120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

Rather, you're just as bad off either way whether you join the "wrong" one or you just join none.

According to Pascal's Wager, as you seem to understand it, our options are Heaven, Hell or It doesn't matter. The only way to get to Heaven, it concludes, is to accept a religion, and the only way to get to Hell is not to accept a religion.
This is a lie, though, as you concede that picking the wrong religion leaves you 'just as bad off.' So of the four possible outcomes, the choice you make will more likely lead you to Hell than Heaven, thus the Wager lies.

Or at least, it's only valuable as a rationalization to feel smug after you've selected a religion.

Just because Pascal's Wager is partly flawed does not mean that any argument that resembles that thinking has to be flawed.

Never said it did.
YOu seem to think i have some sort of prejudice against 'better safe than sorry' arguments because of PW.
The actual state of affairs is that PW only purports to be an argument.
It's too flawed to count, though.

The outburst "Pascal's Wager! Pascal's Wager!" is not a good argument against a "we don't know" or "it might be" reasoning.

But i've explained why Pascal's Wager is not valuable for reasoning. Why do you accuse me of just shouting the name?

What they teach is: "Believe ours and you're better off." But if you don't believe theirs, it doesn't matter if you believe a "heresy" or just believe nothing at all -- you're just as bad off either way.

So once more, PW is a lie.
You can adopt a virtuous life and still be burning in Hell, just like an atheist.

Pascal's Wager is only good as a rationalization after the fact. To make a believer feel good about their belief.

No more so than rejecting Pascal's Wager is also a rationalization after the fact -- to make a non-believer feel good about their nonbelief.

Not at all. I don't believe because i see no reason to believe in gods. Or damnation. I have thought about the wager, though, and i see why it's seductive.
It just isn't worth a damn as an argument.

If instead one takes an agnostic view that we don't know what the truth is, then a P.W. kind of reasoning might be correct.

But it's not reasoning, therefore that 'kind' of reasoning cannot be correct.

There can never be anything wrong with saying, "I don't know, but what if it's true?"

Well, by 'it' do you mean all religion in general? Because then we have to determine
what if Satanism is true? and,
what if Shintoism is true? and,
what if Shatnerism is true? and,
666 Watch
Adidam The Way Of The Heart
African Methodist Episcopalian Church
AME Church
Amish
Anglican
Anthroposophy
Apollinarian
Apostolics
Aquarian Concepts
Aradianic Faerie Witches
Arian
Atanasian
Assemblies of God
Avatar
Aaronic Order
Abbey of Thelema
Abode of the Message,
Academy for Guided Imagery,
Academy of Religion and Psychical Research
Adelphi Organization,
Adeptco
Afterlife Telegrams
Advanced Organization of Los Angeles (AOLA),
Adventism,
Aesthetic Realism Foundation (UFO related)
Aetherius Society,
Agasha Temple of Wisdom,
Agon Buddhism,
Ahabah Asah Prophetic Ministries
Ahmadiyya Movement,
AION
Alamo Christian Foundation,
Alan Shawn Feinstein Association (UFO Related)
Alchemy,
Aleph,
Aleph: Alliance for Jewish Renewal,
Aletheia Psycho-Physical Foundation
Alex Chiu's immortality device
All-One-God-Faith,
All Souls Unitarian Church,
Alphabiotic New Life Center,
Alphasonic International
Amalgamated Flying Saucer Clubs of America (UFO Related)
Ambassadors For Christ,
Ameba,
American Academy of Dissident Sciences
American Association of Ayurvedic Medicine
American Constitution Committee,
American Fellowship Services
American Foundation for the Science of Creative Intelligence
American Gnostic Church,
American Holistic Nurses Association,
American Imagery Institute,
American Pie and the Armageddon Bible Prophecy Home Page:
American Society for Psychical Research
American Study Group
American Temple
Ananda Church of Self Realization
Ananda Marga Yoga Society ,
Ancient Mystic Order of Malchizedek
Ancient Wisdom Connection,
Anglo-Israelism
Answers Research and Education,
Apostolic Overcoming Holiness of God, Inc,
Aquarian Academy,
Aquarian Age Teaching,
Aquarian Church of Universal Service,
Aquarian Educational Group,
Aquarian Concepts,
Aquarian Foundation,
Aquarian Minyan,
Aquarian Tabernacle Church,
Arete Truth Center,
Arizona Metaphysical Society,
Arm of the Lord,
Armageddon Time Ark Base Operation,
Armstrongism,
Arn Draiocht Fein
Arunachala Ashram,
Aryan Nations Church,
Asatru Free Assembly
Ascended Master Teaching Foundation
Ascended Masters
Ascended Masters School of Light
Ascension Week Enterprises,
ASCENT Foundation
Asheville Meditation Center,
Assemblies of the Called Out Ones of "Yah"
Assemblies of Yahweh,
Assemblies of Yahweh (7th day)
Assembly of Scientific Astrologers
Assembly of Yahweh
Assembly of YHW Yoshua
Associated Readers of Tarot International
Associates for Scriptural Knowledge
Association for Christian Development,
Association for Past-Life Research and Therapies,
Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.),
Association for the Understanding of Man,
Association of Unity Churches,
Association Sananda & Sanat Kumara,
Astro Computing Services,
Astrology,
Atlantic Pagan Council,
Aum Shinri Kyo
Avanta Network
Avatar
Awareness Research Foundation
Ayurvedic Lifestyle Center
Baptist
Baptists, Primitive
Baptists, Southern
British Traditional,
Buddhism or Buddhism
Bhagavan Sri Ramana
Boston Church of Christ
Branhamism
Brownsvile Revival
Bruderhof
Bear Tribe Medicine Society
(The) Bible UFO Connection (UFO related)
Believers International
Bet Hashem – The House of YHWH
Beth El Shaddai
Beth HaShem
Bible Speaks
Biointegration
BioPsciences Institute
Blue Mountain Center of Meditation
Blue Rose Ministry
Blue Star
Borderland Science Research Foundation Garberville,
Branch Davidians,
Brethren
British Israelism
Brotherhood and Order of the Pleroma
Brotherhood of Eternal Truth,
Brotherhood of Seth,
Brotherhood of the Followers of the Present Jesus,
Brotherhood of Seth
Brotherhood of the Seven Rays,
Brotherhood of the White Temple,
Buddha’s Universal Church,
Builders,
Builders of the Adytum
Luciferian Liberation Front
Western Nath Order,
White Dove International
Whitelights
Whole Life Network
Wholistic Innerworks Foundation
Willow Keep,
Windsong Explorations,
Wisdom Institute of Spiritual Education,
WISE International,
Woman’s Circle,
Women’s Federation for World Peace,
Womyn Healing,
Word-Faith Movement,
World Community for Christian Meditation
World Council of Churches
Worldwide Church of God
(The) Weigh Down Diet and founder
World Outreach Church
Yahwehism
Yahweh’s Assembly in Messiah
Yes Education Society
Yoga
Yoga Research Foundation
Yoga Research Society
Zen Atheism
Zen Buddhism
Zodian New Age
Zones of Apollyon Sell your soul here.
Zukav New Age
Zendik Farm
Zentech
Zerubbabel
Zoroastrianism
Tenets of the Zoroastrians
Zygon International

How do you go about considering what if it (all of the above) is true?
Or, how doyou go about trimming off some of the possibles? Not by PW, that's for sure.

It's never worthless to seek what is more likely true, even if you can't know for sure, unless there is no benefit from finding truth. If there is a benefit to knowing the truth, or believing it, then it's beneficial if P.W. comes into play to help one find that truth.

But the wager does NOT help find the TRUTH. It does nothing to help a seeker differentiate between two offered truths to find the real one. It has no capacity for their being more than one religion.

This is so even though there may be several conflicting beliefs competing for attention. This competition going on does not then lead to the conclusion, "Oh they're all hogwash! To Hell with them all!"

I'm not saying that a rejection of PW means that i reject everything BECAUSE i reject PW.
I'm saying PW is not an argument.

Pascal's Wager per se should not be used as an argument for or against believing one way or the other.

Okay, sure.
I'm not saying that any religion is wrong based upon PW.
I am only saying that PW is a rationalization, not an argument to support any religion.

It makes no sense to say: "AH! Gotcha! That's a Pascal's Wager argument, so you must be wrong! I win the debate because you used a P.W. argument!"

Did someone hurt you with PW some time? Because you're projecting quite a bit of shit onto me for no reason.

