Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[theprestige]

I gave Tacitus as but one source. There are others.

It remains a FACT that most scholars consider that Jesus was a real person.

Really? It's a FACT that most scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, son of Mary and Joseph, born in Bethlehem under a shooting star, celebrated by angels, visited by shepherds and magi, foretold by John the Baptist, worker of miracles, scourge of the Temple moneylenders, crucified by the Romans, resurrected three days later... It's a FACT that most scholars believe that THAT Jesus is a real person?

 

[Poem]

Really? It's a FACT that most scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, son of Mary and Joseph, born in Bethlehem under a shooting star, celebrated by angels, visited by shepherds and magi, foretold by John the Baptist, worker of miracles, scourge of the Temple moneylenders, crucified by the Romans, resurrected three days later... It's a FACT that most scholars believe that THAT Jesus is a real person?

Humerous.

 

[theprestige]

Humerous.

Blast Femur.

You just say it's a fact that most scholars believe that Jesus was real, without specifying which Jesus most scholars have in mind.

Do most scholars even have the same Jesus in mind?

 

[Poem]

Blast Femur.

You just say it's a fact that most scholars believe that Jesus was real, without specifying which Jesus most scholars have in mind.

Do most scholars even have the same Jesus in mind?

Okay - apologies...perhaps I shouldn't have said 'humorous'....and also #438.

 

[Poem]

Humerous.

spelling.......................

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Poem, your pretence of not being a Christian is wearing thin. Careful now!

 

[Poem]

Deism is just non-specific theism.

And again, I've been right where you are at for most of my teen and adult life:

Q: Do you believe in god?
A: No.
Q: Do you disbelieve in god?
A: No. Therefore I am a third option.

But that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is you are an atheist, lacking a belief in a god. Being open to ideas does not put you in the middle somewhere. You believe in a god, or you do not. Not being sure is solidly in the "not" department, as counterintuitive as it feels.

If you want to vascillate about what we mean by god, that's fine. Is god nature? No. Nature is nature. Is god the laws of physics? No. The laws of physics are the laws of physics. We can say a fleshlight is god, but come on... that's playing games, not moving towards clarity.

A god, by any meaningful definition, is a superior, sentient supernatural being (just to include little gods in Greek mythology and all). For our purposes, we are talking about an intelligent designer of the universe.

So: y'all believe in one of them? It's a y/n.

I think that the term 'atheist' is generally understood to mean those that emphasize God's non-existence, with agnosticism on the fence in the middle, and theism on the other side. Within the terms 'atheism' and 'theism' there will be a continuum of degrees of that position from mild to extreme.

But hey, if you want to call me an atheist by your understanding then that is fine.

 

[arthwollipot]

Are Darwinists unified in their belief that modern synthesis satisfactorily explains life? No, they aren't. They disagree - so, like Christians, they remain adherents...they remain Darwinists - but there is disagreement over the details.

Your use of the term "Darwinists" is a red flag. There are no "Darwinists", there are biologists who accept the reality of evolution, and there are creationists.

Becoming a child of God is another goofy concept.

They call God the Father, so why is it goofy to be his child?

As if that kind of context could ever be considered a positive. Fun and interesting? Who are you, Hannibal Lecter?

tt sets a horrible prelude for kind and loving Jesus and his philosophy. It's like you think a Rom Com like When Harry met Sally should start with a flash back to a wedding from A Game of Thrones.

I enjoy reading historical/fantasy fiction and mythology. I read the Old Testament with the same approach that I read Stephen Fry's trilogy of Greek mythology - Mythos, Heroes, and Troy, which also contain stories that both are horrific, and also may ultimately be derived from actual historical events, being later embellished and deified by later retellings. Highly recommended, by the way.

The Second Amendment might just be a good analogy since both it and the Old Testament are disasters

Can't argue with you there.

You got that right. But what purpose does an exaggerated genocidal Jewish historical prelude serve the narrative of a loving forgiving God? God goes from being an amalgamation of Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin and Joseph Mengele to Mr Rogers? Surely ye jest.

As a contrast. As an illustration of the two covenants. As an explanation of why and how and for what reasons a Messiah was needed.

 

[Poem]

Your use of the term "Darwinists" is a red flag. There are no "Darwinists", there are biologists who accept the reality of evolution, and there are creationists.

That does not address what I actually said regarding modern synthesis.

I enjoy reading historical/fantasy fiction and mythology. I read the Old Testament with the same approach that I read Stephen Fry's trilogy of Greek mythology - Mythos, Heroes, and Troy, which also contain stories that both are horrific, and also may ultimately be derived from actual historical events, being later embellished and deified by later retellings. Highly recommended, by the way.

Why didn't Jesus explicitly make that clear when he cited Noah in reference to the timing of his second coming?

Why would an omniscient God, foreknowing that Darwinian evolution would eventually become established, not make clear that the creation account was just a story? There are plenty of folk who walk away from the Bible because of Genesis 1-2.

 

[acbytesla]

Are Darwinists unified in their belief that modern synthesis satisfactorily explains life? No, they aren't. They disagree - so, like Christians, they remain adherents...they remain Darwinists - but there is disagreement over the details.

Your use of the term "Darwinists" is a red flag. There are no "Darwinists", there are biologists who accept the reality of evolution, and there are creationists.

