On the other hand, there is about zero data to show that Jesus was even alive outside of the bible, and some obscure references to "The Christ".
Not even going to bother with the rest of your trolling post, but this part is false. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a historical Jesus.
Bother not as you may. Ignoring my statement simply perpetuates your hypocrisy. You seem to have evidence that no one else in the world has! SHARE!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
On the other hand, there is about zero data to show that Jesus was even alive outside of the bible, and some obscure references to "The Christ".
Not even going to bother with the rest of your trolling post, but this part is false. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a historical Jesus.
Bother not as you may. Ignoring my statement simply perpetuates your hypocrisy. You seem to have evidence that no one else in the world has! SHARE!
Reasonable historians dispute whether or not there's good enough evidence to say that Jesus did live, though the balance that I'm familiar enough says, "Probably yes."
His evidence for his faith, on the other hand, is almost certainly subjective and thus, by definition, not shareable with someone who doesn't have a similar subjective experience. He's actually outright conceded that anyone who doesn't have that similar subjective experience should dismiss his religious claims out of hand.
I honestly think that, as heated as your debate has become, neither of you is really out of line here.
On the other hand, there is about zero data to show that Jesus was even alive outside of the bible, and some obscure references to "The Christ".
Not even going to bother with the rest of your trolling post, but this part is false. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a historical Jesus.
Bother not as you may. Ignoring my statement simply perpetuates your hypocrisy. You seem to have evidence that no one else in the world has! SHARE!
There are plenty of non-Christian historical writings, including Roman tax records, which document the historical Jesus. It is obviously and evidentially debatable as to weather or not he was the Son of God, the Messiah, or any of the other attributes that are assigned to Him by various groups, however I am unaware of any serious academic who makes a case that there was no man named Jesus (Yeshua) who lived at that time, preached a minestry, attracted the negative attention of the ruling parties in the region at that time, and was crucified.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Considering that's an exceedingly sbjective viewpoint (name me one reason as to why genocidal sky Stalin is more believable than Hestia, for starters), I'm not sure what you're trying to convey in a rational manner.
And yet, going by your rhetoric, you seem to have your reasons why "genocidal sky Stalin" is less believable than Hestia. Are you asking us to judge, or not to judge?
The right to freedom of conscientious belief applies to all, and is only meaningful if everyone's right to believe & practice whatever they want, regardless of how weird it might seem to you, is respected and encouraged.
Having a right to believe is not the same thing as having a belief that is right. Intellectual criticism questions the latter, not the former.
After all, whatever you believe (or don't believe), it was persecuted and disrespected at one point in time as well, and by disrespecting other spiritualities, you're behaving no better than the Romans after the death of Christ (if you're Christian) or Christians in the Middle Ages and Enlightenment (if you're Atheist).
I strongly object to this. Nobody here is advocating murder, and shame on you for even suggesting the comparison. Would you say that Jon Stewart in mocking the President is no better than John Wilkes Booth in shooting him?
So, in this discussion, I would like to remind and encourage everyone that treating other peoples' beliefs with disrespect is a reflection on you, not on whatever seeming absurdity you're objecting to.
And calling people "no better than" mass murderers when they think critically and speak freely? How does that reflect on you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
On the other hand, there is about zero data to show that Jesus was even alive outside of the bible, and some obscure references to "The Christ".
Not even going to bother with the rest of your trolling post, but this part is false. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a historical Jesus.
As an interested third party: Do you have any links on hand to said evidence?
The prevalence of certain key details amongst Paul's Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of John, and Josephus, specifically that Jesus was Jewish; that he was an itinerant rabbi, miracleworker, and healer; that he had a large following of Jews and also of Gentiles; that his ministry was around Jerusalem; that he was brought before Pontius Pilate; that he was crucified but his followers were not; and that his followers remained faithful in him and believed in his resurrection, spreading throughout the Roman Empire.
Furthermore, we have Tacitus, who mentions the Christ in the Annals as being executed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign.
There are several criteria that historians use in analyzing historical sources in Historical Jesus study. One of them is the criterion of independent attestation, which assesses whether or not multiple sources composed independently of one another attest to the same details. In this case, all of the above sources were composed independently, and they agree on the aforementioned details.
Another is the criterion of dissimilarity, also called the criterion of embarrassment, which assesses sources for details which appear contrary to the agenda of the people the sources came from. This is can be demonstrated here in the Gospels and in Paul, as the relevant details of Jesus' life entirely contradict the idea that he conforms to a Messiah figure in the Judaic understanding of the term. The Judaic conception of the Messiah is of a warrior king who would conquer the enemies of Jerusalem, restore Israel, and rule over a golden age.