That kind of reasoning is always wrong. It's OK to say things like, "We don't know -- it could be one way or the other" and so on, and it's not ipso facto fallacious because it smells like a P.W. argument.

I think you mean de facto....

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's never worthless to seek what is more likely true, even if you can't know for sure, unless there is no benefit from finding truth.

That is not demonstrably true.

Imagine that the most correct religion in the universe is that practiced by the Southern Baptist church in Macon at the corner of Peachtree and 3rd.
Now, someone who was raised Mormon seeks the Truth. He examples Pascal's Wager. He finds that he is already living a virtuous life, and not an atheist. The Wager tells him that he's going to Heaven and has no need to seek further truth. According to the Baptists, he's going to Hell for worshiping the wrong Christ.
His appeal to PW has doomed him.

So, you can't really pretend that it all boils down to 'better safe than sorry.' PW doesn't allow for any chance of more than one religion being considered .

 

[DBT]

Just because Pascal's Wager is partly flawed does not mean that any argument that resembles that thinking has to be flawed.

Pascal's Wager is not partly flawed. Pascal's Wager is fatally flawed.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why shouldn't we believe the Jesus miracle stories? What's untrustworthy about the accounts?

You are clearly incapable of determining what is or is not a source, and what is or is not independent. If there were 2, 3 or 4 INDEPENDENT stories of Jesus's miracles, then they might be worth further investigation - although even then, likely not;

The 3 synoptic gospels are separate sources, and "independent" insofar as we need them to be "independent" and thus reliable.

Though they are collections of earlier accounts of the events, that does not change the fact that they are separate "independent" accounts. The fact that there is overlapping of the sources they use does not mean these collections are not independent.

To claim this makes them non-independent and thus unreliable is like saying a historian is not reliable if he uses earlier documents, or relies on the same previous document another historian relied on. What's wrong with an historian relying on previous sources? Why shouldn't he be dependent on previous sources?

Are you demanding all accounts be rejected except those written by the original eye-witnesses? They cannot be dependent on any previous account? Most events we know from history do not come down to us directly from eye-witness accounts, but from later writers who relied on previous sources.

What we must require for extra corroboration is more than one source document, but not that each source has to be independent of any previous source. That wouldn't make any sense. We want those who record the events for us to rely on the best source, which in most cases is not their own personal direct contact with the events.

Each redactor worked independently of the others and relied on previous sources, written and probably oral. That they relied heavily on earlier sources does not cast doubt on the credibility of the accounts, but increases the credibility, because it shows that the redactors did not invent their own accounts but relied on earlier sources closer to the events. This shows their concern to provide a reliable account.

What non-independence of these accounts makes them less reliable? We have more reliability here than for historical events that we have only one document for as a source.

eyewitness evidence is the lowest level of evidence, . . .

To call it the "lowest level of evidence" is a meaningless outburst. If this were true, then such evidence would be excluded from criminal cases. Also, most historical events would have to be tossed out as false, because even the later accounts rely on earlier sources that trace back to eye-witness accounts.

. . . and actions that are claimed to have violated physical law can be ruled out as true absent proper forensic evidence for their having occurred.

The miracle healing accounts of Jesus did not necessarily violate physical law. They were unusual events, and they showed power that is not known to current science, but that doesn't mean they violated physical law.

There is no reason, in science or logic, to dogmatically rule out the possibility of any event that is highly unusual or cannot be explained by contemporary science. You may personally choose such a dogmatic premise, but logic and science do not require such dogmatism. It is reasonable to require a higher standard of evidence for a miracle event, but not to rule it out based on an absolutist principle.

We can't go back and test the claim; but we can say that it is incompatible with claims that we CAN test -- such as that mass/energy are always conserved, and that entropy increases in a closed system.

The cures that Jesus performed did not violate the principles of energy conservation and entropy.

You are happy to consider Steve's and Joe's accounts as independent sources for my claim about my dragon. But that is truly foolish -- because the only source you have for their accounts is my post; and the claim is incompatible with the rest of our knowledge of the world.

If you and several witnesses claim there's a dragon in your garage, and you're not playing a practical joke, it should be taken seriously. If you seriously claim you saw it, then I would assume you did see something that looks similar to a dragon.

The only problem would be how I could know you're not intending it as a joke.

The Bible is NOT a collection of independent sources, any more than Joe and Steve are independent;

In what sense are Joe and Steve not independent? You mean they collaborated to play a practical joke? I said I would believe them, and the other 2 dozen witnesses, if they were saying this seriously and not playing a practical joke.

If they say this seriously without doing it as a joke, then how are they not independent?

. . . you are being hoodwinked into believing that they are independent, but they are both described ONLY by the same source material.

You mean I have to believe you about Joe and Steve? I didn't say I would believe you that Joe and Steve witnessed it. I would check with all the witnesses to see if they really make this claim. I would not take your word for it that these other witnesses exist.

And so are you saying I'm "hoodwinked" by the gospel writers into believing that the witnesses existed and they probably did not exist?

And so you think the gospel writers or later redactors did not really believe there were any earlier reliable sources but invented these accounts themselves with the intent to deceive or hoodwink us into believing the events really happened when they knew they did not happen?

I have to admit that I cannot check the sources these redactors used in the same way I could check your witnesses Joe and Steve. There are good reasons why I would doubt your claim and would demand to hear the account directly from the witnesses before believing your story about the dragon, and why, by contrast, I believe those who published the final gospels that they had earlier sources who claimed connection back to the actual events. There is good reason to believe there were other "witnesses" or sources prior to the ones who wrote the final gospel accounts.

The redactors or gospel writers did not have contact with each other to be able to compare notes and create a consistent story. They report many of the same events, in much the same wording in some cases, which proves some connection between them, and yet this was not a direct personal connection in which they communicated with each other. They clearly did not communicate with each other. Therefore, what is the connection between them?

Though there was some copying from Mark, it's very clear that the Luke and Matthew compilers/redactors did not copy one from the other. It is impossible for them not to have relied heavily on earlier sources for their accounts. They could not have invented them, nor could they have copied one from the other. Therefore, the other witnesses, or sources, did exist. I am not being hoodwinked by Matthew and Luke into believing that they had earlier sources. They did. You cannot explain the accounts without assuming they had those earlier sources, and those sources very likely go way back into the mid first century, some of it probably before 50 AD.

You are credulous and gullible in your analysis of the bible; IF you assume that those who wrote it were making their best effort to preserve the truth, then that might be warranted - but we know that is not the case. We have good solid evidence that some of the most manipulative people in history have modified the bible to suit their own power agendas - James I and VI authorised his version as part of a deliberate attempt to unite the two nations of England and Scotland under his personal and dictatorial rule. He was one of the more recent people to abuse the text for political ends, and as a result, there is still plenty of evidence of what he did. Others in the 1600 or so years before him had the freedom to make much more important changes.

There is little significant change of the text in all of today's standard translations from the earliest Greek text. There is little difference from one translation to another. The many differences are tiny and insignificant in substance. One can study the earliest Greek texts available today and compare them to any of the standard translations, including the KJV revisions (any of them) and can see that the differences are trivial.

That some word or style was done for a political purpose did not change the essential meaning of the text.

Where is there a substantial change in the text of the KJ or any other standard version that distorted the original meaning? The changes are of a trivial nature, not ones that result in any major alteration of the meaning. What is the worst example of a distortion in the text caused by translations or copying? whether for a political propaganda purpose or any other purpose?

Even in the offbeat translations, of which there are many, it is difficult to find any major distortion. What's the very worst example you can cite? Just because a translator or new church denomination or ruler had a propaganda motive does not ipso facto constitute a distortion of the text.

The means, motive and opportunity all exist for massive self-serving changes to have been made by innumerable powerful players in history. To assume good faith on the part of all these people would be truly stupid.

Unless you can give an example of a major distortion of the text that took place, we should assume that all the standard translations are reliable (including the KJ and others over the past 500 years or so). And of course none of them is perfect, and it's wrong to rely on only one translation. There are minor discrepancies, or minor edits, that are questionable, and today there is usually a note in the margin to inform the reader and point out alternate renderings of the text.

For minor distortions that might have a political motive, the same could be said of other writings about historical events. Josephus is accused of being a political propagandist. Most historians prior to 1000 or 1500 AD can easily be accused of this. Cicero's speeches contain much history and yet he's accused of promoting his own theories and distorting the truth to promote his agenda. This doesn't stop us from relying on him for much of the historical facts of the period. Even when he's the only source.

