Failed prophecy.

[ruby sparks]

So where does that leave religious belief as a way of seeing the world? And of course, faith itself as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

About the same place as Evolutionary Theory after Piltdown was unmasked..

Belief in god. Belief in evolutionary theory. Hm. No, not seeing how one is or could reasonably be described as being in about the same place as the other. Can see why you might though.

That wasn't an invitation to explain. Your ridiculous comment is self-explanatory imo. And you feel insulted if your religious beliefs are not taken seriously here? I think it could be you who insults your own intelligence.

 

[DBT]

How is that a fair comparison? These fakes in science were uncovered with the application of science. Once uncovered, nobody was in a position to rationalize what are clear cases of fakery.

And yet, Leninists abound.

I can't see the connection.

 

[Politesse]

So where does that leave religious belief as a way of seeing the world? And of course, faith itself as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

About the same place as Evolutionary Theory after Piltdown was unmasked..

Belief in god. Belief in evolutionary theory. Hm. No, not seeing how one is or could reasonably be described as being in about the same place as the other. Can see why you might though.

That wasn't an invitation to explain. Your ridiculous comment is self-explanatory imo. And you feel insulted if your religious beliefs are not taken seriously here? I think it could be you who insults your own intelligence.

They aren't the same kind of beliefs. At all. I don't think you quite get the point. Someone making a false claim does not somehow delegitimize the entire domain of knowledge connected to it. Even if they, or their followers, refuse to admit that they were wrong. We could be talking about philosophy, cosmology, history, auto care. ... DBTs argument would still be ridiculous.

And I don't give a whit whether anyone "takes my religious beliefs seriously" or not. I do get tired of the endless personal insults. Do you guys ever stop to think about the fact that when you are incapable of talking to someone of a different religion without insulting their intelligence/sanity/personality etc, it makes it look like you really don't have a rational point to make? Schoolyard taunts aren't necessary when you have an actual rational argument to employ.

 

[ruby sparks]

Belief in god. Belief in evolutionary theory. Hm. No, not seeing how one is or could reasonably be described as being in about the same place as the other. Can see why you might though.

That wasn't an invitation to explain. Your ridiculous comment is self-explanatory imo. And you feel insulted if your religious beliefs are not taken seriously here? I think it could be you who insults your own intelligence.

They aren't the same kind of beliefs. At all. I don't think you quite get the point. Someone making a false claim does not somehow delegitimize the entire domain of knowledge connected to it. Even if they, or their followers, refuse to admit that they were wrong. We could be talking about philosophy, cosmology, history, auto care. ... DBTs argument would still be ridiculous.

I think I do get the relevant point. Your response regarding belief in god and belief in evolutionary theory was attempted false equivalence. Nice try.

 

[ruby sparks]

And I don't give a whit whether anyone "takes my religious beliefs seriously" or not. I do get tired of the endless personal insults. Do you guys ever stop to think about the fact that when you are incapable of talking to someone of a different religion without insulting their intelligence/sanity/personality etc, it makes it look like you really don't have a rational point to make? Schoolyard taunts aren't necessary when you have an actual rational argument to employ.

I don't see anybody here being any worse or better than you in those respects and I think you should stop whining about the responses you get. Nor do I see a lack of rational points at all. I see you squirming, being vague, not grasping the nettle and obfuscating as usual on these matters. Most recently, I see you trying to equate two things which can't reasonably be equated.

 

[Politesse]

Belief in god. Belief in evolutionary theory. Hm. No, not seeing how one is or could reasonably be described as being in about the same place as the other. Can see why you might though.

That wasn't an invitation to explain. Your ridiculous comment is self-explanatory imo. And you feel insulted if your religious beliefs are not taken seriously here? I think it could be you who insults your own intelligence.

They aren't the same kind of beliefs. At all. I don't think you quite get the point. Someone making a false claim does not somehow delegitimize the entire domain of knowledge connected to it. Even if they, or their followers, refuse to admit that they were wrong. We could be talking about philosophy, cosmology, history, auto care. ... DBTs argument would still be ridiculous.

But your response was nonetheless attempted false equivalence on your part. Nice try.

False equivalence? No, the whole point is that the topic is irrelevant to the possibilty of fraud or error. Your claim was that someone having made a false statement claim once means that the entire domain of knowledge connected to it is delegitimized. We could be talking about literally anything, cosmogeny or lawn care, and your argument would still be fallacious.