It would be highly unusual to say the least for anyone trying to convert Jews to insert such details as the ones above, particularly Jesus' death which is the most , and indeed, they were a major headache for the Christ movement to make headway amongst the Jewish population since the first century. (Not to mention Josephus and Tacitus were not Christians, so they would not share the same forms of bias and vested interest that Christians would, and they also back up several details.)
[Source: The New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman, Chapter 14. (Fantastic book, would highly recommend it as an introduction to Historical Jesus study.)]
These sources demonstrate that traditions about Jesus do date back to the first century, and there is enough multiple attestation there to demonstrate that these stories were based on an actual historical figure.
Quote from Oldaughd »
Bother not as you may. Ignoring my statement simply perpetuates your hypocrisy. You seem to have evidence that no one else in the world has! SHARE!
You only showcase your ignorance with this post. Historical Jesus study has been around for quite some time and is hardly esoteric.
Considering that's an exceedingly sbjective viewpoint (name me one reason as to why genocidal sky Stalin is more believable than Hestia, for starters), I'm not sure what you're trying to convey in a rational manner.
It's not a "subjective viewpoint."
Mormonism requires more base assumptions than Deism. Catholicism is more internally logically consistent by design than Mahāyāna. These are not ideal statements, these are facts.
Saying all religions are logically equivalent is like saying atheism is the same as paganism.
Religions--as well as other kinds of worldviews--are not all logically equivalent. Thus, they shouldn't be treated equally.
I see hypocrisy coming from you. You don't believe in any of the list of things you mentioned. So what does that accomplish for you, exactly?
Well, I do, technically speaking. But it doesn't matter, as a person can still see inequality, hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness and not belong to a particular group.
Again, it's like saying, "people believe in UFOs, so why do we make fun of people who believe in chemtrails?" No, the point is that both the people who believe in UFOs and the people who believe in chemtrails are ridiculous, just like the people who believe in fairies and the people who believe in the existence of pagan deities are ridiculous.
Except that people who believe in UFO's do so out of a vague attempt to be edgy, while pagans are just like you.
Once again, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that there's any credibility to these religions that makes them worth taking seriously. Saying, "No religion is to be taken seriously," does exactly the opposite of this.
Maybe the fact that they are the basis for western philosophy, down to the shape of christian theology, as well as presenting far more positive ethical alternatives?
It doesn't change the fact that Zeus, like all the gods, was portrayed as capricious, selfish, and a rapist. (Well, except for the gods who were just capricious and selfish. Artemis never raped anybody.)
Pausanias would laugh his ass off at this, as would most greek playwriters. Again, his debauchery and insanity aren't core aspects of his identity as a deity, as much as his role in protection and justice.
The fact of the matter is the Greek gods were beings of incredible scope and might beyond humanity. Their defining quality was their power. In fact, as I understand it, that's what the Roman word numina literally translates to, "power" (someone correct me if I'm wrong). The point is they were beings of another order, just like human beings are beyond the animals, and these beings did not have human interests at heart.
"Numina" most closely translates as "authoritive power", and is of a more moral character.
You seem to have researched very little on greek philosophy. Even in many myths, deities like Hestia and Helios have humanity's best interest at heart, or are at least benevolent if not provoked.
Is there a point here?
Unless you're knowingly ignoring statements against your notion that civilised greek pagans weren't okay with the evil portrayals, yes.
You might want to do that then.
Because your Yahweh is supposedly unchangeable (contrary to the OT, but still).
Do you even know about christian theology?
An intertwining of politics and religion doesn't make sense to the Jewish people, whose defining trait of their ethnicity is their religion? Care to explain that to me?
Considering historical european jews did had some measure of distance between Yahweh and governance, yes.
And we can see that the sun is not sentient and does not respond to the blood of human sacrifices. Myth busted.
Pity only aztecs and semetic religions had human sacrifices to the Sun, then.
As for sapience, do christian eikons respond to prayers? No? Thought so.
Show me the evidence.
Further, recognize that the Abrahamic faiths do not necessarily claim other gods don't exist, they claim other gods are not to be worshiped. So after you've proven they exist, demonstrate to me why we should worship them.
Provide me with evidence Yahweh exists, and I will provide evidence for other gods.
Jesus also claims he shouldn't be worshipped, so your's is once again an hypocritical statement.