Likewise a propaganda motive by a translator does not make their translation unreliable.

The gospels make a Nigerian 419 scam email look trustworthy and reliable. I am no more going to accept that Jesus performed miracles than I am going to believe that MR Joseph Owanagu, Chief Finance Minister in the Nigerian Department of Domestic Accounting needs my assistance in transferring $100,000,000 million (One hundred million dollars) out of the country and will pay me 20% of this sum on receipt of the fund release fee of just US$150 United States Dollar into his Western Union account.

Who profited from promulgating the Jesus miracle stories in the earliest versions of them? What other such scam existed in the same period where there is an array of miracle stories attributed to a hero figure? What are the accounts, or the sources? If this scam worked so well for the new Jesus cult, why wouldn't it also work for other upstart cults?

E.g., why don't we also have a John the Baptist scam giving us several miracle acts which he is alleged to have done?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Didn't Pascal say something like: "We don't know if there's a Heaven or Hell, so just go to Mass anyway just to play it safe -- Who knows, it might end up saving your soul -- it can't hurt, can it?"

Or, we don't know if it's true, but it might be. So believe it just to be sure. The logic has to be that it's better to believe and it's not true than to not believe and it is true.

Well, it does hurt. It hurts your intellectual and ethical integrity to believe something is true when you have no evidence that it is true.

There IS evidence. The miracle stories of Jesus are evidence that he had power.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it's proven historical fact that should be published in the history books as fact. Rather, there's good reason to believe these accounts, even though there is also some doubt.

You are engaging in make believe, let's pretend this is true

I think "make-believe" is something for which there is no evidence, and the only motive to promote the belief is that it feels good. But if there is evidence, then it is not make-believe, even though there may still be doubt.

There is a "gray area" or shades of gray running from 1) knowledge based on proof to 2) rational belief based on good evidence to 3) make-belief where there is no evidence. This is a gradation throughout which there is no absolute hard line that separates these categories from each other.

Belief in Christ is in the category of rational belief based on good evidence and so is not in the "make-believe" category.

And what does it tell us about the character of God that requires his subjects to [rationally believe in Christ based on good evidence] in order to be saved rather than tormented forever, or snuffed out?

It tells us that this "God" is deeply interested in what's going on in our minds.

 

[Juma]

Though they are collections of earlier accounts of the events, that does not change the fact that they are separate "independent" accounts. The fact that there is overlapping of the sources they use does not mean these collections are not independent.

Of course. That something builds on the same information doesnt mean that they are dependent...
Yeah right...

 

[Rhea]

There IS evidence. The miracle stories of Jesus are evidence that he had power.

Do you likewise believe in everything L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith claim about their "miracles," just out of curiosity? I mean, reading those golden plates through his hat was pretty awesome, don't you think?

But look at the way you wrote that. "The miracle stories." Stories.

It's funny to check all the things that Christians have believed over the ages and seen how the actual evidence disproves them. And then watch them say, "yeah, well that was a product of ignorance. But this one, this one! is obviously a reliable story!"

Remember the whole global flood thing? And the 6000 years thing? And transmutation? And Saint George and the dragon thing? (How come they don't have miracle stories like that anymore? That would be so epic today, you know?) The shroud of Turin?

Christians believe a lot of shit that is obviously not true. It's funny to watch them claim to have "good reasons to believe" on any other thing. Time to man-up and go with scientific evidence. It works so much better.

Remember when that African guy that everyone thought was dead woke up in the morgue 3 days later? And that was in this century! So were they mistaken, or is he another Jesus? And that particular "resurrection miracle" has happened many times. So cute to imagine that he is actually a deity instead of people being mistaken about his death. (Google man wakes up in morgue to see 187,000 hits on this topic with scores, if not hundreds, of "Jesus Miracles". Or read Why waking up in a morgue isn’t quite as unusual as you’d think)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

You can't blame Christ (or Christianity) for something that was already prevalent prior to the first century.

Didn't Pascal say something like: "We don't know if there's a Heaven or Hell, so just go to Mass anyway just to play it safe -- Who knows, it might end up saving your soul -- it can't hurt, can it?"

It can hurt. It can hurt a LOT.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing-religious-freedom-vs-child-protection/

[url]http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/
[/URL]
www.childrenshealthcare.org/PDF Files/Pediatricsarticle.pdf

http://www.masskids.org/index.php/religious-medical-neglect/cases-of-child-deaths

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/21/health/21MEDI.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP2/

And that's just the result of five seconds of googling on just the issue of medical neglect of children by Christians.

The practices cited here were not introduced by Jesus Christ. All the above healing religious practices or customs or superstitions existed prior to Jesus, but they were done under different deities or religious institutions, mostly outside Judaism. They prayed and chanted for healing and did various rituals to produce healing.

These healing cults and practices were not necessarily separate from some legitimate medical practices which used drugs or herbs known to have some benefit. The "witch doctors" and similar practitioners were not totally fraudulent but had some legitimate remedies. Or they mixed legitimate ones with some others which were mistakenly thought to be effective.

There was rivalry between the different practitioners and cults so that one faction thought they had a legitimate healing procedure and that the others were fraudulent or evil.

All that is described in the above websites about someone withholding medical treatment and relying instead on their spiritual or religious source for healing is something that predates Christ and was not introduced into the world as a result of Christianity. You cannot blame Christianity for practices that were already going on prior to the first century AD.

There were hundreds or even thousands of legitimate medical procedures used, which had some benefit and could even save lives, and there were cults which practiced different methods than the legitimate ones and refused to patronize them. No doubt thousands or millions of sick people died who could have benefited or recovered if they had been able to find treatment by the legitimate medical procedures, but who instead chose methods that were ineffective.

This kind of behavior can be described as mistaken or just unlucky because one resorts to a solution that does not work instead of one that would have worked. In many cases the standard medically-instituted methods do not work and the spiritual methods seem to produce better results. There is no proof that the accepted medical procedure is always right and the spiritual methods wrong.

In any case, Christ did not introduce this problem into the world. It was going on long before he appeared on the scene.

These cultists today who refuse standard medical treatment would probably be doing so in the name of some other god than Christ, if the Christian cults were not available to them. It is not Christ or Christianity that is to blame for any wrong decisions they made.

Mistrust of doctors and medical science was not introduced by Christ or the church. The Christian church generally, or mainline Christianity, has not ever recommended avoidance of standard medical care.

There are lots of mistakes in medical care and many occasions for blaming someone AFTER it is discovered that this or that procedure would have produced better results. It's easy to point the finger at this or that culprit AFTER we see a bad outcome. It is petty to take this general problem of human society going back to the beginning of civilization and use it as a debating point to bash Christianity.

I haven't even started on religious persecution of adults, religious wars, any activity by non-Christian sects.

Wars and persecutions were going on long before Christ and the church. If there had been no Christ or church around, they would have done the same in the name of something else.

Yeah, it most certainly can, and does, hurt.

No, it's not believing in Christ that hurts. All the same hurt would be there anyway.

Before Christ there was at least as much evil behavior as there has been since (as a percent of the population). What we need to ask is why so many humans adopted Christ and continued doing the same evil and good they did before but now in the name of Christ instead of those earlier gods.

And here is an important point about the pre-Christian healing cults: The healing cults back then did not preach "faith" as a means to healing, but rather just the rituals and the chanting and praying. But since Christ, "faith" has become an object of some kind that it was not before. Christ was the first reported healer who said "faith" was necessary or that one must "believe" in order to be healed. (I'd like someone to try to prove me wrong on this point. I've checked a little and can't find anything to conflict with this theory ("faith" as a means to gain healing or salvation began with Christ and was not taught prior to him).)

Explaining this new "faith" element would be helpful. But not rehashing the ancient problem of what healing procedure should have been tried instead of this one that failed. If you want to bash Christianity, find something unique to it, or something that began with Christ, and which you think led to disaster.

 

[Rhea]

It can hurt. It can hurt a LOT.

The practices cited here were not introduced by Jesus Christ.

Although many were introduced by Yahweh, Who is JC's dad, or, if you believe that way, JC's better 1/3.

In any case, Christ did not introduce this problem into the world. It was going on long before he appeared on the scene.

Except for those, "your body is a temple" things, and that "Does the sparrow plan for tomorrow" thing.

There's plenty of unhealthy things straight out of the bible even before we discuss whether your interpretation or theirs is the correct one.

