120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Eternal life is a possibility which we can reasonably hope for.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

What tells you we need or could even have a use for salvation?

It's the same as the "use" we have for living now rather than dying. Or for living tomorrow, in the future, rather than dying now. Do we want to live another 10 or 20 or 30 years? How is that so different than wanting to live again beyond death? If we want to live again tomorrow, waking up rather than staying asleep forever, might we not also want to "wake up" after dying?

What shows to you that we have an afterlife?

What shows us that we do not? It's a hope. What "shows" to us that there's nothing further after death?

There are claims about "near-death" experiences and other strange phenomena, and though these may not prove anything, some of them indicate an area of reality which does not fit into the normal pattern of "explainable" phenomena, and so it's best to leave open such possibilities rather than rule them out absolutely.

It's better to just say we don't know rather than to insist dogmatically that it cannot be.

What is 'logical' about Heaven?

What's "logical" about being annihilated?

If one likes living, then it's "logical" to want it to continue rather than coming to an end, or to resume after death. Even if there's no evidence for it, there's also no evidence against it or showing it to be improbable or unlikely, so it's not unreasonable to hope for it as a possibility. If you could prove that there is no such thing, only then is it unreasonable to hope for it.

You can't just say such a thing would be awful, and therefore one should not believe it.

Sure, we can. If there's no evidence for it at all, except fairy tales told to frighten people into believing and obeying, then it's just a rotten fairy tale.

But it's also a fairy tale to tell people there's no hell or punishment after death in order to make them feel good. What's realistic is to say we don't know, and to recognize that it's a possibility, or it's possible that there's more but we don't know, and the details might be anything from something very nice to something awful, and we would hope to escape from the awful, or to gain the nice possibility.

Even if it's awful, it does not follow that it can't be true. All you can do is hope it's not so.

Actually, we can do more. As with everything that mankind claims, the skeptic can ask, "Why should i believe that is true?"

We can ask that for ALL claims, including claims that there is nothing after we die. Or claims that no miracle event can ever happen.

We should always be skeptical and ask why to believe or what to believe. But the answer is not automatically that there is nothing to believe or that all beliefs for something good have to be false. Some beliefs are more likely than others. It's more reasonable to believe Jesus had power than to believe Mohammed or Zoroaster or Krishna had power. Where there's evidence, there's more reason to believe, or more likelihood of it being true.

In the case of eternal life as a possibility, we don't know. The answer isn't that there is no such thing, but rather, we don't know.

And so far, nothing you've offered is better than the woman at the New Age Bookstore who told me every month about her latest vision quest with Coyote.

What do you have against coyotes? or women having visions?



(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Did Jesus himself teach "salvation"/"eternal life"? Or is this only the language of the gospel writers and St. Paul?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

DBT: Nor is it Christ who offers salvation, but the authors of the text who include in their narrative both the carrot, the promise of salvation, and the stick: eternal damnation for disbelievers.

Hopefully their narrative, or depiction of Christ, is accurate, showing his power and quoting him saying "Your faith has saved you," in which case he is offering salvation. The authors who include this promise of salvation must have received this idea from somewhere. Also, Paul and the writer of the John Gospel interpret him as offering salvation.

Where did the word or idea of "gospel" or "good news" come from? i.e., "euangelion"? Not that it didn't exist before, but why does it appear so abruptly and frequently in the Christian writings? Where did this come from and what does it refer to?

Obviously Christ offered healing [if the accounts are true], but if that's all he offered, i.e., just a cure from leprosy or blindness etc., then the only ones needing "salvation" were those with bodily afflictions. If this is all he offered, then the "good news" is only for those with bodily afflictions [at that time]. But it's reasonable to interpret him as offering more than only this, or that he was offering something beyond this, which the healings point to, as a sign.

So it's not only the authors who proclaim salvation. If Christ did not proclaim it first, then you have to explain where the authors got this idea, i.e., why they made Christ the source of salvation. And this explanation is required regardless whether Christ also threatened hell fire and damnation as the alternative.

So it's not only the authors who proclaim salvation.

Yes, it is only the authors that offer Jesus as the path to salvation. There's no other reasonable evidence he ever said anything.

Do you mean that Jesus himself never said anything about salvation or about offering eternal life, but that it's only the later writers who put such words into his mouth?

In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is quoted saying the term "eternal life" only 4 times, while in John it's more than 20 times. But the term "Kingdom of God" means about the same as "eternal life" in the synoptic gospels. This is clear from Mark 10:17-23:

. . . "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth." And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!"

So, "eternal life" and "heaven" and "kingdom of God" mean about the same here, and of course the synoptic gospels give dozens of Jesus quotes with the term "Kingdom of God."

But, taking just the "eternal life" term by itself, this is attributed to Jesus more than to any other historical person, except St. Paul and later Christian theologians. No other famous person from ancient times is associated with this term or is quoted using it so much. There are more than 30 N.T. quotes of him using this term, and also St. Paul, an early source, uses the term in connection with Jesus at least 20 times.

And the term "life" is used about a dozen times to mean the same as "eternal life."

There's the further question of how the term is used, e.g., how to gain eternal life -- most of the references seem to say that it's good works, or obeying the commandments, which is required. The above text says that one cannot have eternal life unless he first sells all his possessions and gives the proceeds to the poor. But whatever the use of the "eternal life" term, it appears connected to Jesus, and used by him, far more times than anywhere else.

