Failed prophecy.

[ruby sparks]

Glorified ignorance isn't suiting. You don't know "what more there is to learn" until you make the attempt to learn it. I note that you are badly misinterpreting Shakespeare as well. Macbeth is not the hero of Macbeth, but rather hos own worst enemy.

Sorry. I'm not doing diversions today. You carry on. It's your religion after all, not mine. You get to pick and choose the bits you like.

ps I was quoting something EP Sanders said in relation to Jesus. Take it up with him if you have detour-quibbles.

 

[Politesse]

Glorified ignorance isn't suiting. You don't know "what more there is to learn" until you make the attempt to learn it. I note that you are badly misinterpreting Shakespeare as well. Macbeth is not the hero of Macbeth, but rather hos own worst enemy.

Sorry. I'm not doing detours today. You carry on. It's your religion after all, not mine. You get to pick and choose the bits you like.

Not doing any detours! You're the one who requested that I contribute to the thread. You even told me what to write.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not doing any detours! You're the one who requested that I contribute to the thread. You even told me what to write.

That is, actually, silly.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, alternatively, if I can do that, how about, you say something like, 'the fact that the prophecy, a central and key component of the original beliefs, was a dud, should cast serious doubt on the other supernatural claims of the religion generally and any divine credentials Jesus thought he possessed'. Think litmus test. Rubber meeting road, or failing to meet, as the case may be.

 

[ruby sparks]

I note that you are badly misinterpreting Shakespeare as well. Macbeth is not the hero of Macbeth, but rather his own worst enemy save perhaps his Lady Wife, whose death occassioned the existential outburst you quote. Macbeth concluded that life had no meaning for anyone, but what makes his life tragic is that it was his own actions that so hollowed out his sense of meaning and purpose. Like many strongmen, he only turned cynical when the costs of his actions caught up with him.

I was essentially citing something E P Sanders said about Jesus more than I was doing the character Macbeth, who is arguably a detour (in terms of this thread) and one of a number that you are prone to make, apparently without realising that you're again straying away from the main point.

 

[Politesse]

I note that you are badly misinterpreting Shakespeare as well. Macbeth is not the hero of Macbeth, but rather his own worst enemy save perhaps his Lady Wife, whose death occassioned the existential outburst you quote. Macbeth concluded that life had no meaning for anyone, but what makes his life tragic is that it was his own actions that so hollowed out his sense of meaning and purpose. Like many strongmen, he only turned cynical when the costs of his actions caught up with him.

I was essentially citing something E P Sanders said about Jesus more than I was doing the character Macbeth, who is arguably a detour (in terms of this thread) and one of a number that you are prone to make, apparently without realising that you're again straying away from the main point.

Except that the reason you don't get Macbeth is that you lifted a verse out of context and are uninterested in learning anything more about it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The prophesy appears to have failed, nothing happened as described within the given timeframe, or anytime since....so what are the implications of that failure for theists?

They had to do what all followers of a Millenialist prophet do after the end: adapt and find a way to reframe it.

Odd. Why wouldn't you say "abandon" it?

The only thing that makes someone a "prophet" is that they can predict what's going to happen in the future. If the prediction did not come true, then that means they are a false prophet, not that you should "reframe" their prophecy so that it maintains a lie.

It is interesting to note that the person who set this book into print almost certainly knew that Jesus wasn't coming back while the apostles yet lived.

Paul wrote in the 50's CE and GMark is commonly dated to 70 CE. Assuming most of the disciples were in their late twenties/early thirties (i.e., around Jesus' age), when Jesus was killed, that would only make them around 70 by the time GMark is set in papyrus.

Mark 9 qualifies that clearly (emphasis mine):

9 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Iow, some will be dead, some won't. That would easily be true by the time of GMark (and, frankly, makes sense that the author decided to change what was likely the original claim from "none" to "some" for precisely that reason), but then, even if it weren't, are you arguing that whoever physically wrote the first draft of GMark had the luxury of not relating the original story (aka, "the truth")? That is was an option for him to change whatever he wanted to suit a subsequent non-event? Because, you know, new kettle o' fish.

 

[ruby sparks]

Except that the reason you don't get Macbeth is that you lifted a verse out of context and are uninterested in learning anything more about it.

Still evading the point at hand and trying to change the subject I see. How unlike you. And no over ever notices. How do you get away with it?

 

[Politesse]

Except that the reason you don't get Macbeth is that you lifted a verse out of context and are uninterested in learning anything more about it.

Still evading the point at hand and trying to change the subject I see. How unlike you. And no over ever notices. How do you get away with it?

