The root of Christianity

[steve_bank]

In the Seattle area there are numerous small independent church groups. They meet in homes or rent a small spce.

There no singular Christianity. The only common threads are the resurrection, existence of god, and Jesus as son of god as the savior who dies for humanity.

Is it Calvinism that says the saved are predetermined?

Over here Christians denounce other Christians as bogus.

 

[funinspace]

You're wrong. Protestants do not reject the apocrypha. Luther wrote a bunch on apocryphal texts that he hated. But at no point did he question their validity or that they aren't genuine and part of Christianity and should be taught.

I said "only Protestants reject them", not "all Protestants reject them".

That's not saying much since there's a billion and one various protestant denominations.

Actually, what Politesse said is spot on, and what you said is off base, so she said quite a bit compared to you. A large majority of Protestants (the other half of Christendom outside of the RCC) reject the apocrypha as non canonical. What Luther said and wrote has little to do with the thinking of modern Christians regarding the apocrypha. It isn't in their Bibles, they don't teach about it, they don't quote it, they don't really talk about it. This is especially true of the modern evangelicals and fundamentalists. At least in the US, these books started disappearing from more and more Bible publications starting in the 1880's.

Even the largest US Lutheran sect (ELCA), which still obviously clings to Luther's writings, doesn't spend any church time within the apocrypha books. Whether or not an ELCA Lutheran member has these books within their Bible is purely up to the individual choice of which version of Bible they buy.

 

[Politesse]

That's not saying much since there's a billion and one various protestant denominations.

Actually, what Politesse said is spot on, and what you said is off base, so she said quite a bit compared to you. A large majority of Protestants (the other half of Christendom outside of the RCC) reject the apocrypha as non canonical. What Luther said and wrote has little to do with the thinking of modern Christians regarding the apocrypha. It isn't in their Bibles, they don't teach about it, they don't quote it, they don't really talk about it. This is especially true of the modern evangelicals and fundamentalists. At least in the US, these books started disappearing from more and more Bible publications starting in the 1880's.

Even the largest US Lutheran sect (ELCA), which still obviously clings to Luther's writings, doesn't spend any church time within the apocrypha books. Whether or not an ELCA Lutheran member has these books within their Bible is purely up to the individual choice of which version of Bible they buy.

This is quite true. I attended an ELCA seminary, and we did use the Oxford Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) for the majority of our serious course work at the Master's level. But, I don't recall ever once hearing the "Apocryphal" material mentioned in church when I was growing up. Indeed I was surprised (and a tad offended) to discover their existence when I was a teenager briefly attending a parochial high school which naturally used the NAB for their work. I remember feeling that I'd been sabotaged in my ability to fully understand other Christians, never having been so much as informed that alternative arrangments of the canon existed.

For that matter, outside of the Little Catechism, his popular hymns, and the evening prayers, I don't recall studying Luther much as a kid either; his theology was likewise treated like an "advanced topic" best left for college.

 

[funinspace]

That's not saying much since there's a billion and one various protestant denominations.

Actually, what Politesse said is spot on, and what you said is off base, so she said quite a bit compared to you. A large majority of Protestants (the other half of Christendom outside of the RCC) reject the apocrypha as non canonical. What Luther said and wrote has little to do with the thinking of modern Christians regarding the apocrypha. It isn't in their Bibles, they don't teach about it, they don't quote it, they don't really talk about it. This is especially true of the modern evangelicals and fundamentalists. At least in the US, these books started disappearing from more and more Bible publications starting in the 1880's.

Even the largest US Lutheran sect (ELCA), which still obviously clings to Luther's writings, doesn't spend any church time within the apocrypha books. Whether or not an ELCA Lutheran member has these books within their Bible is purely up to the individual choice of which version of Bible they buy.

This is quite true. I attended an ELCA seminary, and we did use the Oxford Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) for the majority of our serious course work at the Master's level. But, I don't recall ever once hearing the "Apocryphal" material mentioned in church when I was growing up. Indeed I was surprised (and a tad offended) to discover their existence when I was a teenager briefly attending a parochial high school which naturally used the NAB for their work. I remember feeling that I'd been sabotaged in my ability to fully understand other Christians, never having been so much as informed that alternative arrangments of the canon existed.