So it's reasonable to assume that Jesus must have said something about eternal life, or that he said or did something to cause this term to pop up in these N.T. writings so many times, way beyond their appearance in connection with anyone else, or anything else in the ancient literature.


How do we know what the historical Jesus himself really said or taught?

You could make a case that NONE of the sayings or teachings really came from him, but that all of it was composed by later writers who put sayings into his mouth or just invented the teaching (Paul).

One way to separate what he really said from what was attributed to him by later writers is to consider which of the sayings or teachings about him (or attributed to him) reflect already-existing ideas of that culture.

Some of the Jesus language in the gospels and epistles is arguably borrowed from that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The phrases "sons of light, sons of darkness" and "living waters" which are in John's gospel are also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, written earlier.

John (10:4, 14) takes the "living water" theme and adds "eternal life" to it, which is not in the Scrolls. The term "eternal life" is extremely rare in the Scrolls, and there's nothing promising "eternal life" to believers, or any similar language.

But there's much in the Scrolls about "eternal" damnation or destruction to the wicked. So we could reasonably conclude from this that the damnation and hell-fire theme was borrowed partly from the Scrolls, whereas the eternal life to believers was new to the Christ believers and probably came from Jesus himself.

There's only one phrase in all the Scrolls speaking of faith (or believing) IN someone. This is the "faith in the teacher of righteousness" phrase from the Habakkuk Commentary (commentary on Hab. 2:4):

Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgement because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness. ( http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html , column 7)

This is the only pre-Christian text about "believing" or "faith" IN someone, saying the believer is delivered from judgment. It could be argued that the Christian "faith" and "eternal life" words were derived from this one text of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But this is the only earlier text using such language, so you have to assume that this one text alone became the source for all the "believe in Christ" language of the N.T. writings.

There is virtually nothing in all the earlier literature, Jewish and pagan, saying anything about gaining salvation or eternal life through some Messiah or Savior or deity of some kind. The term "eternal life" is extremely rare, though it occurs in the Book of Enoch a few times and also in the Gilgamesh legend. And of course there is reference to afterlife, especially to judgment and punishment and torment, in much of the pagan traditions, but virtually no use of the "eternal life" wording.

So the New Testament language of being saved to eternal life by Christ is not likely based on anything earlier (with the above Scroll commentary being the only possible earlier such language), and so it's likely to be derived from something unique to Jesus, rather than part of the already-existing culture. This, plus the reported miracle healing acts, plus also the term "gospel" or euangelion or "good news" are all unique to the gospel accounts and Paul epistles, and so must come from something other than the pagan culture.

You can cite the 3 reported cases of Elijah/Elisha doing healing acts, as an earlier precedent, but these are the only 3 healing acts in the Hebrew scriptures, among dozens of O.T. miracle stories. And there is a huge gap of several centuries from these Elijah/Elisha miracles to the 1st century AD when the Jesus healing miracles suddenly pop up without any explanation.

So it's not apparent how the N.T. writers got these ideas about healings and faith and eternal life, as something borrowed from the earlier legends. The best explanation is that the Christ person himself is the origin of these reports of the "gospel" and salvation/eternal life message.


Is "ETERNAL LIFE" found in the earlier pagan literature?

Here is a website which tries to make the case that "eternal life" was taught in the pagan religions: http://pocm.info/pagan_ideas_salvation.html . The effort to make this case is very extreme in this site, and yet hardly any text offered from the pagan sources shows any emphasis on "eternal life" as something offered to humans for them to receive from God or the gods.

The best pre-Christian source offered by this website is the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which clearly contains ideas about the afterlife and offers rituals and procedures for the dead, which are supposed to help guarantee a better destiny for the deceased. Of course ideas about some kind of afterlife with punishment and reward did exist already, and Bible writers could have been influenced by that culture.

But there is nothing about a salvation offer from the gods or God, introducing something new to make eternal life possible, or an intervention into history to announce a salvation plan. The ideas or practices of the Book of the Dead were just ongoing rituals and ceremonies and prayers of unknown origin.

There is no case in the literature of a historical figure who performed miracle acts and offered salvation or announced something new that would make eternal life possible. And the term "eternal life" or similar language is very rare. Outside the N.T. writings, the only place we find this term emphasized is in the Gilgamesh legend, where it says "eternal life" is not possible for humans.

If the gospel writers or Paul were inspired by the Egyptian Book of the Dead to announce their "eternal life" message, why did no other new eternal-life cults appear (in addition to the Christ "gospel") also inspired from this source? This Egyptian source had been around for 1100 years before the Christ event of about 30 AD, so there was plenty of time for other similar cults to be inspired by these Egyptian beliefs and not only one.

There are many quotes to try to make the point that the "eternal life" message came earlier, but the best ones are from POST-Christian sources rather than anything prior to 30 AD.

Here is the best quote from this website to prove that "eternal life" was offered to humans by the pagan gods:

the guarantee of salvation were in the hands of the goddess, and the initiation ceremony itself a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace."
[Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21]

Does this sound like something Christian writers borrowed to copy-and-paste onto their Jesus Savior? The only problem is that this Apuleius was a 2nd-century AD author, writing this as sarcasm against the rising Christ cults, from which he borrowed this language.

Throughout this web page there are allusions to "eternal life" as though the gospel writers and Paul borrowed their idea of salvation from the earlier pagans who said these teachings. And yet none of the PRE-Christian pagan quotes says anything resembling the later Christian writings on "eternal life" and salvation. All such language as this is taken only from writers much later.