But that's not all. The harm doesn't stop there! We can move on to the harm of the cult of virginity, of celibacy, of misogyny, some would add circumcision (although I'm not one), of supremacy, oh, the list can go on and on in ways the Christian church and its jewish forebear are harmful.


Hey what are your thoughts on Scientology, again?

 

[Rhea]

And here is an important point about the pre-Christian healing cults: The healing cults back then did not preach "faith" as a means to healing, but rather just the rituals and the chanting and praying. But since Christ, "faith" has become an object of some kind that it was not before. Christ was the first reported healer who said "faith" was necessary or that one must "believe" in order to be healed. (I'd like someone to try to prove me wrong on this point. I've checked a little and can't find anything to conflict with this theory ("faith" as a means to gain healing or salvation began with Christ and was not taught prior to him).)

Explaining this new "faith" element would be helpful. But not rehashing the ancient problem of what healing procedure should have been tried instead of this one that failed. If you want to bash Christianity, find something unique to it, or something that began with Christ, and which you think led to disaster.

You mean the Placebo Effect? I think that's been around a very long time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This kind of behavior can be described as mistaken or just unlucky because one resorts to a solution that does not work instead of one that would have worked. In many cases the standard medically-instituted methods do not work and the spiritual methods seem to produce better results. There is no proof that the accepted medical procedure is always right and the spiritual methods wrong.

But do you see the irony, here?

Imagine a Pascal's Wager for seeking medical treatment.
It would reduce the condition to two prognoses: I get better or i die.
It would reduce the choices to two: I get treatment or i do not.

If the condition is fatal, then the only way to survive is to get a treatment for the condition. And not getting treatment is the only way to die.
If the condition is not fatal, then it doesn't matter whether or not i get the treatment.

At no point does the wager consider that there is more than one treatment.
So the patient could choose the 'path to survival' based on getting any treatment, whether it's an oncologist, a witch doctor, leeches, drinking mercury or trepanning.

This would be the literally-fatal flaw of an argument constructed in the manner of the wager.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How many sources are there? How early are they?

So it wasn’t “10 or 20 or 30” years. Typical estimates are that Jesus died between 30-36AD. So the Gospels probably originated 30 to 60 years after the events.

That's reasonable, except you must take into account that most of the content of them came from earlier sources. Those compilers or redactors 30 to 60 years later relied on earlier accounts for their gospel. Some of those earlier sources were in existence when Paul wrote, but we don't know how much of it and whether it was written down yet or only still in oral form.

This time span of 20 + years, maybe 40 or 50, is close enough to the original events to be just as reliable as much of what we rely on for our historical accounts that we accept. Most of the historical record that we possess is from sources/authors separated from the actual events by a similar time span, and longer. This does not undermine their credibility. A proper critical or skeptical approach is taken toward them all. The accounts for the words and deeds of Jesus should be accepted on the same basis as for other historical events.

Some theologians date John as far out as 120AD. The earliest near complete copies of the Gospels we have are 200 – 300 years after the events.

In any case, the manuscripts we have for the gospel accounts are closer to the original events than those for other historical events. The time gap separating the existing copies from the original events is no reason to doubt their reliability.

The reason to give credibility to the accounts is that there are too many of them from different sources all pointing to this one miracle-worker figure instead of a wide variety of different stories centering on several different such figures.

LOL . . . yeah that sort of works, as long as one ignores mainstream theologians who pretty much consider Matthew and Luke to have used Mark as their base.

Mark is one source, but there are others. Plus John has a different origin than Matthew & Luke. In all these there are easily 6 or more sources. There are likely several early oral sources. We can add Paul for just the resurrection account. Why do all these accounts of miracles center in on this one figure only, instead of offering readers a variety of mighty miracle workers emerging during this period? What unites them altogether into this one figure?

Afterwards there emerges some new miracle-workers, a century or more later, like Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana, plus also the miracles in Acts, which are an afterthought. But how is it that we have these several sources all appearing about this time, all focused on this one Jesus figure, then setting off a sudden flurry of new miracles in the later non-canonical books, first centered on Jesus, and then on many copy-cat miracle-workers. What set off this explosion of miracle stories beginning with the Jesus accounts?

So there is really only 2 primary semi-anonymous Gospel sources.

No, it's more than 2. If you want to restrict it to the minimum possible number of sources for the Jesus miracle accounts, it has to include the following:

1) Matthew: There is at least one miracle story here not taken from Mark or Q;

2) Mark: The source for most of the Mt and Lk accounts;

3) Luke (and Acts): There is at least one miracle story here not taken from Mark or Q;

4) Q: The source for 2 miracle accounts in Lk and Mt, plus also a reference attesting to these miracle events;

5) John: Several miracle stories not taken from any other source;

And to these must be added the epistle to the Hebrews, having a reference which attests to the miracle events.

So there are really at least 6 total sources for the miracle events of Jesus. They are mostly narrative accounts of such events, but there are also non-narrative statements attesting to the events. Most of these probably relied on some earlier source, both oral and written, but we don't know what they were.

It also ignores books like the Gospel of Thomas.

What ignores them? The 4 canonical gospels pre-date the other gospels.

It also ignores the first Christian canon in history by Marcion.

What ignores it? What do you think should have been done with this 2nd-century literature? It was not included because it came later.

From the existing fragments of his canon, he only had one Gospel, which appears to have been similar to Luke. Whether this is a revision of Luke, or pre-dated it, it is probably unknowable.

Virtually everything in Luke pre-dates Marcion. If Marcion really had a special early "gospel" of some kind, and which Luke used, then it too had elements from the 1st century in it, and Marcion could not have been the author of it.

The stuff in Luke has to come mostly from the 1st century even if there are also some 2nd-century elements in the final canonized version of it. It makes no sense to say that the Gospel of Luke came after Marcion. Rather, the final version of Luke may contain some very late elements, but most of it is 1st century.

As heretical works and groups were purged as the Church in Rome became more and more powerful, things tend to get fuzzier for heterodox elements.

The main distinction between the canonized N.T. and the "heterodox elements" is the chronology. I.e., the Church gave preference to the earlier sources and began purging the stuff that emerged later. This process of selectivity doesn't compromise the credibility of the gospel accounts.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So it wasn’t “10 or 20 or 30” years. Typical estimates are that Jesus died between 30-36AD. So the Gospels probably originated 30 to 60 years after the events.

That's reasonable, except you must take into account that most of the content of them came from earlier sources. Those compilers or redactors 30 to 60 years later relied on earlier accounts for their gospel. Some of those earlier sources were in existence when Paul wrote, but we don't know how much of it and whether it was written down yet or only still in oral form.

So in other words, not available to us as a source?
Then what use are they?
Why must we 'take into account' information that we don't have?

 

[bilby]

It can hurt. It can hurt a LOT.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing-religious-freedom-vs-child-protection/

[url]http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/
[/URL]
www.childrenshealthcare.org/PDF Files/Pediatricsarticle.pdf

http://www.masskids.org/index.php/religious-medical-neglect/cases-of-child-deaths

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/21/health/21MEDI.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP2/

And that's just the result of five seconds of googling on just the issue of medical neglect of children by Christians.

The practices cited here were not introduced by Jesus Christ. All the above healing religious practices or customs or superstitions existed prior to Jesus, but they were done under different deities or religious institutions, mostly outside Judaism. They prayed and chanted for healing and did various rituals to produce healing.

So what? Superstitious and ineffective claptrap is OK for those who know no better; but when workable alternatives are available, but are ignored because people have faith, then that faith is actively harmful - no matter whether it is in Jesus, or in Allah, or in the spirits of the forest.

In the modern world, believing - in Christ, or in fairies, or in any other non-existent entity, is directly harmful.

These healing cults and practices were not necessarily separate from some legitimate medical practices which used drugs or herbs known to have some benefit. The "witch doctors" and similar practitioners were not totally fraudulent but had some legitimate remedies. Or they mixed legitimate ones with some others which were mistakenly thought to be effective.

Again, so what? If some stuff they did could be shown to work, then it was medicine. The rest was claptrap.

When you mix shit into the jam, that doesn't improve the sandwiches. And nobody will enjoy a shit sandwich just because it contains some parts that are jam.

The bits of ancient practices that demonstrably work can be (and have been) kept. The rest is dangerous nonsense.

There was rivalry between the different practitioners and cults so that one faction thought they had a legitimate healing procedure and that the others were fraudulent or evil.

Yes, that's what happens when people don't care to look at the results instead of deferring to the authorities.