I think the Oxford Bible is one of the better versions; and my Study version of it has the Apocrypha as well. Though it is the only Bible I have with it. None of the NIV and KJV, and the 4-5 family KJV Bibles have it either.

For that matter, outside of the Little Catechism, his popular hymns, and the evening prayers, I don't recall studying Luther much as a kid either; his theology was likewise treated like an "advanced topic" best left for college.

I spent about 6 years in the ELCA church, and Luther's writings were in some Sunday study topics (but not the Apocrypha). The independent Bible/evangelical churches I spent a dozen years in, didn't touch the Apocrypha, not even with a 12 foot Asherah pole At most, the Apocrypha got a slight mention 2-3 times over a dozen plus adult years in mainstream Protestant churches I was a part of.

 

[steve_bank]

The Oxford Bible and the commentary companion book is what i used.

Analysis of all the books with the issues in translations from an academic view..

 

[Learner]

The variations of Christianity, for example the churches, that were already established in the 1st century, long before Constantine and the scriptural canonization, in which bewteen them, only had trivial differences. ALL Churches (the few that existed at that particular time period), believed in Christ as the saviour etc..

I’m not sure how much harmony there really was in the early church. You say they all “believed in Christ as the savior, etc.” Sure, but there’s a lot covered by that “etc.”

For one thing, Paul mentions several times in his genuine epistles that members of the churches he addresses should not listen to other, false preachers preaching false doctrine. So Paul was under the impression that there were different messages and important differences that needed to be addressed. Acts describes a meeting between Paul and James in Jerusalem, and their disagreements, presumably over whether non Jews could be members of the church.

Being that this was the first century, I would wonder whether there was really enough time for any such contrary differences between the existing churches, whilst sharing the same source of origin during Pauls time.

The disagreements between Paul and James is an interesting one - not disputing the above. Given that the Gospel is to be preached to all the world, Mark:16:15 for example, to which imo, I don't think gentiles were to be excluded from following Christ, as being part of the church or even as a seperate church.

Perhaps the gentiles were not considered by James to be ready and thought this should start with all Jews first. What ever these particular reasons were for both individuals, I would assume they'd both be aware of the faith concept ... that is, spreading the message, the word, the gospel, 'preaching to all the world.'

That last question erupted in only the second century with Marcion, the first to codify the New Testament (he included the letters of Paul and a modified Luke). Marcionism rejects all of Jewish teaching in what we now call the Old Testament, including worship of Yahweh. For a good period of time Marcionism was the most popular version of Christianity.

yes indeed, Marcion is an interesting fellow. It seems he had quite a gnostic pov of the scriptures. Not surprising when shortly after, going into the 3rd century, as I was mentioning in another post, gnosticism became more prominent.

His way of things, didn't go unnoticed:

Where for also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the scriptures not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone authentic, which they themselves have shortened." - Irenaeus

As for violence, while you may be correct that many early Christians were pacifists, nevertheless they could still display violence, by overturning pagan statues and defiling pagan temples, which was one of the chief complaints pagans had about Christians. My source for that information is Robin L Fox, Pagans and Christians.

Regarding violence, I'd say it depends on how one definely sees it, in perpspective to context i.e. causing direct harm to individuals etc..

Great source, thanks for that, well worth getting the book, a subject area worth brushing up on (in my case). I had a little read up on Pagans and Christians, which also lead me to the quote above by Irenaeus. (Lion and Poli know this area better than I do)

The myth of a unified Christianity is exactly that – a myth. Schisms go back to the earliest days of the church.

The degree of unified as in saying, "all churches are indentically the same," is not what I'm saying to be clear.

 

[DrZoidberg]

clerical chastity!


https://literatureandhistory.com/index.php/episode-092-athanasius-life-of-antony

I'm continuing my odyssey into this podcast. The latest one is about monasticism and how priestly abstinence emerged in the Christian church. I'd always been taught that priestly abstinence was something imposed from above because the church wanted to amass wealth. It turns out that was nothing but protestant slander against the Catholic church. They explain it well in the podcast. Monasticism and priestly abstinence has the same roots. Christianity is heavily influenced by Stoicism. Stoicism emphasizes self control and self mastery. And the only way to gain self mastery is rejection of bodily needs. Christianity picked that up and made it into a kind of holier than thou competition. Yes, competitive humility.