I still don't get what point you think I'm evading. Your point about the prophecy seemed pretty straightforward, and I also agreed with it straightforwardly. I don't see what more there is to discuss about that.

 

[ruby sparks]

I still don't get what point you think I'm evading. Your point about the prophecy seemed pretty straightforward, and I also agreed with it straightforwardly. I don't see what more there is to discuss about that.

It's the implications. It makes him a dud. That's the point. He's your hero. And he was a dud. You follow a dud. If that's not significant, I don't know what is.

I mean, fine, one could admire him, as a human being, yeah. But presumably your beliefs go a tad further than that. If so, on what basis?

 

[Politesse]

Odd. Why wouldn't you say "abandon" it?

This is, of course, also an option, and I can also think of some cases historically where that happened. But really, there are usually at least a few who remain faithful despite the "Great Disappointment"* when a prophecy seems to fail.

*reference here is to the Millerites.

The only thing that makes someone a "prophet" is that they can predict what's going to happen in the future. If the prediction did not come true, then that means they are a false prophet, not that you should "reframe" their prophecy so that it maintains a lie.

Perhaps not, but when do people ever do what is most sensible?

Iow, some will be dead, some won't. That would easily be true by the time of GMark (and, frankly, makes sense that the author decided to change what was likely the original claim from "none" to "some" for precisely that reason), but then, even if it weren't, are you arguing that whoever physically wrote the first draft of GMark had the luxury of not relating the original story (aka, "the truth")? That is was an option for him to change whatever he wanted to suit a subsequent non-event? Because, you know, new kettle o' fish.

Perhaps! I could think of a lot of reasons though, the most simple being that the verse was too widely known as an oral tradition to avoid its inclusion, so an apologetic explanation was already circulating to explain it away.

 

[Politesse]

I still don't get what point you think I'm evading. Your point about the prophecy seemed pretty straightforward, and I also agreed with it straightforwardly. I don't see what more there is to discuss about that.

It's the implications. It makes him a dud. That's the point. He's your hero. And he was a dud. You follow a dud. If that's not significant, I don't know what is.

Wait, you think I'm evading the point unless I convert to your religious beliefs? !

You're just going to have to be frustrated, my friend, that is an absurd bar to set, doubly so in a freethought community.

I don't have any problem pointing out errors and inaccuracies in the Bible, I was never an inerrantist in the first place. Nor is the label "Christian" a hill I would die on exactly, I just think it is more accurate to say that I am Christian than not, all things considered. Frankly, I think the same is true of a lot of "atheists", despite themselves. People put too much stock in words. Changing what you're called might change how others perceive you, but they can't change who you are, how you were raised, or how you tend to think.

 

[ruby sparks]

I still don't get what point you think I'm evading. Your point about the prophecy seemed pretty straightforward, and I also agreed with it straightforwardly. I don't see what more there is to discuss about that.

It's the implications. It makes him a dud. That's the point. He's your hero. And he was a dud. You follow a dud. If that's not significant, I don't know what is.

Wait, you think I'm evading the point unless I convert to your religious beliefs? !

I don't have any problem pointing out errors and inaccuracies in the Bible, I was never an inerrantist. Nor is the label "Christian" a hill I would die on exactly, I just think it is more accurate to say that I am Christian than not, all things considered. Frankly, I think the same is true of a lot of "atheists", despite themselves. People put too much stock in words. Changing what you're called might change how others perceive you, but they can't change who you are, how you were raised, or how you tend to think.

None of that makes any sense and looks like you're not grasping the nettle again. The first line is wide of the mark for starters.

- - - Updated - - -

Or to put it another way, your religious beliefs are a fudge. A concoction. Insubstantial. If there's a problem, you just steer away from it. Jesus a dud? That's ok, I'm not really a proper follower.....etc.

One way to avoid being wrong is to stay vague, you know.

 

[Politesse]

Wait, you think I'm evading the point unless I convert to your religious beliefs? !

I don't have any problem pointing out errors and inaccuracies in the Bible, I was never an inerrantist. Nor is the label "Christian" a hill I would die on exactly, I just think it is more accurate to say that I am Christian than not, all things considered. Frankly, I think the same is true of a lot of "atheists", despite themselves. People put too much stock in words. Changing what you're called might change how others perceive you, but they can't change who you are, how you were raised, or how you tend to think.

None of that makes any sense and looks like you're not grasping the nettle again. The first line is wide of the mark for starters.

Your point seems to be that in order to "not evade the point", I have to become an atheist? I'm not, and this is very unlikely in any case. I'm not bothered by the prophecy being wrong, I never believed it to be right. What with the second coming clearly not having happened and all.