All that is described in the above websites about someone withholding medical treatment and relying instead on their spiritual or religious source for healing is something that predates Christ and was not introduced into the world as a result of Christianity. You cannot blame Christianity for practices that were already going on prior to the first century AD.

No, but I can and do blame Christianity for practices that are still going on, explicitly in the name of Christianity, today.

There were hundreds or even thousands of legitimate medical procedures used, which had some benefit and could even save lives, and there were cults which practiced different methods than the legitimate ones and refused to patronize them. No doubt thousands or millions of sick people died who could have benefited or recovered if they had been able to find treatment by the legitimate medical procedures, but who instead chose methods that were ineffective.

Yes. And now that we know better, there is no excuse for not doing better than that - and yet many people use religion as just that excuse.

This kind of behavior can be described as mistaken or just unlucky because one resorts to a solution that does not work instead of one that would have worked.

No, not mistaken or unlucky - wilfully ignorant and harmful.

In many cases the standard medically-instituted methods do not work and the spiritual methods seem to produce better results.

Horseshit.

There is no proof that the accepted medical procedure is always right and the spiritual methods wrong.

Yes, there is. Indeed the entirety of modern medicine is exactly that. Every single issue of any one of hundreds of medical journals is proof of this. There is so much proof, it is hard to know where to start; there is enough proof that you couldn't hope to read it all in one lifetime. It is beyond embarrassing that anyone could seriously make such an ill-informed statement as "There is no proof that the accepted medical procedure is always right and the spiritual methods wrong."; The definition of "accepted medical procedure" is that it is demonstrated to work.

In any case, Christ did not introduce this problem into the world. It was going on long before he appeared on the scene.

Christ may well not even have ever existed. I am not blaming Christ for this shit - I am blaming CHRISTIANITY. And that includes you. Christianity does direct and demonstrable harm to the world. It should stop doing that; and if it can't stop doing harm, it should at least have the good grace to stop claiming that it is doing good.

These cultists today who refuse standard medical treatment would probably be doing so in the name of some other god than Christ, if the Christian cults were not available to them. It is not Christ or Christianity that is to blame for any wrong decisions they made.

They say it is Christianity that guides their (poor) decisions. Nobody else knows what the fuck they are thinking, but there seems to be no reason to assume that they are lying.

Mistrust of doctors and medical science was not introduced by Christ or the church. The Christian church generally, or mainline Christianity, has not ever recommended avoidance of standard medical care.

Yes, it has. By claiming that prayers are answered, you imply that other actions are not needful; or that time and effort that could be spent doing something useful should instead be wasted in prayer.

There are lots of mistakes in medical care and many occasions for blaming someone AFTER it is discovered that this or that procedure would have produced better results. It's easy to point the finger at this or that culprit AFTER we see a bad outcome. It is petty to take this general problem of human society going back to the beginning of civilization and use it as a debating point to bash Christianity.

Not just Christianity - religion in general. Christianity is the current manifestation of this ugly, stupid and dangerous behaviour, and it is absolutely not 'petty' to bash the crap out of an organisation that exists to promulgate ideas that directly harm people. That some other religion was (or is) just as bad is no excuse at all.

I haven't even started on religious persecution of adults, religious wars, any activity by non-Christian sects.

Wars and persecutions were going on long before Christ and the church. If there had been no Christ or church around, they would have done the same in the name of something else.

But they actually did it in the name of Christianity. If they had done it in the name of something else, then I would be opposing that 'something'. But they didn't.

You can't defend a murderer in a court of law by saying "Lots of other people in history committed murder, so why pick on me?"; nor by saying "Well there's a lot of hate in the world - If I hadn't killed him, someone else would have".

Christianity has done, and continues to do, dangerous and ugly things. This needs to stop, EVEN IF those things might then be done by some other cult.

Yeah, it most certainly can, and does, hurt.

No, it's not believing in Christ that hurts. All the same hurt would be there anyway.

Yes, it is believing in Christ that hurts. At least some of the hurt would NOT be there anyway; and once the root cause of the current hurt is gone, we can tackle whatever takes its place.

Before Christ there was at least as much evil behavior as there has been since (as a percent of the population).

That is true; Christ made NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to human behaviour. But since the Enlightenment and the rise of science, violent behaviour at every level has declined very sharply.

What we need to ask is why so many humans adopted Christ and continued doing the same evil and good they did before but now in the name of Christ instead of those earlier gods.

Simple - no matter what names you give to your Gods, nothing much changes, because they are all fictional.

And here is an important point about the pre-Christian healing cults: The healing cults back then did not preach "faith" as a means to healing, but rather just the rituals and the chanting and praying. But since Christ, "faith" has become an object of some kind that it was not before. Christ was the first reported healer who said "faith" was necessary or that one must "believe" in order to be healed. (I'd like someone to try to prove me wrong on this point. I've checked a little and can't find anything to conflict with this theory ("faith" as a means to gain healing or salvation began with Christ and was not taught prior to him).)

If I feel the need to learn about 'pre-Christian healing cults', I shall choose a better source than somebody who has demonstrated his ignorance of the subject.

You obviously haven't checked any more than 'a little'.

But even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that 'faith' as a means to gain healing or salvation began with Christianity, that still doesn't change the fact that it is completely ineffective, and, in the presence of demonstrably effective alternatives, is actively harmful.

Explaining this new "faith" element would be helpful. But not rehashing the ancient problem of what healing procedure should have been tried instead of this one that failed. If you want to bash Christianity, find something unique to it, or something that began with Christ, and which you think led to disaster.

Why? You don't get to do harm with impunity because others are doing it; or because someone else did it first.

I do want to bash Christianity - because it is currently killing children. You don't get to say "But other cults are killing children, so it's not fair to pick on us". You don't get to say "People killed children before our cult even started, so it's not fair to pick on us".

Your religion, like everything else, is judged on its results. Needless deaths of children are not an acceptable result under any circumstances. Whining about being picked on for killing children because others are doing, or have done, the same, is one of the most disgusting pieces of snivelling, filthy, and downright despicable behaviour I can imagine.

 

[Atheos]

Even more importantly why does it matter when the stories came out? A quick trip to Snopes dot com is all it takes to come face to face with the incredible proliferation of hoaxes people have created even in modern times and which gullible people believe. The crap they write about in National Enquirer is every bit as credible as the crap contained in the canonical gospels and the people who wrote it can be identified and their sources can be interrogated.

The fact that people believed these bullshit stories offers absolutely nothing of value when it comes to determining whether or not the stories were true. Here's how real historical criticism works:

* The more fantastic the claim the more physical evidence it takes to make it credible.
* The more a story disagrees with the historical record the less likely it is to be credible.
* The more the perpetrators of a story have an obvious political or religious agenda the more skeptical one should be in accepting the story at face value.
* The more independently a story is corroborated the better a chance the story has credibility.

The gospel narratives contain extremely extraordinary claims backed up by absolutely no physical evidence.
The gospel narratives disagree in many places with known information about the times and places uncovered over the years through scientific disciplines. They also disagree with each other, making it impossible for more than one to contain the truth.
The gospel narratives contain extremely focused religious agenda.
The gospel narratives are not corroborated by anything independent of themselves and no serious scholar dares suggest that the various people involved in their production weren't heavily influenced by each others' work.

Long story short, the gospel narratives fail miserably in every category. They are believed in solely for religious reasons, not because they are substantiated in any objective way. An objective substantiation would be one that would only apply to the gospel narratives and would exclude competing religious traditions.

 

[funinspace]

So it wasn’t “10 or 20 or 30” years. Typical estimates are that Jesus died between 30-36AD. So the Gospels probably originated 30 to 60 years after the events. Some theologians date John as far out as 120AD. The earliest near complete copies of the Gospels we have are 200 – 300 years after the events.

That's reasonable, except you must take into account that most of the content of them came from earlier sources. Those compilers or redactors 30 to 60 years later relied on earlier accounts for their gospel. Some of those earlier sources were in existence when Paul wrote, but we don't know how much of it and whether it was written down yet or only still in oral form.

Yeah there was something percolating in the decades before these gospels were penned. However, no one can say just how much was part of an original tradition, verses what embellishments were later added. Whatever was being said during Paul’s writings, he sure didn’t bother to pass on much of any details about Jesus life or miracles beyond his crucifixion and miraculous resurrection. This verse is just about it:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor. 15:3–8)”

The few other details are that he was a decedent of David (Rom 1:3), he was betrayed (2 Tim 2:8), and he was killed by the Jews (1 Thes. 2:14–15).

