Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[amb]

Are you asking this question in all seriousness?

Because of course theists have thought of this. With differing ponderings.

Have atheists ever thought that perhaps there are Xtians other than fundamentalists?

If you do not worship the 'son of god' what is it you worship?

The idea that he came only to this planet out of possibly trillions is absurd.

Or that this figure you claim was a messenger of god somehow, was just a fire and brimstone Jewish rabbi/preacher. Nothing more.

 

[Mr Clingford]

If you do not worship the 'son of god' what is it you worship?

The idea that he came only to this planet out of possibly trillions is absurd.

Or that this figure you claim was a messenger of god somehow, was just a fire and brimstone Jewish rabbi/preacher. Nothing more.

It is well acknowledged that the phrase 'son of god', apocalyptic thought aside, is an intensely metaphorical phrase. Trinitarian ideas, which IMO are attempts at understanding are therefore provisional (which is my take on just about everything) are complex and a lot of people have poor grasps of what Xtians have said on the matter. I agree simplistic notions of Jesus don't work. The second person of the trinity hypothesis is not synonymous with the human Jesus. I'm not sure of the relationship between the two.

I try to worship God - I'm sorry this is a bit of a fudge. I am currently Xtian but do not have a clear understanding of a lot of things.

I agree that if there is intelligent life on other planets than the idea that God has only interacted with Earth is absurd.

It is possible and plausible that Jesus was just human. But I don't find it convincing.

 

[amb]

Of course you find that jesus was god. You have been taught that since you were in diapers. An Earth centered religion can't possibly think galaxy wide or more imposing still, cosmos wide.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Of course you find that jesus was god. You have been taught that since you were in diapers. An Earth centered religion can't possibly think galaxy wide or more imposing still, cosmos wide.

I am disappointed by this reply as it contains little of critical thinking, which I would hope for from an atheist.

 

[six7s]

So you believe by portraying the apostles as cowards who didn't attend Christ's crucifixion to give him support and having the women (who at the time couldn't even testify in court or be counted as part of a crowd) attend his crucifixion and be the first to discover the empty tomb somehow furthered the cause? And that having Peter (the main apostle and future leader of the church) deny Christ 3 times to a lone woman at a campfire somehow futhered the cause. I would disagree with that contention.

Great!

Super!

Marvellous!

Oh... By the way... Do you have a point?

Oh... and... If so, does it have ANYTHING to do with providing 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.'?

 

[six7s]

Of course you find that jesus was god. You have been taught that since you were in diapers. An Earth centered religion can't possibly think galaxy wide or more imposing still, cosmos wide.

I am disappointed by this reply as it contains little of critical thinking, which I would hope for from an atheist.

Why?

If you are implying that critical thinking and atheism are somehow inextricably entwined then, please, think again

Sure... the former naturally leads to the latter

However, its by no means necessarily the case in reverse

-------

And... if by 'Earth centered religion', amb means a religion that was established in/from a culture that believed in a geo-centric Universe, then I reckon he's right

 

[Elizabeth I]

It is well acknowledged that the phrase 'son of god', apocalyptic thought aside, is an intensely metaphorical phrase. Trinitarian ideas, which IMO are attempts at understanding are therefore provisional (which is my take on just about everything) are complex and a lot of people have poor grasps of what Xtians have said on the matter. I agree simplistic notions of Jesus don't work. The second person of the trinity hypothesis is not synonymous with the human Jesus. I'm not sure of the relationship between the two.

I try to worship God - I'm sorry this is a bit of a fudge. I am currently Xtian but do not have a clear understanding of a lot of things.

I agree that if there is intelligent life on other planets than the idea that God has only interacted with Earth is absurd.

It is possible and plausible that Jesus was just human. But I don't find it convincing.

If you don't have a clear understanding, how do you know there is anything to worship, or that, if there is, it is worthy of worship? (I mean this as a sincere question - if you worship, you are putting some time and energy into an activity, and since you say you are unsure about much of it, I'm curious why you feel it important to invest yourself.)