The site uses strong language to try to prove the connection to earlier pagan legends:

Was Christianity new? Was Christianity unique? If there's anything new and unique about Christianity, it's that it gives eternal life, right? Amazingly, that's wrong. In ancient times, around the Mediterranean, eternal life after death was just part of the culture. In Egypt, in Greece, in Rome, in Persia, you died, God judged you, and you lived forever. Good people lived forever happily. Bad people lived forever in torment. Sound familiar? Yes, it does.

What's wrong with this is that there are no quotes offered which say this. All the above is an expansion on the quotes that are listed, which goes way beyond what the quotes say. The idea of "eternal life" granted by a deity is very difficult to find. Very poor quotes can be found, but nothing comes close to anything we find in the Christian gospels/epistles. There simply are no quotes from the ancient literature to support this depiction or this comparison to the Christ "gospel" message.

You can find the punishment-reward dichotomy, and perhaps some of this language was borrowed by the N.T. writers, when they preached obedience to the commandments as a way to salvation, and wickedness/sin as something to be punished in Hell. But there is no earlier idea of a salvation act performed by God or gods intervening in history to provide a way to eternal life.

To confirm the dissimilarity of the Christ "gospel" message to the quotes in this website, you have to go to the page and look at the quotes offered. There is nothing there which can possibly be offered as something the gospel writers or Paul relied on to produce their "eternal life" or "salvation" language.

To be sure, there are some good works teachings, or the punishment-reward doctrines, which condemn the wicked to Hell and promise reward to the righteous for their virtuous living. That is the only idea that the Bible writers might have borrowed from the existing culture. But not the salvation teaching of the free gift of eternal life to believers.

What's more, belief in certain Gods was specifically associated with a better deal for the dead. Dionysus, for example, and Isis, and Kore.

But none of the many quotes this site offers from the ancient literature says any such thing. Modern debunker writers use this language, but never offer anything of it from the ancient sources. Nothing in any of the literature says that believers in this or that "God" gained any "better deal" or special salvation in some sense. There were rites, and there were threats of punishment against the cult's enemies, and a few praises for high-profile righteous heroes who went to be with the gods, but that's all you can find. No kind of invitation to ordinary people or offers of salvation or deliverance for them, and especially no particular act in history, or something new, i.e., "good news" of salvation.

To show how emphatically the author insists on connecting the Christ "eternal life" idea to pagan origin, here's more of his extreme language:

The next time you're in Church ask yourself: "What about what I'm hearing was new and unique with Christianity, and what was already part of other religions in a culture where over and over again new religions were built with old parts?" . . .

When they get to the part about Jesus' gift of eternal life, remember Lucian describing the beliefs of the ancients' "general herd" : Not only did your ancient Pagan-in-the-street believe in eternal life, he believed in an eternal life made up of rewards for the good and punishment for the bad.

Even this Lucian cited here is a 2nd-century AD author, though perhaps he's accurately describing some earlier beliefs. But why can't this website find anything from the pre-Christian literature to base this on?

You'll know you're hearing about stuff that predated Christianity by hundreds of years. In a culture where over and over people built new religions out of old parts, by the time Jesus brought salvation, the idea of eternal life had been a part of Mediterranean religion for three thousand years

Wow!

Yet nothing is quoted from any earlier source, before the New Testament writings. Except the Egyptian Book of the Dead, but since that was so much earlier (1100 BC), we should see some indication of some other upstart salvation cults offering a "gospel" of salvation during all that time, and yet there's nothing until the Christ cults popped up suddenly in the 1st century AD. So there's no reason to believe that Book inspired the Christ "gospel" of the 1st century AD, after failing to inspire any others during those intervening centuries.

You have to believe that if there's anything in the ancient literature to show this connection, between the Christ "gospel" of salvation and the earlier gods, we'd find it here in this website. Yet the quotes offered, of which there are many, don't show any such connection. This site surely has the best there is to offer, in ancient quotes, to show that "eternal life" teaching by Christians originated from paganism. And yet there is nothing there.

Anything close is only from modern authors, and also some ancient writings which are POST-Christian. So this website is strong evidence that Paul and the gospel-writers did not get these ideas from the earlier pagan literature, because it's not there. You need to click on the link and look at the quotes, which show a clear pattern of no quotes to support these claims other than POST-Christian sources.

The quotes are mostly interpretations and copycat language, taken from Christian language, post-Christian, and then a few pagan quotes also which say none of it, but just mention the wicked being punished in hell and reward to those who are righteous and heroic, but nothing about salvation being offered to those who believe.


Mithra cult parallels to Christianity

There are some quotes from the Mithra cult inscriptions, about blood atonement and forgiveness due to the hero Mithras who slew a bull, but the truth is that ALL the Mithra parallels to Christian atonement teaching are dated from 100 AD and later.

The Mithra cult originated earlier, but everything showing any parallel to Christianity is dated much later, POST-Christian. Even the notorious December 25 birthdate of Mithras cannot be established as any earlier than when this date was also chosen as the Jesus birthdate. So the Jesus-Mithra parallels are no evidence that Christian writers borrowed from paganism.

The best this website can do is offer some quotes about the wicked being punished in Hades and good people going to a place of reward, such as the "Elysian Fields," to be with the gods. There are no pagan quotes about receiving salvation as a free gift, as in Christ belief. And no "eternal life" is ever mentioned, but only "eternal" damnation or punishment.