This time span of 20 + years, maybe 40 or 50, is close enough to the original events to be just as reliable as much of what we rely on for our historical accounts that we accept. Most of the historical record that we possess is from sources/authors separated from the actual events by a similar time span, and longer. This does not undermine their credibility. A proper critical or skeptical approach is taken toward them all. The accounts for the words and deeds of Jesus should be accepted on the same basis as for other historical events.

Some theologians date John as far out as 120AD. The earliest near complete copies of the Gospels we have are 200 – 300 years after the events.

In any case, the manuscripts we have for the gospel accounts are closer to the original events than those for other historical events. The time gap separating the existing copies from the original events is no reason to doubt their reliability.

Except that when humans build up their clay footed gods, they seem too often do shit they often wouldn’t do otherwise. If being close to events made things truer, then Islam should be very seriously considered, as the oldest extant copy comes in just 40 years after Muhammad’s death. We are quite confident that Joseph Smith penned the Book of Mormon, so here is another great contender based upon this notion of credibility of document proximity. Never mind that the Jesus prophet never wrote anything.

Another point towards historical accuracy and the distance of the oldest copies to said events, is that when military students review Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, they don’t need to assume everything within it is true. Their future or life doesn’t depend on it. And Caesar didn’t boast of Apollo guiding him thru it, or casting the sun dark, or what not to provide miracles so he could win. Caesar didn’t claim to trumpet around a heavily fortified structure until it magically crumbled.

A few useful thoughts on the accuracy and veracity of “eye-witness” testimony:
From the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

Iowa State University experimental social psychologist Gary Wells, PhD, a member of a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice panel that published the first-ever national guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony, says Loftus's model suggests that crime investigators need to think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence.
"Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime," he says. Investigators who employ a scientific model to collect, analyze and interpret eyewitness evidence may avoid incidents like Olson's potentially flawed identification of the Fairbanks suspects, he notes.

From the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies:
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

The courts’ reliance on witnesses is built into the common-law judicial system, a reliance that is placed in check by the opposing counsel’s right to cross-examination—an important component of the adversarial legal process—and the law’s trust of the jury’s common sense. The fixation on witnesses reflects the weight given to personal testimony. As shown by recent studies, this weight must be balanced by an awareness that it is not necessary for a witness to lie or be coaxed by prosecutorial error to inaccurately state the facts—the mere fault of being human results in distorted memory and inaccurate testimony.

The reason to give credibility to the accounts is that there are too many of them from different sources all pointing to this one miracle-worker figure instead of a wide variety of different stories centering on several different such figures.

LOL . . . yeah that sort of works, as long as one ignores mainstream theologians who pretty much consider Matthew and Luke to have used Mark as their base.

Mark is one source, but there are others. Plus John has a different origin than Matthew & Luke. In all these there are easily 6 or more sources. There are likely several early oral sources. We can add Paul for just the resurrection account. Why do all these accounts of miracles center in on this one figure only, instead of offering readers a variety of mighty miracle workers emerging during this period? What unites them altogether into this one figure?

John’s source was as likely a hallucinogenic as anything else. Who knows why this cult succeeded where others did not? Though the Roman Empire later certainly helped greatly expand the influence of this religion. Why have the Mormons done quite well, and the Christian Scientists have floundered? Why has the The Bahá'í Faith managed to gain around 5 million followers worldwide in 200 years, roughly 10 times the Christian Scientists?

Afterwards there emerges some new miracle-workers, a century or more later, like Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana, plus also the miracles in Acts, which are an afterthought. But how is it that we have these several sources all appearing about this time, all focused on this one Jesus figure, then setting off a sudden flurry of new miracles in the later non-canonical books, first centered on Jesus, and then on many copy-cat miracle-workers. What set off this explosion of miracle stories beginning with the Jesus accounts?

LOL…you think there was shortage of gods, miracles, fables prior to your Jesus-demigod? One neat example is Buddhist Maudgalyāyana, from the 6th century BC. Or may Zoroaster from 3,000 years ago:

Zoroastrians were a little slower than the Christians in taker over the Empire, taking 500 years as compared to the Christian 300 odd years:
http://www.questcentre.ca/blogs/view/the-incredible-zoroaster

The point is that Zoroaster was always on the run. He was never in a position to buy greatness. So, why would anybody follow such a loser?

Enter mythology and all the gifts it brings. Though I do not mean to sound cynical, mythological stories are able to turn the tale upside down, and this certainly happened with Zoroaster. He succeeded before he died in having a small following, and from such a beginning his movement slowly spread until, 500 years later, he was the founding prophet of a state religion.
<snip>
The followers of the poet, however, do not repeat the author but promote the author. The followers must add authority to the author, and this is where mythology comes in. So, we do have in the story of Zoroaster that he was born of a virgin mother, that Asha and Druj wrestled together inside his mother’s womb, and that he was born laughing. He was enlightened on a mountaintop at the age of 30. Miracles were associated with his life. And at the end of time he will come back as the saviour. These myths work to give authority to Zoroaster.

Other thoughts on “miracle workers”:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

Apollonius, Peregrinus, and Alexander are three rather interesting religious founders about whom we know even more than we do of Jesus. The first, Apollonius of Tyana, is often called the "pagan Christ," since he also lived during the first century, and performed a similar ministry of miracle-working, preaching his own brand of ascetic Pythagoreanism--he was also viewed as the son of a god, resurrected the dead, ascended to heaven, performed various miracles, and criticized the authorities with pithy wisdom much like Jesus did.

Naturally, his story is one that no doubt grew into more and more fantastic legends over time, until he becomes an even more impressive miracle-worker than Jesus in the largest surviving work on him, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, written by Philostratus around 220 A.D. This work is available today in two volumes as part of the Loeb Classical Library, published by Harvard University Press, a set that also includes the surviving fragments of Apollonius' own writings (if only Jesus had bothered to write something!) as well as the Treatise against him by the Christian historian Eusebius. There were other books written about him immediately after his death, but none survive.

Even Eusebius, in his Treatise against Apollonius, does not question his existence, or the reality of many of his miracles--rather, he usually tries to attribute them to trickery or demons. This shows the credulity of the times, even among educated defenders of the Christian faith, but it also shows how easy it was to deceive. Since they readily believed in demons and magical powers, it should not surprise us that they believed in resurrections and transmutations of water to wine.

So there is really only 2 primary semi-anonymous Gospel sources.

No, it's more than 2. If you want to restrict it to the minimum possible number of sources for the Jesus miracle accounts, it has to include the following:

1) Matthew: There is at least one miracle story here not taken from Mark or Q;

2) Mark: The source for most of the Mt and Lk accounts;

3) Luke (and Acts): There is at least one miracle story here not taken from Mark or Q;

4) Q: The source for 2 miracle accounts in Lk and Mt, plus also a reference attesting to these miracle events;

5) John: Several miracle stories not taken from any other source;

And to these must be added the epistle to the Hebrews, having a reference which attests to the miracle events.

So there are really at least 6 total sources for the miracle events of Jesus. They are mostly narrative accounts of such events, but there are also non-narrative statements attesting to the events. Most of these probably relied on some earlier source, both oral and written, but we don't know what they were.

LOL…do you understand what a primary source is as compared to a secondary source? Again, Paul never witnessed any Jesus events, so he is NOT a primary source. He was also very vacuous, regarding the life and miracles of Jesus, and is a secondary source. John seemed to be on a different planet, so I’m not sure how that helps your argument.

It also ignores books like the Gospel of Thomas.

What ignores them? The 4 canonical gospels pre-date the other gospels.

Not really. The Gospel of Thomas, though it has a wide range for its estimated origins (50 – 140 AD) is quite within the same ballpark as Matthew and John. So fail….

Adding back in, what I was responding to:

The reason to give credibility to the accounts is that there are too many of them from different sources all pointing to this one miracle-worker figure instead of a wide variety of different stories centering on several different such figures.

It also ignores the first Christian canon in history by Marcion.

What ignores it? What do you think should have been done with this 2nd-century literature? It was not included because it came later.

I wasn’t stating that Marcion’s redactions should be included in the later cannon that emerged one to two centuries later. My point is that his group had begun to establish what they thought was the “true” canon of the Jesus-demigod. This disrupts the notion that there was unity about how to package this Jesus demigod. Marcion dumped the Jewish writings/teachings of old about Yahweh. He only accepted a different version of Luke. He didn’t include Acts, Hebrews, several of Paul’s letters, nor Revelations. He may have pointed towards the same Miracle Max by name, but he was definitely building up a fairly different demigod.

