No, faith in the sense of Christian religions is about acceptance without evidence, see” doubting Thomas”
Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?
- Thread starter Poem
- Start date
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,502
Faith is the excuse people give when they lack a good reason for belief.
If you really want to square the hole of omnipotence and the paradox of why God would have to or even want to do anything at all, God is simply a divine story-teller creating a story: omnipotence, omiscience, and, in a perverse sense, even omnibenevolence. There you go.
It's the only definition of a "God" worthy of its name.
It's the only definition of a "God" worthy of its name.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,502
No offense. But that still doesn't cut it.
Last edited:
Mexico is plagued with Christian sects of every flavor. From fundies and biblical literalists to the average unthinking RCC adherant that goes to church only on big events.
The literalist and JW types want to argue tiny details until you cave to thier true interpretation, the lazy garden variety believer will proclaim faith but not have a clue about 90 percent of the bible. They say they believe, that's it for a express ticket to heaven.
Trying to present this argument as something that might somehow shock them is silly. Most wouldn't think about it, much less dig out the family bible to look it up.
My wife proclsims RCC beliefs, but doesn't know our family bible was borrowed/stolen 18 years ago. We have never looked for it, much less opened it.
The church misal is the standard guide to faith, whatever it presents in its repetitive four year cycle is the word of god. Don't need more than that. ( we don't have those either)
Faith made simple, the program is all laid out for you. Get four consecutive years of misals and just keep them in the right order, good for life.
The literalist and JW types want to argue tiny details until you cave to thier true interpretation, the lazy garden variety believer will proclaim faith but not have a clue about 90 percent of the bible. They say they believe, that's it for a express ticket to heaven.
Trying to present this argument as something that might somehow shock them is silly. Most wouldn't think about it, much less dig out the family bible to look it up.
My wife proclsims RCC beliefs, but doesn't know our family bible was borrowed/stolen 18 years ago. We have never looked for it, much less opened it.
The church misal is the standard guide to faith, whatever it presents in its repetitive four year cycle is the word of god. Don't need more than that. ( we don't have those either)
Faith made simple, the program is all laid out for you. Get four consecutive years of misals and just keep them in the right order, good for life.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Actually the gospel of Mark is believed to have been written shortly after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.
You're literally doing apologetics right now.
There's a large overlap between atheists and skeptics. Most Christians tend to go away when they find they can't answer the hard questions.
Poem
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,279
According to Britanica:
It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
In an OP outlining what appears to be a catastrophic error by Jesus?
I'm sure atheists and sceptics behave likewise.
So far....
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
What rough beast, it's time come round at last. Slouches toward Bethlehem to be dumb?
Last edited:
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,502
The Gospel of Mark is dated between 66 CE and 72 CE with most scholars believing it was after the Temple felll. The number 1 reason historians date it after the fall of the Temple because the book predicts it.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Thank you, I was going to mention that as well.
The passage is sufficiently a challenge to the point where stories like the Wandering Jew (see The Seventh Sign) have been created to try to account for it.
While there are plenty of people who can just dismiss it without thinking about it, it has been something that people have taken seriously in the past.
Personally, my perspective is that it is very clear. Jesus thought the end of the world was near. So did Paul (that's why he told everyone to castrate themselves, because they didn't need to reproduce because it didn't matter, the world was ending). This passage is perfectly consistent with that perspective, that the end of the world was nigh.
It didn't happen as predicted, so that means he must have meant something else. Because otherwise, Jesus would have been wrong, and he can never be wrong.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
There is some disagreement here.
Yes, the book predicts the concept of the temple falling, but it also gets some details wrong. The whole "not one stone will be left standing" thing, for example, didn't happen, and if it had been written after, they would have known that.
The conclusion for this is that it was written near the time of the Temple being destroyed, when it was imminent and therefore pretty obviously going to happen. So that puts the late 60s into the mix. But it hadn't happened yet, so the details were murky.
Doesn't change any of the conclusions, but alters that range a little.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,502
Yes.
Christians will argue that no, Jesus prophesized the temple's destruction. Historians on the other hand, roll their eyes and conclude that the person writing the story knew that it had already happened or that it was likely to.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Even if not it's not like these prophecies were sealed away in a bunker. If something has been predicted to happen that can be made to happen it's no good as a prophecy.Yes.
Christians will argue that no, Jesus prophesized the temple's destruction. Historians on the other hand, roll their eyes and conclude that the person writing the story knew that it had already happened or that it was likely to.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,502
Yeah, it's not a fulfilled prophecy if I order a steak and the waiter serves it to me.
The destruction of the temple was hardly a something that could be made to happen - at least not by the early Christians.
… to continue my previous post: there are number of prophecies that are of the type that could be made to happen. Famously, the prophecy that the prophet would enter Jerusalem on a donkey, and Jesus ordering a donkey to enter the city.
Or that a prophet shall appear, and he shall be called Benjamin. Oh, wait …
Or that a prophet shall appear, and he shall be called Benjamin. Oh, wait …
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
But God is supposed to be better than us. If his morality is no better, or indeed different, from human morality, then what's the point of him?
Furthermore, if, as is the case, the moral code of this god reflects very closely the morality of the people at the time and place when belief in this god first arose, then surely this is a clear indication that this deity was created- as in dreamed up- by humans living at that time.