Because of this uniqueness of the Christ belief in "eternal life" or salvation, the best conclusion is that this must originate from something Jesus himself did or taught, rather than from any earlier traditions.

Again, the site is: http://pocm.info/pagan_ideas_salvation.html Look at the quotes given and ask if these appear to have inspired the Christ "eternal life" promise or "gospel" message which appeared suddenly after 30 AD.


The Gilgamesh Legend and "Eternal Life"

We're offered the early Gilgamesh legend (c. 1800 BC) as a source for some of the Genesis stories, which might be a legitimate claim of a connection to earlier legend. And "eternal life" is mentioned in the Gilgamesh legend, but there it is shown to be denied to individual humans. There is no place where "eternal life" is offered to humans from gods or a superhuman entity.

If the Christ "eternal life" message might somehow be inspired from the Gilgamesh legend, there should have been similar subsequent cults, after 2000 BC, which made such claims or offers of "eternal life" to those who follow a belief system or religious teaching, but there is no case of this. So there is no explanation how the new Christ cult(s) believing in "eternal life" through Christ suddenly popped up from the early 1st century AD and quickly spread. It wasn't inspired by the Gilgamesh legend or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, to which there is virtually no resemblance, though afterlife ideas are to be found, and "eternal life" in the Gilgamesh legend.

On the other hand, if Jesus did actually perform the miracle acts and spoke of "eternal life" and "faith" and the "good news" to be propagated, then this explains the rise of the new Christ cult(s) and their new "eternal life" message. So we do have reason, or evidence, that the "eternal life" language or idea came from Jesus himself rather than from the already-existing culture.

And the "gospel" idea, the need to spread the salvation message, or missionary element, so unique to Christianity, is also best explained as originating from Jesus himself, who must have done something different to cause this new recruiting activity, which is not typical of earlier paganism or Judaism. I.e., this seems not to be borrowed from the earlier culture, and so must have been initiated by Jesus himself.

But meanwhile, there's plenty of earlier tradition about eternal damnation and torment in hell or Hades. And also "salvation" by doing good works or living righteously and obeying the commandments. So this is the part which might have been borrowed by the N.T. writers from the earlier culture, both pagan and Jewish.



(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[migrant]

Hope for whatever you like Lumpenproletariat.
Hope is just another thing you can die of.

 

[DBT]

Argument by sheer volume - nobody could hope to address the points in one post yet alone whole processions of walls of text.

I think the key points have already been addressed.

 

[funinspace]

Argument by sheer volume - nobody could hope to address the points in one post yet alone whole processions of walls of text.

I think the key points have already been addressed.

Seeing that Lumpy is replying to posts from Jan 14, 2015, I'd say it is a pretty sure bet that it has been addressed, whatever was vomited out above. Someone let me know when he gets to Jan 27, 2015 where I have a reply

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Did Jesus do miracles and offer "eternal life"? Or is this only the language of the gospel writers and St. Paul?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

If Christ did not proclaim it first, then you have to explain where the authors got this idea, i.e., why they made Christ the source of salvation. And this explanation is required regardless whether Christ also threatened hell fire and damnation as the alternative.

No, we don't have to explain exactly where the gospels came from.

Not "where the gospels came from," but how you know what he did or did not say, and how the "eternal life" idea proliferated if it did not originate from what he said. There are many quotes attributed to him, and it's reasonable to question whether he said all of it, but for any claim about what he really said or didn't say, you need to explain why you're sure he said this but not that.

The quotes about hell-fire and damnation are easily attributable to earlier ideas of that time, already written in earlier accounts about Hades and the underworld and souls suffering eternal punishment.

On the other hand, the idea about the good news, the "gospel" or euangelion is not an earlier idea occurring significantly in the literature, and the notion of being healed by "faith" or pistis is not an earlier idea in Greek or pagan belief, and is almost non-existent in earlier Hebrew belief.

So we have reason to believe the healing and "good news" and "faith" language in the gospels originated from Jesus himself, as something new which he introduced in some way. The Jesus quotes in the gospels indicate that he wanted "faith" from people and offered "salvation" ("Your faith has saved you"), and the narrative accounts indicate that he did healing and even raised the dead.

. . . we don't have to explain exactly where the gospels came from. We only have to ask, 'Why should we believe this to be true?'

But in trying to determine what is true and what is not, we need to consider where a certain idea came from, or a certain claim about what happened. You argued earlier that Jesus himself, the historical person, did NOT say the words about "eternal life" and "salvation" and that these words originate from the later writers rather than from Jesus himself.

Did the miracle acts really happen or not? And where did the "eternal life" and "salvation" and "faith" language come from? If they originated from writers decades later and have nothing to do with the historical Jesus, then it casts doubt on the credibility.

It helps answer this to note that the picture of him healing, offering "eternal life" or salvation, and asking for "faith" is not something borrowed from the existing culture of that time, even if some other elements might be attributed to earlier sayings or ideas, like Jewish or pagan ideas which used similar symbols or language.

Your method, where you assume it's true, THEN evaluate whether it could be true, is intellectually dishonest, and not a reason we should believe it to be true.

That's YOUR method, where you assume it's not true, then evaluate why it can't be true, despite some evidence that it is true. E.g., your assumption that the miracle stories can't be true, and thus your standard for excluding the gospel accounts as evidence for any events, because you first rule out those events; and to justify excluding this evidence you impose a rule onto historians that the gospel accounts are not part of the written historical record.