And yet, going by your rhetoric, you seem to have your reasons why "genocidal sky Stalin" is less believable than Hestia. Are you asking us to judge, or not to judge?
I'm asking for people to not hypocritical and narcissitic. Integrity seems to be alien concept around these bands.
It's not a "subjective viewpoint."
Mormonism requires more base assumptions than Deism. Catholicism is more internally logically consistent by design than Mahāyāna. These are not ideal statements, these are facts.
Saying all religions are logically equivalent is like saying atheism is the same as paganism.
Religions--as well as other kinds of worldviews--are not all logically equivalent. Thus, they shouldn't be treated equally.
Dogma =/= rationality: dogma restricts empirical examination, and likewise a mahayanan buddhist is not bound to accept the more irrational beliefs of vedic tradition, while catholics are by default.
I'm asking for people to not hypocritical and narcissitic. Integrity seems to be alien concept around these bands.
You know what, you're right. When I see a person impugning the characters of others and sarcastically mocking them for their ignorance, "integrity" is certainly not the first thing I think of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
All religions are equally false, outdated, and useless. Yeah "Wicca" sounds stupid, but so does a guy sending a son who is actually himself to be murdered and tortured then brought back from the dead to forgive people he created for doing something he allowed them to do in the first place. And that's just the New Testament - I'm not even gonna get into murdering people for wearing cotton/poly blend, fitting every animal on the earth onto a boat, a dude swimming around inside a whale, etc. etc.
Wait, so you yourself are distinguishing between them while arguing that it's hypocritical to distinguish between them?
What are you even trying to accomplish here again?
Once again, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that there's any credibility to these religions that makes them worth taking seriously. Saying, "No religion is to be taken seriously," does exactly the opposite of this.
Maybe the fact that they are the basis for western philosophy, down to the shape of christian theology, as well as presenting far more positive ethical alternatives?
Erm, what?
It doesn't change the fact that Zeus, like all the gods, was portrayed as capricious, selfish, and a rapist. (Well, except for the gods who were just capricious and selfish. Artemis never raped anybody.)
Pausanias would laugh his ass off at this, as would most greek playwriters. Again, his debauchery and insanity aren't core aspects of his identity as a deity, as much as his role in protection and justice.
So his numerous children, his wanton destruction, the fact that he cursed all of humanity with all troubles in Pandora's box... These are just footnotes? You sure about that one?
You seem to have researched very little on greek philosophy. Even in many myths, deities like Hestia and Helios have humanity's best interest at heart, or are at least benevolent if not provoked.
First of all, (A) Greek religion, and (B) no, the gods do not have humanity's best interest in mind. They have their own best interests in mind. That does not mean they are never benevolent. That does not mean they are always evil. This does, however, mean they are self-centered and capricious, and don't really give a damn about you except when you offer them thighbones or piss them off. They are not moral arbiters.
The tradition that they hold some sense of justice does date back to Hesiod, but this has always been problematic and view and certainly is the minority. You seem to want to characterize it as, "Oh yeah, that was what they believed in the barbaric past, but afterward they became civilized and abandoned all that." First of all, it's very odd that you would say that when you yourself were trying to argue against the whole "barbaric past" thing, although this would hardly be the first time you've contradicted yourself in this thread. Second, as anyone who has studied either Greek or Roman civilization will tell you, what you're saying is entirely false. Zeus as philanderer continued as long as Zeus did.
Unless you're knowingly ignoring statements against your notion that civilised greek pagans weren't okay with the evil portrayals, yes.
No, this is your problem. I said SOME were. The majority accepted it.
It's also worth noting that Plato advocated worship of The One.
Because your Yahweh is supposedly unchangeable (contrary to the OT, but still).
Do you even know about christian theology?
Yes, I do, actually.
Considering historical european jews did had some measure of distance between Yahweh and governance, yes.
You didn't address my point. What made them Jewish in the first place? Yeah.
Pity only aztecs and semetic religions had human sacrifices to the Sun, then.
Are you going to claim that:
A) No human sacrifices took place amongst pagan religions, and if you acknowledge that they did, point stands,
or
B) That NASA has found scientific evidence that burning thighbones of cows alters sun activity?
As for sapience, do christian eikons respond to prayers? No? Thought so.
Never claimed they did.
Provide me with evidence Yahweh exists, and I will provide evidence for other gods.
Amusing, considering that the pagan religions of the past held that the God of Israel did exist.
Of couse there's always arrogant intolerant people, but I have the impression that non-abrahamic/vedic (aka Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, et cetera) religions are at best not taken seriously or very much hated.