- - - Updated - - -

Or to put it another way, your religious beliefs are a fudge. A concoction.

That is generally the case with agnostics. It's true of everyone else too, we're just a hell of a lot more honest about it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Your point seems to be that in order to "not evade the point", I have to become an atheist?

I have no idea where you got that from.

- - - Updated - - -

...you'd hardly expect me to end up an exclusivist radical for one faith or another.

Or that.

 

[Politesse]

Your point seems to be that in order to "not evade the point", I have to become an atheist?

I have no idea where you got that from.

I thought that was the gist of you ranting that I was "worshipping a dud"?

 

[ruby sparks]

Would you agree with the following statement: 'it is questionable whether Jesus had the divine credentials he thought he had. It seems a lot more likely he was a deluded fool (in that sense at least), albeit not the worst bloke ever to have lived'

- - - Updated - - -

Your point seems to be that in order to "not evade the point", I have to become an atheist?

I have no idea where you got that from.

I thought that was the gist of you ranting that I was "worshipping a dud"?

Oh I'm ranting now. Nice.

 

[Politesse]

Would you agree with the following statement: 'it is questionable whether Jesus had the divine credentials he thought he had. It seems a lot more likely he was a deluded fool (in that sense at least), albeit not the worst bloke ever to have lived'

- - - Updated - - -

I thought that was the gist of you ranting that I was "worshipping a dud"?

Oh I'm ranting now. Nice.

Calling me out by name, demanding that I post in a thread, then going apoplectic that I'm still not in your camp? Yeah, you're coming off as a bit of a nutter. Rude, too.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is, of course, also an option, and I can also think of some cases historically where that happened. But really, there are usually at least a few who remain faithful despite the "Great Disappointment"* when a prophecy seems to fail.

*reference here is to the Millerites.

Perhaps not, but when do people ever do what is most sensible?

Iow, some will be dead, some won't. That would easily be true by the time of GMark (and, frankly, makes sense that the author decided to change what was likely the original claim from "none" to "some" for precisely that reason), but then, even if it weren't, are you arguing that whoever physically wrote the first draft of GMark had the luxury of not relating the original story (aka, "the truth")? That is was an option for him to change whatever he wanted to suit a subsequent non-event? Because, you know, new kettle o' fish.

Perhaps! I could think of a lot of reasons though, the most simple being that the verse was too widely known as an oral tradition to avoid its inclusion, so an apologetic explanation was already circulating to explain it away.

Do you realize that all of your answers assume an understanding on the part of the authors and adherents that they are deliberately manufacturing and participating in a lie? Like they all know it's bullshit, but just don't care, because, hey, what are you gonna' do, it's just religion and stuff.

It's your go-to apologetic. Basically, everyone is smart enough to know it's all nonsense, but it gives them surcease of sorrow, so that's why and that's enough.

 

[Politesse]

I don't agree that Jesus himself thought he had "divine credentials" any more so than any other prophet, but I agree that he was wrong about the immediate end of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

This is, of course, also an option, and I can also think of some cases historically where that happened. But really, there are usually at least a few who remain faithful despite the "Great Disappointment"* when a prophecy seems to fail.

*reference here is to the Millerites.

Perhaps not, but when do people ever do what is most sensible?

Iow, some will be dead, some won't. That would easily be true by the time of GMark (and, frankly, makes sense that the author decided to change what was likely the original claim from "none" to "some" for precisely that reason), but then, even if it weren't, are you arguing that whoever physically wrote the first draft of GMark had the luxury of not relating the original story (aka, "the truth")? That is was an option for him to change whatever he wanted to suit a subsequent non-event? Because, you know, new kettle o' fish.

Perhaps! I could think of a lot of reasons though, the most simple being that the verse was too widely known as an oral tradition to avoid its inclusion, so an apologetic explanation was already circulating to explain it away.

Do you realize that all of your answers assume an understanding on the part of the authors and adherents that they are deliberately manufacturing and participating in a lie? Like they all know it's bullshit, but just don't care, because, hey, what are you gonna' do, it's just religion and stuff.

It's your go-to apologetic. Basically, everyone is smart enough to know it's all nonsense, but it gives them surcease of sorrow, so that's why and that's enough.

Maybe, but I don't see why one couldn't be more honestly deluded than this implies?

 

[ruby sparks]

Calling me out by name, demanding that I post in a thread, then going apoplectic that I'm still not in your camp? Yeah, you're coming off as a bit of a nutter. Rude, too.

Don't forget telling you what to say. Apoplectic. You sure? You looked up the meaning of that? Catch yourself on poli. You're going all playing the victim card. As to thinking it matters to me if you're an atheist or not.....?