So that's YOUR logical procedure rather than mine. The right procedure is to look at the historical facts and consider them as evidence for what happened, and from this draw conclusions as to what likely happened.

There's nothing unreasonable about hoping for the salvation or eternal life, . . . What is reasonable is: "Eternal life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Christ's power, and I hope it's so."

EVEN IF we accept Jesus as having power over physical health, that's not reasonable evidence that souls exist, that they persist post mortem, that they face an afterlife, . . .

I'm not claiming anything about souls. I'm only assuming that consciousness exists. And we don't know if this might resume after death. It's a hope, or possibility. There's nothing requiring us to rule it out.

. . . or that the afterlife is something our actions can change.

Life is something our actions can change. The "afterlife" is just more life, so just as life can be changed by our actions, then probably the "afterlife" (the future) can likewise be changed. Even our thoughts can probably change life, and the future, and thus the afterlife.

I agree there are "jumps" in this reasoning, but they are not unreasonable "jumps" -- there are many such "jumps" in our thinking and in choices and actions. Such as the "other minds" jump and the "cause-and-effect" jump which cannot be proved (or disproved).

Your willingness to pretend this is a logical progression without the necessary steps in the middle . . .

But there ARE some logical steps -- just not enough to constitute PROOF. Much of what we believe contains doubt and lacks full proof, even though it's reasonable to believe it, based on limited evidence.

. . . without the necessary steps in the middle IS you saying "It must be so because I want it to be so."

No, it's me HOPING it is so because it's a possibility (not a "must be") which has not been disproved.

There may be no evidence indicating an afterlife, but there's also no evidence showing it to NOT be so or to be impossible. Just as there's no evidence for "other minds" and for cause-and-effect, which are based on instinct only, with no way to prove or disprove them.

There's no logical flaw: Since we don't know if it is or is not so, we can't rule it out as a possibility, and if it's a possibility, it's not unreasonable to hope it is so and also to anticipate or prepare for it happening. Just as we provide for the possibility of an emergency or accident etc. which might happen even if it's unlikely.

It's true that wanting it to be so does not make it so, but it also doesn't make it NOT so, and also, wanting it to NOT be so does not make it to not be so. So arguing that someone wants this or that to be true does not tell us what the truth is or is not.

You can't claim improbability of there being an afterlife -- only that we don't know and have no evidence. We do not have many other worlds to look at and reason: There's no afterlife in all these other worlds which we can observe in order to see if worlds offer their inhabitants an afterlife -- and so because no other worlds contained an afterlife for the beings in it, therefore this world likewise must have no afterlife. --- This is how we usually reason that something can be or cannot be. But when there's only one set of objects to observe and none others to compare to, there's no way to calculate the probability or what can or cannot be.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is the evidence for the Jesus miracles based on "hearsay"?

What is reasonable is: "Eternal life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Christ's power, and I hope it's so."

There is no evidence of "christs power". Only hearsay.

Not even that: only hearsay of hearsay...

The evidence for Christ's power, even if you put the "hearsay" label on it, is the same kind of evidence we have for most historical facts. Calling it "hearsay" does not undermine the credibility, unless you mean that most of our historical facts are lacking credibility.

The basic evidence is the written record saying that the events happened, and this is normally the evidence we have for historical facts.

Some of these facts are more strongly supported, verified, corroborated than others. But many of our accepted historical facts are reported to us in ONE SOURCE ONLY, and so have no corroboration outside the one source.

And virtually ALL our historical facts from antiquity are reported to us by a writer who was not present at the event, and who was even separated by decades from the time of the event, often even 100 years later.

Surely such facts are based on "hearsay" if the one reporting it was that far removed. And yet we routinely believe these facts of history. They're probably true, but there is the normal element of uncertainty or doubt. The facts about the miracle acts of Jesus are in this category. Even though the major historical facts are more firmly established, with greater corroboration, the vast number of minor facts with little or no corroboration are still routinely accepted as true.

There is no evidence of "christs power". Only hearsay.

Not even that: only hearsay of hearsay...

i don't think there is evidence that anyone was actually interviewed to justify the idea that the Bible is based on hearsay or first, second, third, or more hand accounts

What is your point?

that you are making shit up

that you are making shit up

But in the context of Lumpy's assertions, his 'evidence' is the theory that eyewitnesses passed dependable tales of the miracles by oral tradition, across a couple of generations, until someone wrote down what he'd heard.

Not too far off, but let's clean it up:

There's no reason to assume that the reports were oral only, over 2 generations. In fact, it's highly probable that there were earlier written accounts. The written accounts we have now, e.g., the manuscripts, are what was preserved by being copied. But by far the vast majority of written documents were not preserved, not copied (enough times) in order to survive. So there's no reason to say that the final documents which did survive to us were based on oral tradition only. Much of it probably had been written in earlier versions which did not survive.

Also, we can assume there were eyewitnesses, as with any other historical events. But obviously we don't have the eyewitnesses, or eyewitness accounts for any of the historical facts, so we're conjecturing that witnesses at the events existed and that they are the ultimate direct source for the later written reports that have become our source.

Which would make Lumpy's use of the term 'evidence' less accurate than 'hearsay testimony documenting the receipt of hearsay testimony of eyewitness testimony of a miracle.'