The most extreme (and therefore good) Christians would head out into the wilderness and live alone. The longer they lived isolated and alone the more status they would get and the more heroic they would be. Congregations and bishoprics would brag about having to talk decades long hermits into being made into bishops in the church. The highest status would be afforded to wealthy monks (as they became known) who renounced all their wealth and chose a life of poverty. These monks often spent their time copying Bible or writing. Bibles. Popular isolated spots for monks over time grew into communities of sorts. It wasn't really communities. These monks spent their days alone. But small communities would spring up to cater to these monks needs. This was also seen as a heroic act. To form little villages with bakeries and supply stores. Since a lot of them were literate and clearly thought they were awesome, they often wrote about other ascetics they looked up to. They created the Hagiography. These are interesting because they spell out exactly how to get status as a Christian hermit. They read like fanboys talking about their favourite popstar ascribing to them super human qualities.

Since these men and women spent all their days alone, they obviously were chaste.

The early Catholic church didn't have a rule against non-chastity among it's clearly. It was just that the chaste members of the clergy had higher status. And since this was a competition of humility, the chaste priests would win out over time. Outcompeting those that enjoyed carnal pleasures. It soon became an informal rule that morphed into a formal rule, without anyone needing to be forced into anything they weren't doing already.

 

[DrZoidberg]

One funny comment he made was about Saint Jerome who made a big thing about his monastic secluded lifestyle. Where he says he models his life on Saint Antony. But where Saint Antony lives in a cave in a desert and sustain himself on nothing but bread and water, Saint Jeromy lived in a luxurious country villa enjoying the finer things in life. His asceticism was more conscious image building than a reality. There's a couple of those Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria is another example of someone who probably didn't suffer quite as much as his writings suggest. His seclusion was more like smooching off fans in the countryside. He didn't seem to be suffering from any humility. I get the impression he was a bit of a douchebag.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's another snippet of information that I thought was interesting. Like I said above Canaanites would often go to Egypt and work as day labourers. So there was a lot of cultural influence in both directions.

In the 1820'ies we discovered the Westcar papyrus. An ancient papyrus scroll.

They about various early Pharaos. One about Sneferu (2580 BC). Granted that we don't know when this was written. But they were traditional Egyptian stories. In one story there's a missing necklace and the lector priest parts the sea so that the necklace can be retrieved.

This is likely the source for the story of Moses. Though, it could also be the other way around. Since this story is written in a more sophisticated and later Canaanite style, it's quite possible that both the story and the style were borrowed into Egypt. But most likely it was the other way. Egypt's mythology tended to go out from Egypt rather the other way around.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westcar_Papyrus



https://www.perankhgroup.com/three tales.htm

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Root? or Roots?

I wonder if the title should really be The Roots of Christianity (plural), rather than Root (singular).

"Roots" could be virtually anything in the earlier culture, and all of it sloshed together sort of evolves into the later Christianity phenomenon. And you could give special emphasis to this or that particular "root" from the earlier time, saying one is more important than another, but it's all pretty subjective. You can easily dig up reasons why this "root" had more significance than that one.

But if "Root" is the topic, singular -- meaning The ONE singular element back there which by itself caused the Christianity thing to happen, and without which there'd be no Christianity --- then that's a much different topic.

If it's the singular "Root" that's the topic, how can this be anything other than the event which happened about 30 AD in the Galilee/Judea region, where a person showed up who is said to have done miracles and rose back to life after he was killed?

How can "The Root of Christianity" not be that event, whatever one believes actually happened? What it is that happened there, at that time and place, causing those claims to be made and then leading to the new Christ cult(s) and the writings they produced -- that happening has to be the "Root" of the later Christianity, does it not?

Is it possible to imagine that "Christianity" would have happened anyway, even if no such special event happened there at that time? What if the historical Jesus person, instead of doing whatever he did, had gotten detracted, or suppose he had an accident and got killed, or otherwise never showed up there, or anywhere else, to do whatever he did.

If he had gotten erased from history somehow, would Christianity have happened anyway, just the same, only with a few minor details changed? Would another Messiah narrative have emerged instead, in place of this one, with someone else thrust into the Messiah role to serve as the savior which was predetermined to pop up somewhere anyway? complete with miracles and Resurrection narrative essentially the same but with only a few differences in detail?

 

[Learner]

I wonder if the title should really be The Roots of Christianity (plural), rather than Root (singular).