The two main "pagan" branches, Wicca and Norse Reconstructionism, have quite a lot of bile spit at them by the media. The former are appearently all imbecile teenagers or attention whores according to nearly every show in existence, while the latter are invariably depicted as either white supremacists or outright satanic.
It's also a sport to make fun of the Greek gods and their "depraved" ways, while the genocidal abrahamic god gets scott free.
I haven't read any of the posts in this thread except this one so I don't feel obligated to respond to another religious debate, but I will mention that some people I know just got married under a Wiccan blessing; watching them cast the circle before the ceremony was pretty cool, and I didn't feel at all uncomfortable being there. I'm personally a Taoist; I reached this conclusion through a lot of soul-searching and vivid dreaming while I sleep, as well as attempting to connect what I know about science and spirituality to the world around me. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that what I believed was parallel enough to Taoism that I didn't mind slapping the label on it, because it was cool to me that I'm not the only person who had realized what I realized, and that, in fact, a whole slew of people had these same epiphanies and based a moderately popular religion that we still see nowadays on it.
So, in short, media-wise, yes, I'm sure other religions get a lot of negative attention, especially from Abrahamic religions - but there are also a fair number of people who simply don't care if people practice and believe what they practice and believe - and so they do.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Dogma =/= rationality: dogma restricts empirical examination, and likewise a mahayanan buddhist is not bound to accept the more irrational beliefs of vedic tradition, while catholics are by default.
Most catholic theology is neoplatonic, for starters, from ethical reasonings to divine interpretations.
So his numerous children, his wanton destruction, the fact that he cursed all of humanity with all troubles in Pandora's box... These are just footnotes? You sure about that one?
Depends, but appearently so, as latter pagans came to think of Herakles' labours as metaphors for the Zodiac.
They have their own best interests in mind. That does not mean they are never benevolent. That does not mean they are always evil. This does, however, mean they are self-centered and capricious, and don't really give a damn about you except when you offer them thighbones or piss them off. They are not moral arbiters.
To a superficial perspective, yes. But when their roles are blatantly that of moral arbiters and defined as all benevolent (Hestia, for starters), then this particular accusation is more or less akin to me dissing Yahweh as a selfish prick for not waning mankind to eat from the Tree of Life.
It's also worth noting that Plato advocated worship of The One.
He wanted union with The One, not [just] worship; to him, The One was the source of all things, but to approach that source you needed to udnerstand the powers that mediate, like Helios.
What made them Jewish in the first place? Yeah.
Their cultural identity. Which is not solely focused on Yahweh.
A) No human sacrifices took place amongst pagan religions, and if you acknowledge that they did, point stands,
I'm not delusional. However, it's such a cheap way to exaggerate that it might as well not exist (for starters, only a select Aztec gods demanded human deaths as opposed to more placatory blood lettings, instead of the pop cultural depictions of all deities eatng hearts)
B) That NASA has found scientific evidence that burning thighbones of cows alters sun activity?
Same with iconography. There's no activity detected in Jesus statuettes, yet they don't loose their spiritual value.
Amusing, considering that the pagan religions of the past held that the God of Israel did exist.
And I'm not denying they did. However, if you do not want to come across as an hypocrite, accusing other deities of nonexistence when using ostensibly the same arguments for one particular deity is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
Want to show me where?
Even putting aside the "Ego eimi" mistranslation, a closer examination of the verses in greek doesn't show any indications that he proclaimed himself to be Yahweh.
You should try addressing what I'm actually saying instead of whatever it is you wish I was saying.
Except you blatantly equated "internal consistency" with dogma. Memory lapse much?
So his numerous children, his wanton destruction, the fact that he cursed all of humanity with all troubles in Pandora's box... These are just footnotes? You sure about that one?
Depends, but appearently so, as latter pagans came to think of Herakles' labours as metaphors for the Zodiac.
... Except for the part where Herakles doesn't exist without Zeus' wanton debauchery.
To a superficial perspective, yes. But when their roles are blatantly that of moral arbiters and defined as all benevolent (Hestia, for starters), then this particular accusation is more or less akin to me dissing Yahweh as a selfish prick for not waning mankind to eat from the Tree of Life.
Two problems:
1. Old Testament God is also defined as all benevolent. Are you getting the sense yet that just because the Greeks claimed their gods were all benevolent, this doesn't exactly mean they were?