Art has you there Poem. No one other than a creationist would refer to someone who accepts evolution as a Darwinist. Evolution is not a philosophy or world view. And evolution is not an explanation for life. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life.

 

[Poem]

Art has you there Poem. No one other than a creationist would refer to someone who accepts evolution as a Darwinist.

Art did not address what I actual said.

Evolution is not a philosophy or world view. And evolution is not an explanation for life. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life.

Sure - Darwin did not address abiogenesis in Origin of Species; but he did speculate about in in one of his letters.

Again, this isn't addressing what I actually said. I drew a parallel between Christ followers who disagree on details with Darwinists who also disagree on details.

 

[acbytesla]

I enjoy reading historical/fantasy fiction and mythology. I read the Old Testament with the same approach that I read Stephen Fry's trilogy of Greek mythology - Mythos, Heroes, and Troy, which also contain stories that both are horrific, and also may ultimately be derived from actual historical events, being later embellished and deified by later retellings. Highly recommended, by the way.

Me too. But this ain't that

As a contrast. As an illustration of the two covenants. As an explanation of why and how and for what reasons a Messiah was needed.

You've got that backwards. The two covenants idea is a convoluted explanation for the two different philosophies. It isn't required if you don't suggest that Hitler morphed into Mr. Rogers.

 

[acbytesla]

Art did not address what I actual said.

Why would he? What you said was nonsensical. There is no such thing as a Darwinist. And nothing of what you said reflects the theory of evolution.

Sure - Darwin did not address abiogenesis in Origin of Species; but he did speculate about in in one of his letters.

So what? No one follows Darwin.

Again, this isn't addressing what I actually said. I drew a parallel between Christ followers who disagree on details with Darwinists who also disagree on details.

The parallel doesn't work.. it falls flat. Evolution isn't dogma.

 

[Poem]

Why would he? What you said was nonsensical. There is no such thing as a Darwinist. And nothing of what you said reflects the theory of evolution.

It's nonsensical because?
No such thing as a Darwinist? Really? What are you talking about?

This is what I said:

Are Darwinists unified in their belief that modern synthesis satisfactorily explains life? No, they aren't. They disagree - so, like Christians, they remain adherents...they remain Darwinists - but there is disagreement over the details.

If you think all biologist think modern synthesis adequately explains (sure - we'll use your specific phrase 'the diversity of life), then why don't you go ahead and demonstrate that.

So what? No one follows Darwin.
The parallel doesn't work.. it falls flat. Evolution isn't dogma.

You clearly aren't following what I am saying.

 

[acbytesla]

It's nonsensical because?
No such thing as a Darwinist? Really? What are you talking about?

I'm saying flat out there is absolutely no such thing as a Darwinist.

This is what I said:

If you think all biologist think modern synthesis adequately explains (sure - we'll use your specific phrase 'the diversity of life), then why don't you go ahead and demonstrate that.

You clearly aren't following what I am saying.

No, I'm not. You keep using the absurd language of a creationist. Yes, Darwin's conclusion of blending has been dismissed. This is not a reasonable parallel.

 

[Poem]

I'm saying flat out there is absolutely no such thing as a Darwinist.

Without demonstrating it. A Darwinist believes in Darwinism.

No, I'm not. You keep using the absurd language of a creationist.

I haven't used that word. You have.

Yes, Darwin's conclusion of blending has been dismissed. This is not a reasonable parallel.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll ask again - do all biologists agree that modern synthesis adequately explains the diversity of life?

 

[acbytesla]

Without demonstrating it. A Darwinist believes in Darwinism.

There is no such thing as Darwinism

I haven't used that word. You have.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll ask again - do all biologists agree that modern synthesis adequately explains the diversity of life?

Do you really think repeating yourself changes anything? I have never heard the term modern synthesis to describe evolution.

But I'll repeat myself The theory of evolution is not dogma. It doesn't just reflect the ideas of Darwin. If you're asking if I expect that the theory of evolution will continue to be refined by additional data, the answer is yes.

 

[Poem]

There is no such thing as Darwinism.
Do you really think repeating yourself changes anything? I have never heard the term modern synthesis to describe evolution.

But I'll repeat myself The theory of evolution is not dogma. It doesn't just reflect the ideas of Darwin. If you're asking if I expect that the theory of evolution will continue to be refined by additional data, the answer is yes.

I think you are being fastidious regarding terminology.

Biologist are split over whether modern synthesis (or Neo-Darwinism) is a sufficient. explanation for the diversity of life. Whichever way you slice it, that looks awkward.

 

[Pixel42]

Wouldn't this only be significant if it were peculiar to Christianity?

Are Darwinists unified in their belief that modern synthesis satisfactorily explains life? No, they aren't. They disagree - so, like Christians, they remain adherents...they remain Darwinists - but there is disagreement over the details.

But I'll repeat myself The theory of evolution is not dogma. It doesn't just reflect the ideas of Darwin. If you're asking if I expect that the theory of evolution will continue to be refined by additional data, the answer is yes.

In the words of Sir David Attenborough: "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause".

That is the difference between science and religion.

 

[Poem]

In the words of Sir David Attenborough: "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause".

That is the difference between science and religion.

If you are acknowledging that that means that scientists don't have an accepted understanding (the current one being modern synthesis or Neo-Darwinism) of evolution then you would be right.

But that isn't quite what is happening as far as I can see. Dawkins et al aren't yielding an inch.