"Roots" could be virtually anything in the earlier culture, and all of it sloshed together sort of evolves into the later Christianity phenomenon. And you could give special emphasis to this or that particular "root" from the earlier time, saying one is more important than another, but it's all pretty subjective. You can easily dig up reasons why this "root" had more significance than that one.

But if "Root" is the topic, singular -- meaning The ONE singular element back there which by itself caused the Christianity thing to happen, and without which there'd be no Christianity --- then that's a much different topic.

If it's the singular "Root" that's the topic, how can this be anything other than the event which happened about 30 AD in the Galilee/Judea region, where a person showed up who is said to have done miracles and rose back to life after he was killed?

How can "The Root of Christianity" not be that event, whatever one believes actually happened? What it is that happened there, at that time and place, causing those claims to be made and then leading to the new Christ cult(s) and the writings they produced -- that happening has to be the "Root" of the later Christianity, does it not?

Is it possible to imagine that "Christianity" would have happened anyway, even if no such special event happened there at that time? What if the historical Jesus person, instead of doing whatever he did, had gotten detracted, or suppose he had an accident and got killed, or otherwise never showed up there, or anywhere else, to do whatever he did.

If he had gotten erased from history somehow, would Christianity have happened anyway, just the same, only with a few minor details changed? Would another Messiah narrative have emerged instead, in place of this one, with someone else thrust into the Messiah role to serve as the savior which was predetermined to pop up somewhere anyway? complete with miracles and Resurrection narrative essentially the same but with only a few differences in detail?

Well highlighted, good points overlooked.

 

[atrib]

I wonder if the title should really be The Roots of Christianity (plural), rather than Root (singular).

"Roots" could be virtually anything in the earlier culture, and all of it sloshed together sort of evolves into the later Christianity phenomenon. And you could give special emphasis to this or that particular "root" from the earlier time, saying one is more important than another, but it's all pretty subjective. You can easily dig up reasons why this "root" had more significance than that one.

But if "Root" is the topic, singular -- meaning The ONE singular element back there which by itself caused the Christianity thing to happen, and without which there'd be no Christianity --- then that's a much different topic.

If it's the singular "Root" that's the topic, how can this be anything other than the event which happened about 30 AD in the Galilee/Judea region, where a person showed up who is said to have done miracles and rose back to life after he was killed?

How can "The Root of Christianity" not be that event, whatever one believes actually happened? What it is that happened there, at that time and place, causing those claims to be made and then leading to the new Christ cult(s) and the writings they produced -- that happening has to be the "Root" of the later Christianity, does it not?

Is it possible to imagine that "Christianity" would have happened anyway, even if no such special event happened there at that time? What if the historical Jesus person, instead of doing whatever he did, had gotten detracted, or suppose he had an accident and got killed, or otherwise never showed up there, or anywhere else, to do whatever he did.

If he had gotten erased from history somehow, would Christianity have happened anyway, just the same, only with a few minor details changed? Would another Messiah narrative have emerged instead, in place of this one, with someone else thrust into the Messiah role to serve as the savior which was predetermined to pop up somewhere anyway? complete with miracles and Resurrection narrative essentially the same but with only a few differences in detail?

Well highlighted, good points overlooked.

Do you not see the obvious fallacies in Lumpy's arguments? Here, I've highlighted a few for you.

Argument from ignorance:

Arguments from ignorance

(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

• "I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).
• This example clearly states what appeal to ignorance is: "Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs."^[8]
• Carl Sagan explains in his book The Demon-Haunted World:

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.^[9]

​

Instead of providing evidence to support his claim, Lumpy argues that there can be no explanation for the origin of the Jesus myth other than the events being real, based purely on his personal lack of imagination. This is a textbook example of argument from ignorance, which is fallacious. The argument is also demonstrably false; we know of many other mechanisms by which the stories could have originated, none of which require supernatural intervention.

Do you really not understand why Lumpy's arguments are flawed? How embarrassing.

 

[Learner]

Do you not see the obvious fallacies in Lumpy's arguments? Here, I've highlighted a few for you.