 

[ruby sparks]

But your response was nonetheless attempted false equivalence on your part. Nice try.

False equivalence? No, the whole point is that the topic is irrelevant to the possibilty of fraud or error. Your claim was that someone having made a false statement claim once means that the entire domain of knowledge connected to it is delegitimized. We could be talking about literally anything, cosmogeny or lawn care, and your argument would still be fallacious.

Look, you can't seriously put belief in god and belief in evolutionary theory in 'about the same place' as each other. Which you tried to do. We can all read. End of. Stop waffling for goodness sake. It's embarrassing to watch.

- - - Updated - - -

To wit:

So where does that leave religious belief as a way of seeing the world? And of course, faith itself as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

About the same place as Evolutionary Theory after Piltdown was unmasked....

 

[Politesse]

Look, you can't seriously put belief in god and belief in evolutionary theory in 'about the same place' as each other. Which you tried to do. We can all read. End of. Stop waffling for goodness sake. It's embarrassing to watch.

- - - Updated - - -

To wit:

So where does that leave religious belief as a way of seeing the world? And of course, faith itself as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

About the same place as Evolutionary Theory after Piltdown was unmasked....

My point is that neither domain is somehow delegitimized by the presence of a false claim within it, which is what DBT was claiming. If it is a valid claim about any domain, then it would apply equally to all domains regardless of whether they are related to each other.

 

[ruby sparks]

My point is that neither domain is somehow delegitimized by the presence of a false claim within it,...

No. The point is that you clearly and obviously went beyond that, into what can informally be described as an attempted false equivalence. Do give over.

... which is what DBT was claiming. If it is a valid claim about any domain, then it would apply equally to all domains regardless of whether they are related to each other.

No. DBT asked a question, with a point to it. It was only you that made the attempted equiavalence, in your reply, and apparently (it seems now) segued into logical validity, as a convenient way to try to get the two things to be 'in about the same place'. And you wonder why some here think you're slippery when it comes to religious beliefs?

I mean seriously. "I am and always have been agnostic on the existence of the various portrayals of God, or other deities and spirits for that matter". Could that be more slippery? No one asked you about your belief or otherwise in the existence of the various portrayals of god. They clearly exist.

 

[DBT]

Look, you can't seriously put belief in god and belief in evolutionary theory in 'about the same place' as each other. Which you tried to do. We can all read. End of. Stop waffling for goodness sake. It's embarrassing to watch.

- - - Updated - - -

To wit:

My point is that neither domain is somehow delegitimized by the presence of a false claim within it, which is what DBT was claiming. If it is a valid claim about any domain, then it would apply equally to all domains regardless of whether they are related to each other.

The failure of prophesy is just one aspect of a larger set of problems with the gospels and the bible as a whole....Which is why your analogy to fakery in science did not work. I was merely focussing on failure of prophesy because there are some who deny that this a failed prophesy.

 

[Politesse]

Look, you can't seriously put belief in god and belief in evolutionary theory in 'about the same place' as each other. Which you tried to do. We can all read. End of. Stop waffling for goodness sake. It's embarrassing to watch.

- - - Updated - - -

To wit:

My point is that neither domain is somehow delegitimized by the presence of a false claim within it, which is what DBT was claiming. If it is a valid claim about any domain, then it would apply equally to all domains regardless of whether they are related to each other.

The failure of prophesy is just one aspect of a larger set of problems with the gospels and the bible as a whole....Which is why your analogy to fakery in science did not work. I was merely focussing on failure of prophesy because there are some who deny that this a failed prophesy.

I agreed about the prophecy. And you said "What then of religion altogether?" as though sequitur. Non sequitur.

- - - Updated - - -

My point is that neither domain is somehow delegitimized by the presence of a false claim within it,...

No. The point is that you clearly and obviously went beyond that, into what can informally be described as an attempted false equivalence. Do give over.

... which is what DBT was claiming. If it is a valid claim about any domain, then it would apply equally to all domains regardless of whether they are related to each other.

No. DBT asked a question, with a point to it. It was only you that made the attempted equiavalence, in your reply, and apparently (it seems now) segued into logical validity, as a convenient way to try to get the two things to be 'in about the same place'. And you wonder why some here think you're slippery when it comes to religious beliefs?