From the existing fragments of his canon, he only had one Gospel, which appears to have been similar to Luke. Whether this is a revision of Luke, or pre-dated it, it is probably unknowable.

Virtually everything in Luke pre-dates Marcion. If Marcion really had a special early "gospel" of some kind, and which Luke used, then it too had elements from the 1st century in it, and Marcion could not have been the author of it.

The stuff in Luke has to come mostly from the 1st century even if there are also some 2nd-century elements in the final canonized version of it. It makes no sense to say that the Gospel of Luke came after Marcion. Rather, the final version of Luke may contain some very late elements, but most of it is 1st century.

I didn’t say that the Gospel of Luke came after Marcion, or was dependent on Marcion. I stated what historians say. Which is that they can’t really tell whether the version Marcion had emerged in parallel to Luke from some “Q” source, or it was a modification of a copy of the Gospel of Luke. The problem again stems from the very fragmentary nature of these sources and the later copies. So what we end up with is a very foggy and hard to read record. You want it neater and tidier than it really is.

As heretical works and groups were purged as the Church in Rome became more and more powerful, things tend to get fuzzier for heterodox elements.

The main distinction between the canonized N.T. and the "heterodox elements" is the chronology. I.e., the Church gave preference to the earlier sources and began purging the stuff that emerged later. This process of selectivity doesn't compromise the credibility of the gospel accounts.

That is true of many of the more divergent gnostic texts. However, like I already pointed out, this is not true of the Gospel of Thomas. Nor is it true of this later “Church” grouping muscling out the Marcion group.

In the end you want your version of the Christian theology to be credible, even though it sounds like you reject most all of the grand OT miracles of Yahweh, you reject the miraculous birthing narratives of Luke and Matt., you want people to only consider the numerical winning side of canon formation, you seem to turn whatever you can’t explain as allegorical or just say ignore that part. Do you reject Matt’s false 3 14 generational lineages? Do you reject the false ending of Mark? And why is it false? Do you reject the false narrative of Joseph having to travel for a census? How do you mesh the 3 conflicting Jesus death-resurrection tales?

Or how about the part about when Jesus was born? Post #64 (quoting is messing with me):

I might add that in nearly every case where there is "specific information in the stories about the event, such as when it happened..." it turns out that the historical record is at odds with the "facts" presented in the gospel narratives. Some examples include the fact that Herod died 10 years before Cyrene (Quirinius) became governor of Syria, making it impossible for Jesus to have been born when Herod was a threat (Matthew's version) and when Cyrene had issued any edicts (Luke's version). Somebody be lying.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is believing trivial? Is one belief as good as another? Aren't some beliefs true?

The problem I pointed out is the double standard imposed by God. On the one hand God says: 'love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you'' - yet on the other hand, does not adhere to His own moral principles when He torments someone, not even an enemy, for the trivial reason of a lack of belief.

Why do you tack on "for the trivial reason of a lack of belief"?

It's trivial because a lack of belief alone does no harm.

Maybe it does do harm. If God wants us to believe and we don't, doesn't that do "harm"? If belief is necessary for salvation, then there IS "harm" in lack of belief.

It would make more sense to just say you don't believe any of it. What is the point of complaining about this "double standard" and scolding God for having "trivial" reasons? As if you're entertaining the possibility of it being true and then condemning God for such misbehavior.

Who cares?

Christ cares. It matters what we believe. When he performed healing acts, he wanted them to believe. Was it wrong for him to want them to believe? Maybe there is something important about believing.

As long as you feel compelled to add this unnecessary phrase, you are still implying that it's just fine for God to torment someone for a NON-trivial reason.

It doesn't necessarily imply that at all.

Yes it does -- if you complain against God because he punished someone for a "trivial" reason, then you're implying it's OK if instead he had punished them for a NON-trivial reason.

If you're not implying that, why does your complaint contain the detail that the punishment was inflicted for a trivial reason? Why is that point contained in the complaint if it's not pertinent to the complaint? Why worry if it was done for a trivial reason if you don't think that's worse than if the reason had NOT been a trivial one?

Would it make sense to say: I'm against imposing the death penalty for jay-walking? unless you're meaning to say that the death penalty is still OK for some other offenses?

It has to mean something when you take the trouble to say it's a "trivial" reason he's punishing them for and which is wrong. What does it mean if not that this kind of reason is worse than some other kind of reason that's NOT trivial? What would be a NON-trivial reason why God might punish someone in Hell? and which presumably would be less offensive than punishing them for this "trivial" reason?

If something is designated as"trivial," doesn't it imply that there are other things that are NOT trivial? and that what might be true for the "trivial" thing would not be true for the NON "trivial" thing? If not, then what is the point of inserting the word "trivial" into the statement or complaint?

I focused on the non belief issue because that is the very point of Pascals' Wager, and Pascal's Wager was the point of discussion.

It's not the point. The point is that we don't know if there is anything beyond death like a Heaven or Hell. There may or may not be. My point has been to suggest that Christ was in contact with a power that could make eternal life possible. You're objecting because you think there's some "double standard" about it or that believing is "trivial" or that the possibility of Hell is a problem, but all that is irrelevant and doesn't change my point.

Some Christ-believers do preach Hell but others do not. It's irrelevant whether Hell exists or not -- the reason to believe in Christ is still the same. The outburst that God is misbehaving because he's doing something "trivial" or following a "double standard" and so on is pointless and meaningless.

If Hell does exist and people go there -- so? I could throw the same argument back at you and say everything you believe in is somehow falsified because God engages in this misbehavior. How does this disprove my reasoning any more than it disproves anything you believe in or don't believe in?

Suppose you're an atheist and reject the possibility of any Hell or God. My proposition is just as reasonable as yours, despite what the actual truth is, whether there is an angry vengeful God who sends people to Hell or there is not.

The only difference between your belief and mine is that if there IS some Hell to avoid or some eternal life to gain or annihilation (at death) to avoid, then believing in Christ might be the way to gain that escape or that salvation from the annihilation. I'm giving some reasons to believe that this is a real possibility. And all your judgmentalism that God is being bad or is misbehaving or ought to stop acting this way with his "double standard" and "trivial" demands and so on is totally pointless.

No matter what the actual truth is, about the possibility of Hell or Heaven etc., my belief holds up just as reasonably as yours. At most the only difference, in my favor, is that I'm saying we don't know while you're claiming to know as a dogmatic fact that there is no possibility of any God or Hell or Something More beyond death. Just my agnostic position vs. your dogmatic claim to know is the only difference.

All that makes any sense is to consider whether Christ did really have that power. And the Pascal's Wager arguing is pointless, unless you want to offer other alternative routes to eternal life or escape from death/Hell and explain how those are more likely or more believable.

I'm saying this Christ route, or escape from death/annihilation, seems the most likely. I don't see any other that is as likely. What would be another possible route? To pray to Mecca 5 times a day? The others in history who spoke of "paradise" or "salvation" etc. did not have the power that Christ had.

What's important is whether the power that Christ demonstrated could make this salvation possible. If it's great enough, why couldn't it? It's true that there's no proof that his power is that great. But it is greater than we've seen from any other figure in history who seemed to be offering salvation or eternal life to humans. I'm saying it's a reasonable possibility, even though there is doubt.

You don't have an argument here unless you can state it parsimoniously without tacking on this pointless phrase that clearly implies that eternal torment IS appropriate to impose onto someone if it's for a non-trivial reason instead of a trivial reason like lack of belief.

Again, it's not pointless because it is the point of Pascal's Wager. To paraphrase: ''it is better to play it safe and believe in the existence of God, because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.''

First, the wording has to be changed: the eternal life or salvation that is possible comes only by believing in Christ (not "in the existence of God" which isn't clear). And I'm suggesting this because he showed that he had power -- there's evidence.

Now, the whole celebrated refutation of Pascal's Wager basically boils down to this: there are MANY alternative belief systems which are all equally possible ways to Heaven etc., and so there's no reason to choose the particular one Pascal had in mind.

Fine, let Pascal answer that. I am giving my reason for saying that Christ specifically, because of the evidence given us, seems to be the most likely way offered to us. To believe in him is a simple condition, and "faith" or "belief" is a kind of condition he put forth, in the healing acts he did, and mere belief or faith requires no great effort.

The only flaw here is simply that it might not be true, because his power probably isn't great enough or the Bible cannot be believed, etc. But I'm giving reasons why it is likely true. Or it's a reasonable possibility.