You can string a long label like this on it, but you have to do the same with most of our historical facts from the period.

The important point is that our evidence for the miracles of Jesus is the same kind of evidence that we have for most of our history from those times.

Also, we do NOT have similar evidence for other miracle claims, such as the miracles of Apollo or Prometheus or Perseus or Horus or Krishna or Wotan or Zoroaster or Gautama and so on. For these we do not have written accounts near to the time of the alleged events, such as we have in the case of the Jesus miracle events.

 

[DBT]

In fact, it's highly probable that there were earlier written accounts.

Even if there was, we have no way of knowing what they said. Keep in mind that Christianity splintered in numerous sects and factions right from the start. Had each of these groups written their own dogma and they were still available we would have numerous accounts that do not agree with each other, nor what has survived the culling process being what we currently do have, the NT.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What shows to you that we have an afterlife?

What shows us that we do not? It's a hope. What "shows" to us that there's nothing further after death?

This is classic argument from ignorance. It's the one making the claim that has to provide evidence. Becuase of your bad form your argument can be dismissed immidiately without even having to explore the issue. Please learn how logic works.

There are claims about "near-death" experiences and other strange phenomena, and though these may not prove anything, some of them indicate an area of reality which does not fit into the normal pattern of "explainable" phenomena, and so it's best to leave open such possibilities rather than rule them out absolutely.

It's better to just say we don't know rather than to insist dogmatically that it cannot be.

Ehe... what? We've studied what happens when the brain loses oxygenation extensively. Especially when it comes to designing fighter planes. Why? Because G-forces suck the blood out of the head and gives the pilots the exact same experiences as any near death annecdote. G-force centrifuges are used to study this. Everybody trying them has out of body experiences. Yet, nowhere near risking death.

It's nothing more amazing than your computer starting to behave strangely when it's over-heating. It's purely a physical effect on the brain and we can and have proved it.

Why say we don't know something when we do know? We know how near death experiences work. It's not even hard to explain.

What is 'logical' about Heaven?

What's "logical" about being annihilated?

Argument from ignorance again. How do you know we aren't turned into an invisible unicorns with a penchant for croquet when we die? Please provide some evidence that we have any reason to believe in the after life.

We do have one very strong piece of evidence that we're just annihilated. Strokes. We know that all human behaviour is the result of brain chemistry. So when stuff stops happening there's nothing more going on. Before postulating an afterlife perhaps you should start by digging yourself out of that hole?

If one likes living, then it's "logical" to want it to continue rather than coming to an end, or to resume after death. Even if there's no evidence for it, there's also no evidence against it or showing it to be improbable or unlikely, so it's not unreasonable to hope for it as a possibility. If you could prove that there is no such thing, only then is it unreasonable to hope for it.

Reality doesn't care what you want. I want to have a harem of silicone tittied sex slave strippers living in my apartment. I have a feeling that no matter of wishful thinking will make it so. And any fool can work out that me getting my stripper harem coming true is a hell of a lot more likely than Heaven existing.

I have no idea what compelled me to answer. Since you haven't grasped the most basic aspect of logic. Please look into it. Christianity is actually the result of Greek Aristotelian logic being applied on Jewish theology. How about you reconnecting with your Christian roots. You might learn something. Thomas Aquinas is a Christian apologist. It's all logic. When you look at his idiotic proofs for the existence for God you might question the foundations for all of it. And Thomas Aquinas is widely acknowledged as being the best any Christian philosopher ever has managed. He was sainted for his work in logic.

Here's a great site on logic

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

 

[Keith&Co.]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Originally Posted by Keith&Co. .

Originally posted on 15 January, 2015.
It's amazing how disinterested i get if it takes over two years to think of a comeback...

 

[Lion IRC]

And yet here you are reading and taking note.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And yet here you are reading and taking note.

My, you really do like to read things into others' posts, don't you?
Have i actually noted anything besides the date of the post he's replying to?

I mean, really, you're the one who posts for the express purpose of telling people you're ignoring them.

 

[Lion IRC]

You're off topic

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're off topic

What?
My post didn't signify what you're attempting to infer out of it, and you've got no leg to stand on to make such an observation, anyway.
And this thread is a completely fucked up effort, anyway, so 'off topic' is hardly even possible.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The miracles of Jesus are evidence that eternal life is a reasonable possibility, regardless what causes consciousness.

What shows to you that we have an afterlife?

What shows us that we do not? It's a hope. What "shows" to us that there's nothing further after death?

This is classic argument from ignorance.

I plead guilty to not knowing whether there is an afterlife. I only hope there is. It's OK to admit one's ignorance, or not knowing, and then reasoning from that ignorance. Which in this case means leaving open the possibility of afterlife, but recognizing that we don't know.

It's the one making the claim that has to provide evidence.

That would be you, claiming there is no afterlife. I'm not making any claim, but just saying we don't know.

There's no evidence for the claim that there is no life after death. A negative claim requires evidence as much as a positive claim. Otherwise, all you can say is that we don't know.

The resurrection of Jesus is evidence for an "afterlife" possibility, though it's not proof. We have this historical case of a return to life after death. It doesn't prove eternal life, but it indicates the possibility of overcoming death, so offers reasonable hope of a source for eternal life.

Because of your bad form your argument can be dismissed immediately without even having to explore the issue. Please learn how logic works.

No "argument" should be dismissed out of hand, not even your dogma claiming knowledge and proof that there can't be any life after death.