Argument from ignorance:

Arguments from ignorance

(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

• "I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).
• This example clearly states what appeal to ignorance is: "Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs."^[8]
• Carl Sagan explains in his book The Demon-Haunted World:

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.^[9]

​

Instead of providing evidence to support his claim, Lumpy argues that there can be no explanation for the origin of the Jesus myth other than the events being real, based purely on his personal lack of imagination. This is a textbook example of argument from ignorance, which is fallacious. The argument is also demonstrably false; we know of many other mechanisms by which the stories could have originated, none of which require supernatural intervention.

Do you really not understand why Lumpy's arguments are flawed? How embarrassing.

Cheers for highlighting the above.

As Lumpy pointed out roots (plural) and root singular. In the same way, which you have overlooked: what evidence was there for the plural notion, which you coud have pointed out as flawed... even before Lumpy even posted?

Here's what's flawed.. Why is rootS (plural) a "better" origin explanation, and having no evidence of.., than the singular root origin?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you not see the obvious fallacies in Lumpy's arguments? Here, I've highlighted a few for you.

Argument from ignorance:

Arguments from ignorance

(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

• "I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).
• This example clearly states what appeal to ignorance is: "Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs."^[8]
• Carl Sagan explains in his book The Demon-Haunted World:

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.^[9]

​

Instead of providing evidence to support his claim, Lumpy argues that there can be no explanation for the origin of the Jesus myth other than the events being real, based purely on his personal lack of imagination. This is a textbook example of argument from ignorance, which is fallacious. The argument is also demonstrably false; we know of many other mechanisms by which the stories could have originated, none of which require supernatural intervention.

Do you really not understand why Lumpy's arguments are flawed? How embarrassing.

As Lumpy pointed out roots (plural) and root singular. In the same way, which you overlooked: what evidence was there for the plural notion, which you could have pointed out as flawed... before Lumpy's post? Why is plural a better explanation, having no evidence of.. than the singular root origin?

Because as usual, Lumpy is leveraging his ignorance into conclusive proof of what he already believes.

I always thought, as a believer, that the whole point of Christainity, the base of the pyramid, was the idea of redemption. Second chances, forgiveness, salvation. The Divine loves us and provides a means for us to bridge the gap between us and Divinity. This, to me, remains the true core of the faith whether the Christ story is historical, partially historical, or a parable told for instructional metaphor.

Lumpy isn't looking for the root so much as starting with the fruit (his need for a belief that he can acquire everlasting life by simply believing in Jesus' reality) and imagining the entire tree (root, bark, branch, and twigs) from that fruit.

You like his conclusions so you like his argument. Not the acme of scholarship, there.

 

[Learner]

As Lumpy pointed out roots (plural) and root singular. In the same way, which you overlooked: what evidence was there for the plural notion, which you could have pointed out as flawed... before Lumpy's post? Why is plural a better explanation, having no evidence of.. than the singular root origin?

Because as usual, Lumpy is leveraging his ignorance into conclusive proof of what he already believes.

There's often an auto-dismissal, despite when Lumpy highlights valid points.

I always thought, as a believer, that the whole point of Christainity, the base of the pyramid, was the idea of redemption. Second chances, forgiveness, salvation. The Divine loves us and provides a means for us to bridge the gap between us and Divinity. This, to me, remains the true core of the faith whether the Christ story is historical, partially historical, or a parable told for instructional metaphor.

Well, I do know you understand how a lot of Christians believe, from some of your posts.

You like his conclusions so you like his argument. Not the acme of scholarship, there.

I do like and concur with his post, but that's also like saying, that you (or others) like the alternative conclusion and argument, the roots over the root singular.

 

[atrib]

Do you not see the obvious fallacies in Lumpy's arguments? Here, I've highlighted a few for you.

Argument from ignorance:

Arguments from ignorance

(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

• "I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).
• This example clearly states what appeal to ignorance is: "Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs."^[8]
• Carl Sagan explains in his book The Demon-Haunted World:

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.^[9]

​

Instead of providing evidence to support his claim, Lumpy argues that there can be no explanation for the origin of the Jesus myth other than the events being real, based purely on his personal lack of imagination. This is a textbook example of argument from ignorance, which is fallacious. The argument is also demonstrably false; we know of many other mechanisms by which the stories could have originated, none of which require supernatural intervention.

Do you really not understand why Lumpy's arguments are flawed? How embarrassing.

Cheers for highlighting the above.

As Lumpy pointed out roots (plural) and root singular. In the same way, which you have overlooked: what evidence was there for the plural notion, which you coud have pointed out as flawed... even before Lumpy even posted?