If "belief" means some kind of certainty or ecstatic feeling of KNOWING absolutely that it's true, then I don't know how that could be possible, but if it means taking it as a reasonable possibility, and hoping it's true, then it's easy and also seems logical. I don't think this is committing any fallacy such as Pascal is said to have committed. We don't know for sure, but this might be the truth, and there is some reason to believe it, i.e., more reason than for any of the other "way to Heaven" offers that have been put forth.

Why would it be OK to torture someone eternally for a non-trivial reason?

No more than it would be fair and just of a Creator of the Universe to condemn someone to eternal torment because they were not convinced that there is a God.

Then why do you imply there is something especially egregious about tormenting them for a trivial reason, when it's just as egregious to torment them for a non-trivial reason?

I.e., why did you lament: "yet on the other hand, does not adhere to His own moral principles when He torments someone . . . for the trivial reason of a lack of belief."? Why are you distinguishing here between a "trivial" reason and some other kind of reason, when ANY torture is equally unfair?

Also, why do you emphasize the "double standard" flaw of God? Which is a worse crime for God to commit -- to practice a double standard or to torture someone in Hell for eternity? Isn't the latter "crime" vastly greater?

I pointed out why it's a double standard.

No, not why it's a double standard, but why it even matters? Why are you condemning God for practicing a "double standard" in the way he tortures people? Isn't that something like condemning Jack the Ripper because he butchered his victim with the wrong brand of knife? or that he should be charged for damage because of the mess he left behind?

You condemn God for all his torturing of people, then you toss this "double standard" complaint into the mix. Why are you condemning him for applying a "double standard" in the way he carries out the torturing? It's like you're saying it would be OK for him to torture them if only he wouldn't commit this "double standard" offense while doing it. What's your hangup with the "double standard"?

What's wrong is that you are driven to go beyond the simple declaration that you don't believe it. You're accusing him of violating "his own moral principles" and practicing a "double standard" as if to declare, "But if he really exists and does this stuff, it's unfair and I protest against it and demand justice!" Isn't it silly to make judgments against the behavior of something you don't believe exists?

Or if He or It DOES exist and is doing these bad deeds, isn't it also pointless and meaningless to complain that it's unfair? What are you going to do to him? take him to court? challenge him to a duel? Does God need to be taught a lesson about the proper way to do the torturing?

You say that ''Jesus did not invent the "love your enemies" or the "fire and brimstone" teachings'' yet what I quoted comes from the same source as the story of Jesus and the fire and the brimstone teachings.

Others invented those teachings. Several citations quote Philo the Alexandrian saying it was the Essenes who introduced the "love your enemies" teaching. One is http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/wscs/wscs36.htm , though I can't find the exact Philo reference. They quote him saying "The Essenes enjoined the loving of enemies."

And you know that Jesus did not invent the idea of Hell or eternal torment.

They are there for anyone to see.

You know that lots of words were put into the mouth of Jesus by the writers.

Maybe Jesus didn't teach either of these -- the above teaching from the Sermon on the Mount, and the existence of a Hell where sinners are tormented eternally. Both of these religious ideas were preached prior to Jesus and could easily have been attributed to him by later writers. If he spoke this way he was only borrowing this from the culture of the time, not introducing it himself.

No good cherry picking, it is the NT that provides the material for Christian belief.

Not all Christians accept everything in the NT. There's lots of cherry picking. There has to be if one is to seek the real historical Jesus Christ. Many believers are embarrassed to try to do this, but those who get serious have to do it. If there is a difference between "the Christ of faith" and "the Christ of history," the Christ of history is really the more important one.

An example is the Jesus quote at the end of Mark, where he says his followers can pick up poisonous snakes and not be harmed by them, and can drink poison and not be harmed. Most Christians don't really believe Jesus said this. One can believe in Christ without taking every Bible quote attributed to him as authentic.

 

[bilby]

Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other; Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence - at which point they cease to be 'beliefs' and become 'facts'.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but nobody else need care about them.

You are not entitled to your own facts; facts are universal. Ignore them at your peril.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How credible is the evidence for the Jesus miracles?

The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard

Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?

Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?

There's more than one source for them.

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true. If they're stories about a sage who taught disciples for several decades, it is much easier to explain how they could have been invented and attached to the master. Or if the stories don't appear until centuries later, then it's easier to explain how they could have emerged over that time lapse. And in other ways it can be easy in some cases to explain how the stories originated but more difficult in other cases. If it's more difficult to explain how the stories could have been invented, then it increases the chance that they're true.

There is specific information in the stories about the event, such as when or where it happened and who was present and what the setting was. We can assume that such detail might be partly fictional but also partly factual. The presence of such detail makes the story more credible.

There's more than one source for them.

How does that establish historicity?

It helps. It makes the Jesus miracle stories more credible than other miracle stories for which there is only one source. E.g., the miracle stories in the Book of Acts are less credible because they are depedent on this one source only.

More sources increases the credibility. But it doesn't ensure historical accuracy.

Just about every culture on Earth has a tradition of vampires. Does that mean vampires are real?

What sources are you talking about? Is it true that every culture has such a tradition? You'd have to give more information about the particular events that were witnessed and written down by someone.

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

How does that impact the estimate of their historicity?

If the time span is shorter, then there's less time for new fictional accounts to emerge which "mythologize" the actual event that happened.

The miracle stories about Gautama emerged over many centuries. The pattern is the same for most miracle heros. The longer time span beyond the period when the actual historical figure lived allows for the emergence of new stories, i.e., new stories to be invented.

How long does it take to write a fictional account of something?

You can't write the account if you haven't been born yet, can you? The stories are invented by later writers who were born 50 years or 100 years later. The stories of Philostratus about Appolonius could not have been written by him before he was born, i.e., near the time when Appolonius lived. Also, it can take time for the legendary figure's reputation to spread before there develops an interest in creating new stories about him.

It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true.

Wow, that's horseshit. Evidence for something being true is based on assuming that they're true?

No. Based on the fact that they are more difficult to explain without assuming they're true.

Someone tells you it's raining, and he's your only source, and you have no way to check. You assume it's raining, because if it's not, then why did this person tell you it's raining? You don't know for sure that it's raining, but you assume it is, because if it's not, it becomes more difficult to explain the report you received. Believing the report is true explains the report more easily than believing it is false.

(This assumes the one reporting to you has good information, has no motive to deceive you, and so on.)

Which historian told you that one?

How do you think an historian chooses when to believe a report and when not to?

Suppose the source says something which, if true, explains the other facts the historian knows, but if false, contradicts those other facts, or adds confusion to them. You think that makes the source LESS credible for the historian?

If they're stories about a sage who taught disciples for several decades, it is much easier to explain how they could have been invented and attached to the master.

Easier?

Yes, because after so long the disciples of that master have more time to invent new stories about him, and because they become more inspired by him and want to show their adoration toward him. You're not familiar with the process of mythologizing? You don't see how this is a gradual process over many years and decades and even centuries during which new stories can emerge? It takes time for the master's reputation to increase and attract more followers and more adoration that leads to the formation of new stories about him.

Exactly how is laziness an important trait for historians?

You think historians should always seek the more difficult explanation for something?

Didn't the geocentric model for the Solar System have to be rejected in favor of the heliocentric model because the latter more easily explained all the astronomical data? Isn't that how a conclusion is arrived at when there are differing explanations offered? The one which more easily explains all the facts that are known is the answer that is decided upon, isn't it?

Why shouldn't the historian or scientist or truth-seeker choose the answer which most easily fits in with all the other facts that are known?

Miracle stories can usually be explained as a result of mythologizing and other such causes. But the accounts of the Jesus miracles cannot so easily be explained this way. Partly because his total public life was so short. The time lapse needed for the mythologizing process was not there. And for other similar reasons it is more difficult to explain these accounts.

So the easier explanation is simply that the reported events actually did happen.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

If you want to bash Christianity, find something unique to it, or something that began with Christ, and which you think led to disaster.

"bring here these enemies of mine, who did not want me to rule over them, and SLAUGHTER THEM in my presence!" (Luke 19:27)

You say He said it, right?

The Orthodox Christian Church hierarchy established by Him, took it as an instruction and as being their sacred duty, slaughtering non-Christians and 'heretics' beyond numbering for over a thousand years.

There is not enough white-wash in creation to ever cover up the bloody works of the murderous zombie Jezuz death cult christer religion.