There are claims about "near-death" experiences and other strange phenomena, and though these may not prove anything, some of them indicate an area of reality which does not fit into the normal pattern of "explainable" phenomena, and so it's best to leave open such possibilities rather than rule them out absolutely.

It's better to just say we don't know rather than to insist dogmatically that it cannot be.

Ehe... what? We've studied what happens when the brain loses oxygenation extensively. Especially when it comes to designing fighter planes. Why? Because G-forces suck the blood out of the head and gives the pilots the exact same experiences as any near death anecdote. G-force centrifuges are used to study this. Everybody trying them has out of body experiences. Yet, nowhere near risking death.

It's nothing more amazing than your computer starting to behave strangely when it's over-heating. It's purely a physical effect on the brain and we can and have proved it.

Why say we don't know something when we do know? We know how near death experiences work. It's not even hard to explain.

It's not true that you've explained something by being able to reproduce the phenomena, even though it adds to the knowledge. If you really understood the experiences and could explain them, then you'd be able to prescribe the particular phenomena that are experienced, which you cannot do. All you can do is induce certain chemical changes, and then something is experienced, but you cannot design the content of the experiences, i.e., you cannot write the "script" of the phenomena experienced by the subject.

All your test subjects are persons who regained normal consciousness. We don't know what happened to those who had these experiences and then did not return to normal consciousness but expired.

What is 'logical' about Heaven?

What's "logical" about being annihilated?

Argument from ignorance again.

What's wrong with admitting that we don't know?

I'm saying it's not unreasonable to hope it's true if it has not been proved false.

How do you know we aren't turned into an invisible unicorns with a penchant for croquet when we die?

I don't know it. You're the one claiming to know everything that does or doesn't happen.

Please provide some evidence that we have any reason to believe in the after life.

Which version of "the after life"? There are many versions of what the "after life" would be like.

The resurrection of Jesus is evidence for the possibility of returning to life after death.

We do have one very strong piece of evidence that we're just annihilated. Strokes. We know that all human behaviour is the result of brain chemistry. So when stuff stops happening there's nothing more going on.

Assuming this is true, it means that if a brain or a human is duplicated, the duplicate would be the same person in a second body (or brain). Same consciousness, memories, etc.

Which means that if in the future it becomes possible to duplicate an earlier person (from 100 or 1000 years earlier), that duplicate would be the same person, same consciousness etc.

Duplicating an object, even something alive, is a reasonable possibility some time in the future. The duplicate would have to be exactly the same as the original in all its components, to the most minute particles.

There is no need to establish how the duplicating process might eventually be invented -- it's a scientific possibility, regardless of the details of the process. The duplicating material would have to contain all basic substances/elements/particles, and the arrangement or structure of the material (in the original) would be identified and copied.

This establishes the possibility of "life after death" in a certain form, i.e., as a duplicate from an earlier original. Not yet possible, but consistent with scientific principles. So it's reasonable to consider "life after death" as a future possibility, produced by science, and probably also by other non-human powers which might exist.

It doesn't matter what the process will be or how long into the future it might finally be produced. Also, there would be no "wait" period experienced by someone duplicated by such a process. That person would "awaken" hundreds or thousands of years later and would experience it as only a moment later, after their latest memory.


Life after death is still a possibility, even if consciousness is caused by brain activity.

Since the details of the process, such as brain duplication, are speculative only, the basic principle for now is simply that it is a future possibility, and even a present possibility happening somewhere that we don't know of. So there's no basis for saying it cannot be or is impossible in principle, or that annihilation is necessary. Only that we don't know of it happening, and all you can reasonably say is that it's probably not happening in the present world or else we'd know of it. Maybe.

So it's not unreasonable to hope for it as a possibility, even if the brain material is an essential element, as you assert. We don't know for sure that the brain matter is absolutely necessary, but even if it is, there is still the possibility of "life after death" by duplicating the original brain, or brain process.

It's a reasonable hope, without the need to establish the technical engineering of it. It's a possibility, by whatever method, but we don't know that it will happen or is happening. Given the advance of science, it's difficult to imagine it not eventually being produced by scientists in order to "bring back" humans from earlier or produce "immortality" in some form.

There will probably be some way to do it without having actual duplicate brains per se. But it doesn't matter exactly what form it takes. Duplicate brains is one possibility, if all thinking/consciousness is absolutely dependent on the brain matter. But also, perhaps all the pertinent brain activity could be duplicated in computers.

I sort of hope that the "eternal life" offered by Christ is of a "higher order" than that of duplicating brains or brain matter, but this is a detail not to lose sleep over. It is a reasonable possibility one way or another, regardless of the particular technique.

Before postulating an afterlife perhaps you should start by digging yourself out of that hole?

You're demanding a scientific description of the technical process causing the consciousness to resume after death, as if such a thing is impossible. But if such a process, or a phenomenon like consciousness, is possible now, before death, then why is such a process necessarily impossible later, after death? Whatever that process was, going on in the brain, when we're alive, why couldn't that same process be recreated, resumed, put back into motion, at some later point, AFTER death. If not immediately, maybe 1000 years later, or whenever?

If there's a power to make that same process operate again, with all the same components in place, then the same consciousness could resume, just as before, or perhaps with some changes.

The agnostic view is the most rational: we don't know. There's no evidence that it's impossible, and so it's not unreasonable to hope for it to happen.