Here's what's flawed.. Why is rootS (plural) a "better" origin explanation, and having no evidence of.., than the singular root origin?

We don't know how the Jesus miracle stories originated. Lumpy asserts that that the stories can only be based on factual events, and that that the events happened as described in the Bible. We are discussing whether Lumpy's argument is sound. Are you with me so far? Good.

Lets walk through my counter to Lumpy's argument one step at a time because you clearly don't understand what I said:

1. Lumpy has presented no evidence to support the claim that the Jesus stories are based on fact. Do you agree or disagree?

2. Lumpy has asserted that the stories should be considered true because he can't think of an alternate explanation. Do you agree or disagree?

3. This is a classic example of an argument from ignorance, which is fallacious and unsound. Do you agree or disagree?

I know this is hard for someone who doesn't understand how logical arguments work, so I am trying to explain my position to you in a way that you can follow. Is Lumpy's argument sound, or is it fallacious, based on everything I have told you? That is what we are trying to establish here.

As Lumpy pointed out roots (plural) and root singular. In the same way, which you have overlooked: what evidence was there for the plural notion, which you coud have pointed out as flawed... even before Lumpy even posted?

Lumpy's claim that the events can be explained only by inferring the intervention of a supernatural creator from outside the universe is extraordinary. He provides no evidence to support this claim. Moreover, he makes a fallacious argument based on ignorance - "I can't think of any way the stories could have originated, therefore the stories must be true".

I can conceive of a large number of potential explanations as to how the stories originated, none of which involve supernatural action. People make up stories about gods all the fucking time, and we have tens of thousands of such stories from all over the world. A naturalistic explanation such as this, based on the fact that such stories are common, is more likely to be true than Lumpy's explanation involving supernatural intervention. Do you understand this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's often an auto-dismissal, despite when Lumpy highlights valid points.

Problem is that only believers think he made valid points, and only because of his conclusions, ignoring huge faults in his logical chains.
Frankly, i don't think you examine his arguments deeply enough to say that points are valid, just that you agree with where he ended up.

I always thought, as a believer, that the whole point of Christainity, the base of the pyramid, was the idea of redemption. Second chances, forgiveness, salvation. The Divine loves us and provides a means for us to bridge the gap between us and Divinity. This, to me, remains the true core of the faith whether the Christ story is historical, partially historical, or a parable told for instructional metaphor.

Well, I do know you understand how a lot of Christians believe, from some of your posts.

This was just how i believed.
I also believed that Hell was a test, that a True Christain could not enjoy salvation if any human were suffering eternally. I fully expected to give up my chance at Heaven to save some wretch from the fires. I thought that was what Christains needed to do. Even if everyone else had gone before me and the only sinner left was Hitler....
Sharing this thought got my fellow believers ALL riled up.

You like his conclusions so you like his argument Not the acme of scholarship, there.

I do like and concur with his post, but that's also like saying, that you (or others) like the alternative conclusion and argument, the roots over the root singular.

No, it's not the same.

If there are flaws in the argument, then the conclusion doesn't matter. Even if it's right, it's only accidentally right.
But a flawed argument must produce a flawed conclusion even if it's an appealing one.

Lumpy tends to argue from the conclusion he wants to end up with, through the evidence he thinks supports that, or just makes shit up.
You start with the conclusion, too. And if you like it, you bless off his arguments.


Look, I believe in ghosts. i grew up in a haunted house. I am well aware that all my reasons for belief are subjective and personal, nothing i can use to convince anyone else in ghosts.
If Lumpy provided a standard Lumpy argument for the existence of ghosts, i would not accept it just because he ends up where i want the conclusion to be. I would examine his argument and his evidence, and if it's flawed i would point this out exactly because this makes it useless to me to convince anyone who doesn't already believe in invisible roommates who contribute squat to the rent. And any other ghoster who does congratulate him on his argument, despite the flaws, is also in the wrong.

 

[Learner]

Cheers for highlighting the above.

As Lumpy pointed out roots (plural) and root singular. In the same way, which you have overlooked: what evidence was there for the plural notion, which you coud have pointed out as flawed... even before Lumpy even posted?

Here's what's flawed.. Why is rootS (plural) a "better" origin explanation, and having no evidence of.., than the singular root origin?