I mean seriously. "I am and always have been agnostic on the existence of the various portrayals of God, or other deities and spirits for that matter". Could that be more slippery? No one asked you about your belief or otherwise in the existence of the various portrayals of god. They clearly exist.

If you think my beliefs are "slippery", that's fine. I can't state them any more clearly or honestly than I have.

And again, your obsession with attacking me personally in every post only makes your own argument less convincing. If you had a point, constantly attacking my personality and intelligence would be quite irrelevant to it.

 

[ruby sparks]

The failure of prophesy is just one aspect of a larger set of problems with the gospels and the bible as a whole....Which is why your analogy to fakery in science did not work. I was merely focussing on failure of prophesy because there are some who deny that this a failed prophesy.

I agreed about the prophecy. And you said "What then of religion altogether?" as though sequitur. Non sequitur.

But it's not a non-sequitur. Obviously, it doesn't necessarily follow that all religious beliefs are wrong just because of a dud prophecy, but this one does cast serious doubt on Jesus and Christianity generally. As it should (and as it should not for something as robust and evidenced as evolutionary theory) by any reasonable standards of rational skepticism, imo.

And I don't mean the non-supernatural parts, there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts. I'm talking about any supernatural aspects of either Jesus or Christianity. It's those claims that are damaged by the false prophecy. And subsequent reasonable enquiries could go from, 'do you then think it likely he actually rose from the dead?', for example, all the way up to, 'did he believe in a god that may not have existed at all?'

I mean, if you take out rising from the dead, and add in not coming back a second time and the end of the world not happening, that makes a pretty good case for thinking the whole shebang lacks manifest supernatural credentials on its own terms.

 

[Politesse]

The failure of prophesy is just one aspect of a larger set of problems with the gospels and the bible as a whole....Which is why your analogy to fakery in science did not work. I was merely focussing on failure of prophesy because there are some who deny that this a failed prophesy.

I agreed about the prophecy. And you said "What then of religion altogether?" as though sequitur. Non sequitur.

But it's not a non-sequitur. Obviously, it doesn't necessarily follow that all religious beliefs are wrong just because of a dud prophecy, but it does cast serious doubt on Jesus and Christianity generally. As it should. And I don't mean the non-supernatural parts, there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts. I'm talking about any supernatural aspects of either Jesus or Christianity. It's those claims that are damaged by the false prophecy. And subsequent questions could go from, 'do you think it likely he actually rose from the dead?', for example, all the way up to, 'did he believe in a god that may not have existed at all?'

I mean, if you take out rising from the dead, and add in not coming back a second time and the end of the world not happening, that makes a pretty good case for thinking the whole shebang lacks manifest supernatural credentials on its own terms.

That is not what DBT wrote.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts.

Is there? Because if you take away the nonsense about a life after death, then all he's telling occupied Jerusalem is to obey Roman authority; let them beat you more than they otherwise normally would; pay your taxes; avoid going to court for any reason; be meek, docile and never seek to change your lot in life, for your suffering means you are blessed by a sky daddy that doesn't exist.

It's a slave owner's philosophy that literally instructs slaves to rejoice in their suffering.

 

[ruby sparks]

there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts.

Is there? Because if you take away the nonsense about a life after death, then all he's telling occupied Jerusalem is to obey Roman authority; let them beat you more than they otherwise normally would; pay your taxes; avoid going to court for any reason; be meek, docile and never seek to change your lot in life, for your suffering means you are blessed by a sky daddy that doesn't exist.

It's a slave owner's philosophy that literally instructs slaves to rejoice in their suffering.

I think there is, yes.

He was of his time and zeitgeist, sure, which makes a lot of it seem flawed, in hindsight.

 

[ruby sparks]

But it's not a non-sequitur. Obviously, it doesn't necessarily follow that all religious beliefs are wrong just because of a dud prophecy, but it does cast serious doubt on Jesus and Christianity generally. As it should. And I don't mean the non-supernatural parts, there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts. I'm talking about any supernatural aspects of either Jesus or Christianity. It's those claims that are damaged by the false prophecy. And subsequent questions could go from, 'do you think it likely he actually rose from the dead?', for example, all the way up to, 'did he believe in a god that may not have existed at all?'

I mean, if you take out rising from the dead, and add in not coming back a second time and the end of the world not happening, that makes a pretty good case for thinking the whole shebang lacks manifest supernatural credentials on its own terms.

That is not what DBT wrote.