Those who claim it's impossible have the burden of proof on them to show why it's impossible. Whereas the agnostic view that we don't know does not require proof.

What is 'logical' about Heaven?

What's "logical" about being annihilated?

If one likes living, then it's "logical" to want it to continue rather than coming to an end, or to resume after death. Even if there's no evidence for it, there's also no evidence against it or showing it to be improbable or unlikely, so it's not unreasonable to hope for it as a possibility. If you could prove that there is no such thing, only then is it unreasonable to hope for it.

Reality doesn't care what you want.

The question was, "What is logical about Heaven?"

I don't know what this question means. But one interpretation might be "Why do you want there to be a Heaven?" or "Why do you want to live again after dying?" It doesn't mean "What does reality care about?"

The same questioner (Keith&Co.) asked "What tells you we need or could even have a use for salvation?" So I took the question as being about the desirability of "Heaven" rather than if it exists.

Maybe the question, "What is logical about Heaven?" is incoherent.

I want to have a harem of silicone tittied sex slave strippers living in my apartment. I have a feeling that no matter of wishful thinking will make it so.

And no amount of your wanting life after death to not be so will make it not be so.

How would you answer the question, "What is logical about having a harem of . . . strippers etc.?"

And any fool can work out that me getting my stripper harem coming true is a hell of a lot more likely than Heaven existing.

You don't know the likelihood of Heaven existing, or of something beyond death. Why can't you just say you don't know? The premise that we don't know is more rational than insisting dogmatically that no such thing can be.

If consciousness is due to brain activity only, it's very likely that future human science will bring back humans from the past, by reproducing those brain processes in some way, for particular individuals. This might have more usefulness than producing the harem you fantasize about.

I have no idea what compelled me to answer. Since you haven't grasped the most basic aspect of logic. Please look into it. Christianity is actually the result of Greek Aristotelian logic being applied on Jewish theology.

You're referring to medieval scholasticism, but not to what caused the Christ cult(s) to emerge in the first century, which is more basic and more important.

How about you reconnecting with your Christian roots. You might learn something. Thomas Aquinas is a Christian apologist. It's all logic. When you look at his idiotic proofs for the existence for God you might question the foundations for all of it. And Thomas Aquinas is widely acknowledged as being the best any Christian philosopher ever has managed. He was sainted for his work in logic.

Aquinas does not address the points we're raising -- whether eternal life is possible or if we know how life could be made to resume after death.

Here's a great site on logic

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

It's not about logical fallacies, but about whether the Christ events reported in the gospel accounts really happened; and if they did, there is good reason to believe there is something beyond death, or the possibility of eternal life, though it's only evidence, not proof. There's no logical fallacy in this.

Those claiming absolute certainty have a problem with logic. But it's about reasonable hope, not about proof or claims based on absolute certainty. Most of life and of our thinking and making choices is based on reasonable possibilities and not certainty.

 

[DBT]

The resurrection of Jesus is evidence for the possibility of returning to life after death.

Now all we need is evidence that the resurrection in fact occurred rather than what is said in the gospel stories to have occurred.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There's nothing wrong with hoping for something that's a reasonable possibility.

...
What is reasonable is: "Eternal life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Christ's power, and I hope it's so."

And this is every bit as reasonable as "Christmas toys for the rest of my life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Santa's power, and I hope it's so."

Please explain the difference if any exists.

As long as "Santa" just means the source of the Christmas toys every year, maybe there isn't much difference. I.e., whatever that source is that the toys came from. In both cases there is evidence for what is being hoped for.

A minor difference is that the evidence for "Santa" happens repeatedly every year, whereas the evidence for the Christ power was the event 2000 years ago, which is recorded in written documents from the time.

But if "Santa" means the jolly elf who rides around the world in his sled pulled by reindeer, landing on every rooftop, in one night, then there's no evidence for that, whereas we have evidence for the Christ miracle acts.

And this is every bit as reasonable as "Christmas toys for the rest of my life is a possibility, based on the evidence of Santa's power, and I hope it's so."

Please explain the difference if any exists.

He already did explain the difference.
Namely, "We're not talking about Santa."
So there.

No, it's a legitimate analogy. There's not much difference as long as "Santa" is not the magical character for which there's no evidence.

There's some other minor differences too, but as far as the credibility and the hope of getting what one hopes for, there's no need to insist on the 2 being different.

Eternal life is something much bigger to hope for. E.g., "Would you prefer a 50-million-dollar mansion on your own private tropical island with a yacht? -- or an ice cream cone?"

 

[James Brown]

"Would you prefer a 50-million-dollar mansion on your own private tropical island with a yacht? -- or an ice cream cone?"

With the maintenance costs, the taxes, the upkeep of all that? Forget it. I'll take the ice cream cone.

 

[funinspace]

You're off topic

What?
My post didn't signify what you're attempting to infer out of it, and you've got no leg to stand on to make such an observation, anyway.
And this thread is a completely fucked up effort, anyway, so 'off topic' is hardly even possible.

"Wrong, Do it again!"
"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

 

[Lion IRC]

He's done nothing but whine about my unwillingness to engage with anything he posts.

Keith - wanna start over? (You too Bilby)

Just limit your (obvious) intellect to the arguments instead of the abusive ad hom stuff (poisoning the well) and maybe just one (1) or two up reps to balance all the the negative karma - it wouldn't kill you to lighten up.

Come on dude. Can't you gimme an up vote for anything?