And why do you not find the possibility that Jesus was just a flesh-and-blood person "convincing"? Surely that is the simplest answer? Why would all other stories of magical people be false but this one be true?

 

[Mr Clingford]

Why?

If you are implying that critical thinking and atheism are somehow inextricably entwined then, please, think again

Sure... the former naturally leads to the latter

However, its by no means necessarily the case in reverse

-------

I'm not sure that it does lead naturally, of course, but I agree that critical thinking is more likely to be found in atheists.

I think that amb is letting himself down (as do you at times IMO) by using sloppy arguing.

But there is also another point. So often people here say that theists hardly, if ever, use critical thinking and possess solely blind faith. This is simply not the case and is an insult to a number of clever, thoughtful people I know. So I let it bug me when people do what they deride in others. Sloppy, arrogant atheism does itself or critical thinking no favours.

And... if by 'Earth centered religion', amb means a religion that was established in/from a culture that believed in a geo-centric Universe, then I reckon he's right

If he does mean that then I agree. Geo-centric is even perhaps too generous, as the earth was pretty much all there was in their thinking, apart from loads of watery chaos.

 

[joobz]

So you believe by portraying the apostles as cowards who didn't attend Christ's crucifixion to give him support and having the women (who at the time couldn't even testify in court or be counted as part of a crowd) attend his crucifixion and be the first to discover the empty tomb somehow furthered the cause?

Yup.It's called being able to relate to flawed characters.

Don't really good fundie preachers often claim to have been huge sinners until they found god? I wonder how big the congregations of "Perfect" preachers are compared to the Flawed story preachers?

And that having Peter (the main apostle and future leader of the church) deny Christ 3 times to a lone woman at a campfire somehow furthered the cause.

"I was a sinner...but now I see the light!!! You can to. Just turn to Christ!!!"

you can't ask for a better narrative.

I would disagree with that contention.

And you are wrong.

 

[Paulhoff]

I try to worship God - I'm sorry this is a bit of a fudge. I am currently Xtian but do not have a clear understanding of a lot of things.

I agree that if there is intelligent life on other planets than the idea that God has only interacted with Earth is absurd.

It is possible and plausible that Jesus was just human. But I don't find it convincing.

Try to worship a so-called god, that's good, again which one, your idea of one, your mother's, your father's idea of one, your neighbor's etc, and why does a so-called god need worship, something missing from its life.

There is a much much greater chance that there is intelligent life on other planets then the so-called god you worship, and it is a good chance that their so-called gods are in their image too.

Yes, it is possible that there was a person called Jesus, and I find it convincing that if he was, he was just human. I see no need to make him more then he was.

Paul

 

[Mr Clingford]

If you don't have a clear understanding, how do you know there is anything to worship, or that, if there is, it is worthy of worship? (I mean this as a sincere question - if you worship, you are putting some time and energy into an activity, and since you say you are unsure about much of it, I'm curious why you feel it important to invest yourself.)

To use an analogy, scientists need not have a clear understanding of something to experiment. Climate Change scientists observed that something was going on, but they did not have a clear understanding of the details and mechanisms. I find the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" that there is something qualitatively different to this something, something amazing if it is responsible for the universe. Worship understood as appreciating the jaw-dropping amazingness of something carries a lot of weight with me. Now, of course, this only applies so far only to a deist god. And I understand that this is not convincing, but it is plausible.

My own experiences in prayer, alone and with others, and what other people (whom I trust and I don't trust easily, especially with religious claims) have said, lead me to think that it is possible to relate to this Other and that there are effects. There is no point in me recounting any because you have no reason to take me seriously, as an anonymous person. I think that it is possible that some of these effects are the product of my brain only, but some of these phenomena do not just occur within the confines of a skull. I am well aware of the hysteria and manipulation that can create wonderful feelings in concerts etc, but I am very resistant to emotional manipulation and dislike it intensely.

I think that people of other faiths, and none, may experience the divine.