We don't know how the Jesus miracle stories originated. Lumpy asserts that that the stories can only be based on factual events, and that that the events happened as described in the Bible. We are discussing whether Lumpy's argument is sound. Are you with me so far? Good.

Lets walk through my counter to Lumpy's argument one step at a time because you clearly don't understand what I said:

I'm with you so far. Ok, Lets see if there's the difference between Lumpy "making assertions" as you asert, or that Lumpy was making propositions instead.

1. Lumpy has presented no evidence to support the claim that the Jesus stories are based on fact. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

That's because he didn't make any claim, but rather... he proposed a thought line and asked the question giving the context on the very first line of the post, which is as follows:

I wonder if the title should really be The Roots of Christianity (plural), rather than Root (singular).

This is a typical way of engaging a direction for discussion. You can say it's a biased subject-view to his advantage maybe but it's NOT a claim.

2. Lumpy has asserted that the stories should be considered true because he can't think of an alternate explanation. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The statement is false!

As the previous question. Lumpy was asking various questions - he made the suggestion that we should also consider the alternatives.

You highlighted his inquisitiveness and his suggestions to consider:

Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
I wonder if the title should really be The Roots of Christianity (plural), rather than Root (singular).

"Roots" could be virtually anything in the earlier culture, and all of it sloshed together sort of evolves into the later Christianity phenomenon. And you could give special emphasis to this or that particular "root" from the earlier time, saying one is more important than another, but it's all pretty subjective. You can easily dig up reasons why this "root" had more significance than that one.

But if "Root" is the topic, singular -- meaning The ONE singular element back there which by itself caused the Christianity thing to happen, and without which there'd be no Christianity --- then that's a much different topic.

If it's the singular "Root" that's the topic, how can this be anything other than the event which happened about 30 AD in the Galilee/Judea region, where a person showed up who is said to have done miracles and rose back to life after he was killed?

How can "The Root of Christianity" not be that event, whatever one believes actually happened? What it is that happened there, at that time and place, causing those claims to be made and then leading to the new Christ cult(s) and the writings they produced -- that happening has to be the "Root" of the later Christianity, does it not?

Is it possible to imagine that "Christianity" would have happened anyway, even if no such special event happened there at that time? What if the historical Jesus person, instead of doing whatever he did, had gotten detracted, or suppose he had an accident and got killed, or otherwise never showed up there, or anywhere else, to do whatever he did.

If he had gotten erased from history somehow, would Christianity have happened anyway, just the same, only with a few minor details changed? Would another Messiah narrative have emerged instead, in place of this one, with someone else thrust into the Messiah role to serve as the savior which was predetermined to pop up somewhere anyway? complete with miracles and Resurrection narrative essentially the same but with only a few differences in detail?

3. This is a classic example of an argument from ignorance, which is fallacious and unsound. Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree again.., see the pevious answers above.

I know this is hard for someone who doesn't understand how logical arguments work, so I am trying to explain my position to you in a way that you can follow. Is Lumpy's argument sound, or is it fallacious, based on everything I have told you? That is what we are trying to establish here.

Possibly (to the underlined) but I think I know, as I call it, 'technicality-lawyer-speak' when it comes to false misleading arguments about claims. (Atheists I say again... make good technical lawyers)

As Lumpy pointed out roots (plural) and root singular. In the same way, which you have overlooked: what evidence was there for the plural notion, which you coud have pointed out as flawed... even before Lumpy even posted?

Lumpy's claim that the events can be explained only by inferring the intervention of a supernatural creator from outside the universe is extraordinary. He provides no evidence to support this claim. Moreover, he makes a fallacious argument based on ignorance - "I can't think of any way the stories could have originated, therefore the stories must be true".

I can conceive of a large number of potential explanations as to how the stories originated, none of which involve supernatural action. People make up stories about gods all the fucking time, and we have tens of thousands of such stories from all over the world. A naturalistic explanation such as this, based on the fact that such stories are common, is more likely to be true than Lumpy's explanation involving supernatural intervention. Do you understand this?

I'll take that as your personal opinion of Lumpy.

I've answered your questions.

 

[steve_bank]

As non believer the base of the faith is resurrection. Without that narrative there is no Christianity. The promise of eternal heaven if you believe.

Principles of universal love, the Golden Rule, and salvation exist in most regions, and in secular philosophy.