I'll let him clarify and/or rephrase if necessary. It seemed to me that he was asking about the supernatural claims of religion (with Christianity particularly in mind) and not what we might call the sociological aspects of religion. Those are less contentious. Any reasonable person can agree that religion, in a social, non-supernatural sense, has many upsides.

 

[ruby sparks]

there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts.

Is there? Because if you take away the nonsense about a life after death, then all he's telling occupied Jerusalem is to obey Roman authority; let them beat you more than they otherwise normally would; pay your taxes; avoid going to court for any reason; be meek, docile and never seek to change your lot in life, for your suffering means you are blessed by a sky daddy that doesn't exist.

It's a slave owner's philosophy that literally instructs slaves to rejoice in their suffering.

i would add that in my version of Jesus (ie the one I personally think is most plausible) the idea of kowtowing to the Romans would have been anathema. In my opinion, the stuff about obeying Roman authority is likely post-Pauline and as such not the views of Jesus. As I see him.

 

[skepticalbip]

there's plenty to admire about Jesus the man, and his philosophy, at least in terms of how it has come down to us through the texts.

Is there? Because if you take away the nonsense about a life after death, then all he's telling occupied Jerusalem is to obey Roman authority; let them beat you more than they otherwise normally would; pay your taxes; avoid going to court for any reason; be meek, docile and never seek to change your lot in life, for your suffering means you are blessed by a sky daddy that doesn't exist.

It's a slave owner's philosophy that literally instructs slaves to rejoice in their suffering.

i would add that in my version of Jesus (ie the one I personally think is most plausible) the idea of kowtowing to the Romans would have been anathema. In my opinion, the stuff about obeying Roman authority is likely post-Pauline and as such not the views of Jesus. As I see him.

Interesting idea but, according the the scholars in the attached documentary, the stuff about obeying Rome was entirely initiated by the Pauline doctrine. Again, according to the documentary's scholars, Paul won the battle for control of the church from a rival group that were actually close to Jesus and disagreed with Paul. Paul never actually knew Jesus only claiming to be channeling him.

 

[ruby sparks]

i would add that in my version of Jesus (ie the one I personally think is most plausible) the idea of kowtowing to the Romans would have been anathema. In my opinion, the stuff about obeying Roman authority is likely post-Pauline and as such not the views of Jesus. As I see him.

Interesting idea but, according the the scholars in the attached documentary, the stuff about obeying Rome was entirely initiated by the Pauline doctrine. Again, according to the documentary's scholars, Paul won the battle for control of the church from a rival group that were actually close to Jesus and disagreed with Paul. Paul never actually knew Jesus only claiming to be channeling him.

Yes. I haven't watched the video, but that would seem to be close to my take. So I'm not sure why you said, 'interesting idea, but...'.

ETA: Ah. I see. I didn't say what I meant very well. I was trying to say that it was likely Paul who changed the emphasis, imo. I was perhaps thinking of the gospels. I should have said 'Pauline and post-Pauline'.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

i would add that in my version of Jesus (ie the one I personally think is most plausible) the idea of kowtowing to the Romans would have been anathema. In my opinion, the stuff about obeying Roman authority is likely post-Pauline and as such not the views of Jesus. As I see him.

Interesting idea but, according the the scholars in the attached documentary, the stuff about obeying Rome was entirely initiated by the Pauline doctrine. Again, according to the documentary's scholars, Paul won the battle for control of the church from a rival group that were actually close to Jesus and disagreed with Paul. Paul never actually knew Jesus only claiming to be channeling him.

Didn't watch it, but are you saying (either "you" as in you personally, ruby or the documentary) that GMark was an invention of Paul's, because the same shit is in there too?

Many apologists (not saying either of you are), have made the argument that there was a whole "Roman" arc that was added to the Gospels accounts in order to hide from the Romans (like Pilate washing his hands and the like), but of course, that just begs the question then, what is the actual story and why wasn't it reinstated at some later date?

Surely if there was a concentrated, deliberate effort to revise the story for fear of Roman reprisal in the early days, once that fear passed (certainly by Constantine's time if not, you know, immediately in keeping with Jesus' own amonitions not to fear reprisals in his name as that just meant they were even more super-duper blessed) the keepers of the sacred story of God's only son incarnate in flesh on earth would be, you know, reinstated?

I mean, it's not all that important, so, you know, fuck it. It's just our eternal souls.