And why do you not find the possibility that Jesus was just a flesh-and-blood person "convincing"? Surely that is the simplest answer? Why would all other stories of magical people be false but this one be true?

It's a variety of reasons, of which the plausibility of a deist god, combined with personal experiences, the good that can come from religion and the continuity of Xtian communities from the time of Jesus.

Sigh, I find communicating on the internet so frustrating as it is slow and anonymous. I am well aware that this is far from convincing to someone else, but that is partly because it would take a lot of time and effort to go into all the details which would show that I am as sane as you.

 

[six7s]

I... So often people here say that theists hardly, if ever, use critical thinking and possess solely blind faith. This is simply not the case

Please describe a critical thinking process that concludes that ANY woo is true

 

[Mr Clingford]

Try to worship a so-called god, that's good, again which one, your idea of one, your mother's, your father's idea of one, your neighbor's etc, and why does a so-called god need worship, something missing from its life.

It is my idea of one. We all live in our own construct. My idea of my partner is not 100% accurate and she is flesh and blood (unless she is a fembot).

God does not need worship, but it is to our benefit to focus and be caught up on amazing and good things.

There is a much much greater chance that there is intelligent life on other planets then the so-called god you worship, and it is a good chance that their so-called gods are in their image too.

Ooooh, contentious, you're not a SETI fan are you? Unless you are making a somewhat amusing point that both are zero.

We do like to create our gods in our own image. That's why mine is thoughtful, generous and has a sense of humour.

Yes, it is possible that there was a person called Jesus, and I find it convincing that if he was, he was just human. I see no need to make him more then he was.

Paul

Fair enough. That is a valid and plausible position.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Please describe a critical thinking process that concludes that ANY woo is true

I use critical thinking on my own faith. I think it more likely than not that there is a God that we can relate with. This uses various criteria that different people will disagree about the strength and the applicability. Also, it is not possible for one human to experience what another does. All this is grounded in one's interpretative framework.

As I think more, read more and gather more evidence my stance might change.

This might sound evasive but you would need to spell out more what you are asking, for me to do better.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think you should make your sig a little bigger. It says much about you that I respect.

Coming from the class clown, that's not a huge benefit to you, but there it is, out there to speak for itself and for all to see.


D'oh! Where the hell did I pick THAT up from?


Cheers

 

[Lothian]

Have atheists ever thought that perhaps there are Xtians other than fundamentalists?

Yes and with most of them I find there is a lot of common ground. They generally don’t accept that:-

(1) Dieing for your beliefs makes the belief more true.
(2) The New Testament writers including embarrassing details about themselves is evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible
(3) The theological views of the Presidents of America is proof of the resurrection

There are ‘moderate’ Christians here (if moderate is the right word), however, and I apologise if I have missed it, I have not seen them pointing out the errors in the fundamentalist arguments we see here.

I can respect people who decide on balance to take a faith position, however they need to chip in when there are claims that there is solid evidence for the resurrection, walking on water or feeding the 5000.

One of Dawkins criticisms against religion generally is that religions do not police themselves well. They don’t tackle the extremist members of their faith. On each layer of belief you have another that is slightly more extreme until you get the nutters at the pyramids apex. I recall Dawkins arguing that people lower down the belief pyramid somehow feel that those above are more believing and are loath to criticise. I am not sure that is right but certainly where obvious mistakes are made they should be pointed out as these are the foundations that allow the extremists to reach their absurd heights.

We are seeing plenty of obvious mistakes here. You can take the truth of the resurrection as a matter of faith. You can’t say that it definitely happened because the New Testament writers described it like other historical events: with a simple, unembellished account. An argument made in the O.P..

 

[joobz]

Yes and with most of them I find there is a lot of common ground. They generally don’t accept that:-

(1) Dieing for your beliefs makes the belief more true.
(2) The New Testament writers including embarrassing details about themselves is evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible
(3) The theological views of the Presidents of America is proof of the resurrection

There are ‘moderate’ Christians here (if moderate is the right word), however, and I apologise if I have missed it, I have not seen them pointing out the errors in the fundamentalist arguments we see here.