2. Yeah, of course God as he's presented in Genesis 3 is antagonistic. I've never argued otherwise.
He wanted union with The One, not [just] worship; to him, The One was the source of all things, but to approach that source you needed to udnerstand the powers that mediate, like Helios.
Why?
Their cultural identity. Which is not solely focused on Yahweh.
Their cultural identity was DEFINED by their relationship with God. That's what made them Jewish in the first place!
I'm not delusional. However, it's such a cheap way to exaggerate that it might as well not exist (for starters, only a select Aztec gods demanded human deaths as opposed to more placatory blood lettings, instead of the pop cultural depictions of all deities eatng hearts)
... What the hell are you even saying here?
B) That NASA has found scientific evidence that burning thighbones of cows alters sun activity?
Same with iconography. There's no activity detected in Jesus statuettes, yet they don't loose their spiritual value.
Didn't I just get through saying I place no stock in iconography?
Amusing, considering that the pagan religions of the past held that the God of Israel did exist.
And I'm not denying they did.
So in other words, doesn't that mean you must therefore believe in and worship the God of Israel in order to not contradict your beliefs?
However, if you do not want to come across as an hypocrite, accusing other deities of nonexistence when using ostensibly the same arguments for one particular deity is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
Quite the contrary.
You have no ability to disprove the existence of God.
We have ABUNDANT data disproving that the sun, the moon, the stars, and the trees are intelligent lifeforms that can be appeased by the sacrifices of grain, livestock, and human beings.
Furthermore, the pagan polytheistic beliefs that you're describing accepted the existence of God. Therefore any attacks against the credibility of my belief in God undermine the credibility of your religion. Note that the reverse does not apply.
And finally, even if you somehow proved these pagan gods did exist, why would anyone ever worship them?
Even putting aside the "Ego eimi" mistranslation, a closer examination of the verses in greek doesn't show any indications that he proclaimed himself to be Yahweh.
And then there's the Gospel of John.
Once again, justify that your religion has any credibility. And don't say, "Well, Christianity also believes some outlandish things" like somehow deflecting the burden of proof onto another topic is going to help you. Demonstrate your religion has any basis at all.
Because it seems like all you seek to do is alienate everyone on this thread with your arrogant attitude and empty posts. Which leads me again to ask: exactly what did you seek to accomplish by this thread again?
Not to mention that the entire point of most pagan religions was as follows:
1. There are forces of nature
2. These forces are sentient and have wills like humans do
3. These forces can be appeased by the sacrificing and redistribution of meat
That last part was the big part of religion in antiquity. The sacrificing and redistribution of meat was central. That's one of the biggest reasons why the Jews were seen as so odd, and why the Christ movement was so persecuted: because they refused to participate in the sacrifices to the gods of other peoples, or in the case of the Christ movement amongst the Gentiles, the gods of their ancestors. Meat sacrificing was a big deal.
So, once again, I would like the OP to make the case that the forces of nature, the trees, the sun, the moon, and the stars:
1. Are sentient beings
2. Are actual gods
3. Can be influenced by burning the fat and thighbones of cattle, or other animal sacrifices, or human beings
Because without this, ancient paganism falls through.
So, once again, I would like the OP to make the case that the forces of nature, the trees, the sun, the moon, and the stars:
1. Are sentient beings
2. Are actual gods
3. Can be influenced by burning the fat and thighbones of cattle, or other animal sacrifices, or human beings
Because without this, ancient paganism falls through.
You can--of course--met the same requirement for your religion and make the case that the universe/love:
1. Is a sentient being.
2. Is actual God.
3. Can be influenced by prayers.
As an interested third party: Do you have any links on hand to said evidence?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Bother not as you may. Ignoring my statement simply perpetuates your hypocrisy. You seem to have evidence that no one else in the world has! SHARE!
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Reasonable historians dispute whether or not there's good enough evidence to say that Jesus did live, though the balance that I'm familiar enough says, "Probably yes."
His evidence for his faith, on the other hand, is almost certainly subjective and thus, by definition, not shareable with someone who doesn't have a similar subjective experience. He's actually outright conceded that anyone who doesn't have that similar subjective experience should dismiss his religious claims out of hand.
I honestly think that, as heated as your debate has become, neither of you is really out of line here.
We have other threads for this topic. Read those or start a new one.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There are plenty of non-Christian historical writings, including Roman tax records, which document the historical Jesus. It is obviously and evidentially debatable as to weather or not he was the Son of God, the Messiah, or any of the other attributes that are assigned to Him by various groups, however I am unaware of any serious academic who makes a case that there was no man named Jesus (Yeshua) who lived at that time, preached a minestry, attracted the negative attention of the ruling parties in the region at that time, and was crucified.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Having a right to believe is not the same thing as having a belief that is right. Intellectual criticism questions the latter, not the former.