 

[atrib]

1. Lumpy has presented no evidence to support the claim that the Jesus stories are based on fact. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

That's because he didn't make any claim, but rather... he proposed a thought line and asked the question giving the context on the very first line of the post, which is as follows:

I wonder if the title should really be The Roots of Christianity (plural), rather than Root (singular).

This is a typical way of engaging a direction for discussion. You can say it's a biased subject-view to his advantage maybe but it's NOT a claim.

Really? He was just making a "proposition", and not claiming that the Jesus miracle stories are likely true? And you say this with a straight face. How long have you been on these forums, and how many times has Lumpy made this exact same claim? Several hundred times.

1. Lumpy has presented no evidence to support the claim that the Jesus stories are based on fact. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

Exactly. Lumpy has presented no evidence to support the fucking "proposition" because no such evidence exists. If Christians had evidence to support the Jesus miracle claims they wouldn't have to lie and dodge the fucking question all the time.

2. Lumpy has asserted that the stories should be considered true because he can't think of an alternate explanation. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The statement is false!

As the previous question. Lumpy was asking various questions - he made the suggestion that we should also consider the alternatives.

You highlighted his inquisitiveness and his suggestions to consider:

In case you missed it the first time, this is what Lumpy said:

If it's the singular "Root" that's the topic, how can this be anything other than the event which happened about 30 AD in the Galilee/Judea region,

How can "The Root of Christianity" not be that event, whatever one believes actually happened?

Is it possible to imagine that "Christianity" would have happened anyway, even if no such special event happened there at that time?

If he had gotten erased from history somehow, would Christianity have happened anyway, just the same, only with a few minor details changed?

He is begging the question using the argument from ignorance fallacy. This is the textbook definition of argument from ignorance. "What else could it be, other than the events actually being true"? These positive claims are often framed in the form of questions, hence the term "begging the question".

From Wiki:

In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petitio principii) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

For example, the statement "Green is the best color because it is the greenest of all colors" claims that the color green is the best because it is the greenest—which it presupposes is the best.
It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.^[1]

It is the same fucking fallacious argument. Shame on you for pretending that it isn't.

As the previous question. Lumpy was asking various questions - he made the suggestion that we should also consider the alternatives.

The fuck he was. He was repeating the same tired claim that he has been making for many years. A claim that he has repeatedly been called out for making, something he habitually ignores.

And why are you making up shit? What alternatives did Lumpy propose? What alternatives did he discuss?

I know this is hard for someone who doesn't understand how logical arguments work, so I am trying to explain my position to you in a way that you can follow. Is Lumpy's argument sound, or is it fallacious, based on everything I have told you? That is what we are trying to establish here.

Possibly (to the underlined) but I think I know, as I call it, 'technicality-lawyer-speak' when it comes to false misleading arguments about claims. (Atheists I say again... make good technical lawyers)

I can read and write English. I can parse sentences and figure out what they mean. Most Christians can do the same thing, except when they are faced with tough questions that challenge their faith. Then they start pretending that they don't understand plain English. I am very familiar with Lumpy's posting history, and his past behavior clearly demonstrates the pattern of dishonesty that I am talking about.

As Lumpy pointed out roots (plural) and root singular. In the same way, which you have overlooked: what evidence was there for the plural notion, which you coud have pointed out as flawed... even before Lumpy even posted?

Lumpy's claim that the events can be explained only by inferring the intervention of a supernatural creator from outside the universe is extraordinary. He provides no evidence to support this claim. Moreover, he makes a fallacious argument based on ignorance - "I can't think of any way the stories could have originated, therefore the stories must be true".

I can conceive of a large number of potential explanations as to how the stories originated, none of which involve supernatural action. People make up stories about gods all the fucking time, and we have tens of thousands of such stories from all over the world. A naturalistic explanation such as this, based on the fact that such stories are common, is more likely to be true than Lumpy's explanation involving supernatural intervention. Do you understand this?

I'll take that as your personal opinion of Lumpy.

I've answered your questions.

The fuck you have. Read the last paragraph that is highlighted above. Do you understand why a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the Jesus miracle stories is vastly more credible than an explanation involving supernatural intervention? It goes to the core of the reason regarding why we should not accept such stories at face value. Please don't dodge the question, difficult though it may be to think about. Your personal integrity is far more valuable than your misplaced faith.