I can respect people who decide on balance to take a faith position, however they need to chip in when there are claims that there is solid evidence for the resurrection, walking on water or feeding the 5000.

One of Dawkins criticisms against religion generally is that religions do not police themselves well. They don’t tackle the extremist members of their faith. On each layer of belief you have another that is slightly more extreme until you get the nutters at the pyramids apex. I recall Dawkins arguing that people lower down the belief pyramid somehow feel that those above are more believing and are loath to criticise. I am not sure that is right but certainly where obvious mistakes are made they should be pointed out as these are the foundations that allow the extremists to reach their absurd heights.

We are seeing plenty of obvious mistakes here. You can take the truth of the resurrection as a matter of faith. You can’t say that it definitely happened because the New Testament writers described it like other historical events: with a simple, unembellished account. An argument made in the O.P..

Wow.

this is an excellent observation and one that patterns the reason WHY fundementalists are able to gain such influence in american politics.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I think you should make your sig a little bigger. It says much about you that I respect.

Coming from the class clown, that's not a huge benefit to you, but there it is, out there to speak for itself and for all to see.


D'oh! Where the hell did I pick THAT up from?


Cheers

Very kind of you, Dave.

Yes and with most of them I find there is a lot of common ground. They generally don’t accept that:-

(1) Dieing for your beliefs makes the belief more true.
(2) The New Testament writers including embarrassing details about themselves is evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible
(3) The theological views of the Presidents of America is proof of the resurrection

1 - Indeed, it means that you were very convinced only.
2 - I see what DOC is trying to say, but the issue of someone being resurrected requires better argumentation - I don't think the argument is very strong in this instance.
3 - As I'm British I am duty bound to think that most American Presidents aren't much kop upstairs, although I am very pleased to exempt the current one (but then he's not actually American, tee hee)

There are ‘moderate’ Christians here (if moderate is the right word), however, and I apologise if I have missed it, I have not seen them pointing out the errors in the fundamentalist arguments we see here.

I can respect people who decide on balance to take a faith position, however they need to chip in when there are claims that there is solid evidence for the resurrection, walking on water or feeding the 5000.

One of Dawkins criticisms against religion generally is that religions do not police themselves well. They don’t tackle the extremist members of their faith. On each layer of belief you have another that is slightly more extreme until you get the nutters at the pyramids apex. I recall Dawkins arguing that people lower down the belief pyramid somehow feel that those above are more believing and are loath to criticise. I am not sure that is right but certainly where obvious mistakes are made they should be pointed out as these are the foundations that allow the extremists to reach their absurd heights.

We are seeing plenty of obvious mistakes here. You can take the truth of the resurrection as a matter of faith. You can’t say that it definitely happened because the New Testament writers described it like other historical events: with a simple, unembellished account. An argument made in the O.P..

In my own circles, therefore face to face, I do my best to encourage people to think, as I can't stop doing it. Unfortunately, the tenor of these boards does not encourage the presence of theists. I prefer less 'in yer face' ways of talking, unless it is with people I know.

There is no solid evidence for the resurrection. There are accounts/ stories, whatever, which certain communities have a high regard for and personal experiences. But it is only by knowing these people personally, IMO, that one can begin to gain an idea why they believe things which are contrary to the usual workings of nature as we see them.

The evidence for God etc for me is extremely contradictory and I am trying to get to the bottom of it all.

 

[six7s]

I use critical thinking on my own faith.

Cool

Why are you NOT a Sikh?

My guess is that you adopt a 'default position' of there is NO evidence to suggest that there's any truth to that belief system

If so, when was the last time you adopted that same 'default position' with regard to christianity?

 

[six7s]

As I think more, read more and gather more evidence my stance might change.

This might sound evasive...

The simple fact that you openly acknowledge that your responses might "sound evasive" means I respect you more