is any, rather than for us to tell him/her/it what criterion to require of us.
Endless Walls of Text could be written on what the nature of "faith" or "belief" is, and why God would ask us to believe in him/her/it, or would not, and what criterion or test he/she/it should require of us if not the belief criterion. And how you know what criterion or test would be the right one for such an "entity" to impose.
We can't prove what the "entity" should want from us, or, what the "entity" should NOT want from us. If we have an indication that the "entity" wants belief from us, there's nothing logical we know of which says this cannot be. There's nothing in math or science or logic which says any self-respecting "all-powerful entity" would never demand belief in itself from us.
That this "entity" wants "human belief in itself as a criterion" is not something we can disprove or show to be fallacious or contrary to science or logic. We don't have facts or data or axioms to show that it would be incorrect for an "all-powerful entity" to make "tests of human belief in itself" a criterion
"Faith"/"believe" in the New Testament
Along with the evidence that Jesus did miracles, we see the word "faith" and "believe" over and over, in the NT writings, way beyond anything in other literature or philosophy or religion before the 1st century.
There are two Greek words here: pistis ("faith") and pisteuo ("believe"), which mean about the same, except one is a noun and the other a verb.
Either one of these two words far outnumbers any other significant word in the New Testament. Words for "love" or "God" or "justice" or "Law" or "commandments" or "righteous" or "obedience" etc. etc. -- all the important words -- are far outnumbered by either the pistis or the pisteuo word alone.
Jesus is quoted using these two words over and over, in the Synoptic Gospels, not to mention John and the Paul epistles where believing "in Christ" or faith "in Christ" appears over and over. In the Synoptic Gospels the "in Christ" words are not added to the "faith" and "believe" words as they are in Paul and John. But in the Synoptics his saying "Your faith has saved you" is quoted seven times: Mt 9:22, Mk 5:34, 10:52, Lk 7:50, 8:48, 17:19, 18:42.
You mean a whole-hazard way of toying with them would have been better?
You're basically complaining that somehow it's wrong for this "all-powerful entity" to care what humans believe, or if they believe. That's your instinct. But maybe the "entity" does care what we believe and if we believe.
My instinct is that the "entity" also wants us to think critically and choose our beliefs based on good reasons and on evidence, which contradicts much of what is taught in religion. However, the belief that Jesus had power, shown in the miracle acts, is based on evidence and is reasonable. While many other beliefs promoted by religion are not reasonable, and so probably the "entity" does not require them of us.
"Christianity" includes the unreasonable as well as the reasonable parts, and thus some parts to be rejected. How could there be anyone who does not find some fault, here or there, in all of "Christianity"?
So this topic, "reasons to reject Christianity," can mean reasons to reject or not reject the basic Christ belief, and not all the other religious beliefs, some of which are unreasonable -- and "half hazard" or whatever you want to call them. So I'm addressing why the basic Christ belief is reasonable and not to be rejected, whether there might also be some rejectable parts.
If this includes asking why the "entity" would care WHAT we believe, or IF we believe, an answer might be that he/she/it would care about our thinking, or what happens in our minds where the believing takes place, because the thinking or consciousness or mind activity is the most important part of us.
How about with 7 children?
What are you saying is "callous"? You mean it's callous for the "entity" to care what we believe?
If you know what it should be called and what it's OK for a "god construct" to be, it's OK with me. You lost me back there with the 6 "half hazard" children and the "eternal Auschwitz" metaphor.
Didn't they repeal eternal torment in a referendum vote?
Hah! That'd serve 'em right.
And how about Purgatory for those who didn't volunteer to help get out the vote to repeal eternal torment?
"custom"? Is that supposed to mean something bad?
Here's an example of my "theology" (from Mt 9):
The question "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" is important, plus the "Your faith has saved you" phrase in some other passages. It doesn't matter if you get a charge by calling this "custom deism" or some other jargon. What difference does it make what you call it?
I'm also intrigued by the "See that no one knows it" and "they went away and spread his fame" phrases, as having significance.
It's true that there is much emphasis on that theme. However, those same Christians, or 98% of them, also affirm that the events which happened 2000 years ago, including the Jesus miracles and his Resurrection, are indispensable elements, as facts of history, and are part of "the big thing" along with the theological interpretation of sin and blood sacrifice. Virtually none of them say that it's only the "sacrificing himself for our sins" thing which matters, divorced from those historical facts about his miracle acts, or from faith or believing.
You won't find many "Christians" who say those historical facts need to be expunged from "the big thing" part because they're not important.
And is your depiction. Anything sounds pathetic if you choose the right buzz-words to make it sound as nutty as possible.
If you say so.
But the miracles of Jesus were not human machinations. The evidence is that these were real events, and then afterwards came the theological interpretations and rhetoric which sometimes got bogged down, deteriorating from god-talk to god-babble, maybe because the mystics or gnostics or existentialist-type philosophers tried to put Jesus into their word-puzzles and actually botched it up rather than explaining it more clearly as they thought they were doing.
But that's what "Christian theology" generally does, i.e., "seems to make Jesus The God" -- though seldom using those words, as I don't use them. What is "discombobulated" about Jesus and God being connected, if we're discussing/debating Christian theology?
If "normative Christian theological constructs" are not something about Jesus and God being connected, then what are they about?
If I were Ed McMahon, I'd say: It's all right there, EV'rything in the world you could ever want to know about toppled gods is right there in that one Epigram!
You said, "he sure never did a good job getting the word out..."
"he" being God.
And you mean the number of believers is decreasing, because God did a poor job of making the Gospel get out there better or more efficiently.
But we don't really know if the number of believers is increasing or decreasing, because it's impossible to measure this.
But if you're right and the number is decreasing, the best explanation for this is that with the passing of time, centuries, there is a numbing effect which sets in, and an illusion that what allegedly happened so long ago cannot have any relevance today.
And this is an illusion, because the facts don't change with the passage of time. They just become less vivid, as the thinking creatures -- humans -- are overcome by the lower instincts which demand Present NOWNESS Impact over rational belief based on evidence. Some events could cause a change in this trend, so that Christ belief might increase again, for a period, but in the long run it may be true that any belief eventually decreases with the passage of time.
There may be nothing God could do to "get the word out" better without compromising something essential. A sudden huge cataclysmic event could be sent to force everyone to believe, but this kind of "belief" might not be the kind he wants.
So maybe he/she/it has done the best possible to "get the word out," because the "all-powerful entity" is making maximum use of its "tests of human belief in itself as a criterion" to achieve the desired end, e.g., saving the maximum number possible.
However one puts it, the complaint that "he sure never did a good job getting the word out" is not a "reason to reject Christianity," but just another knee-jerk. Or maybe a recommendation that God enroll at Trump University to improve his marketing and promotionalizing and pandering and snake-oil-selling skills.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
That was a lot of words. You should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is. Thanks.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
No, no, that's your story NOW. Read it again.
I was asking about your initial response to the claim that there were miracles reported that were credited to JS, and better documented than Jesus'. You were dismissive of the claim at first.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
And he should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how he knows that it is.