I strongly object to this. Nobody here is advocating murder, and shame on you for even suggesting the comparison. Would you say that Jon Stewart in mocking the President is no better than John Wilkes Booth in shooting him?
And calling people "no better than" mass murderers when they think critically and speak freely? How does that reflect on you?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The prevalence of certain key details amongst Paul's Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of John, and Josephus, specifically that Jesus was Jewish; that he was an itinerant rabbi, miracleworker, and healer; that he had a large following of Jews and also of Gentiles; that his ministry was around Jerusalem; that he was brought before Pontius Pilate; that he was crucified but his followers were not; and that his followers remained faithful in him and believed in his resurrection, spreading throughout the Roman Empire.
Furthermore, we have Tacitus, who mentions the Christ in the Annals as being executed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign.
There are several criteria that historians use in analyzing historical sources in Historical Jesus study. One of them is the criterion of independent attestation, which assesses whether or not multiple sources composed independently of one another attest to the same details. In this case, all of the above sources were composed independently, and they agree on the aforementioned details.
Another is the criterion of dissimilarity, also called the criterion of embarrassment, which assesses sources for details which appear contrary to the agenda of the people the sources came from. This is can be demonstrated here in the Gospels and in Paul, as the relevant details of Jesus' life entirely contradict the idea that he conforms to a Messiah figure in the Judaic understanding of the term. The Judaic conception of the Messiah is of a warrior king who would conquer the enemies of Jerusalem, restore Israel, and rule over a golden age.
It would be highly unusual to say the least for anyone trying to convert Jews to insert such details as the ones above, particularly Jesus' death which is the most , and indeed, they were a major headache for the Christ movement to make headway amongst the Jewish population since the first century. (Not to mention Josephus and Tacitus were not Christians, so they would not share the same forms of bias and vested interest that Christians would, and they also back up several details.)
[Source: The New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman, Chapter 14. (Fantastic book, would highly recommend it as an introduction to Historical Jesus study.)]
These sources demonstrate that traditions about Jesus do date back to the first century, and there is enough multiple attestation there to demonstrate that these stories were based on an actual historical figure.
You only showcase your ignorance with this post. Historical Jesus study has been around for quite some time and is hardly esoteric.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's not a "subjective viewpoint."
Mormonism requires more base assumptions than Deism. Catholicism is more internally logically consistent by design than Mahāyāna. These are not ideal statements, these are facts.
Saying all religions are logically equivalent is like saying atheism is the same as paganism.
Religions--as well as other kinds of worldviews--are not all logically equivalent. Thus, they shouldn't be treated equally.
Well, I do, technically speaking. But it doesn't matter, as a person can still see inequality, hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness and not belong to a particular group.
Except that people who believe in UFO's do so out of a vague attempt to be edgy, while pagans are just like you.
Maybe the fact that they are the basis for western philosophy, down to the shape of christian theology, as well as presenting far more positive ethical alternatives?
Pausanias would laugh his ass off at this, as would most greek playwriters. Again, his debauchery and insanity aren't core aspects of his identity as a deity, as much as his role in protection and justice.
"Numina" most closely translates as "authoritive power", and is of a more moral character.
You seem to have researched very little on greek philosophy. Even in many myths, deities like Hestia and Helios have humanity's best interest at heart, or are at least benevolent if not provoked.
Unless you're knowingly ignoring statements against your notion that civilised greek pagans weren't okay with the evil portrayals, yes.
Because your Yahweh is supposedly unchangeable (contrary to the OT, but still).
Do you even know about christian theology?
Considering historical european jews did had some measure of distance between Yahweh and governance, yes.
Pity only aztecs and semetic religions had human sacrifices to the Sun, then.
As for sapience, do christian eikons respond to prayers? No? Thought so.
Provide me with evidence Yahweh exists, and I will provide evidence for other gods.
Jesus also claims he shouldn't be worshipped, so your's is once again an hypocritical statement.
I'm asking for people to not hypocritical and narcissitic. Integrity seems to be alien concept around these bands.
Dogma =/= rationality: dogma restricts empirical examination, and likewise a mahayanan buddhist is not bound to accept the more irrational beliefs of vedic tradition, while catholics are by default.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wait, so you yourself are distinguishing between them while arguing that it's hypocritical to distinguish between them?
What are you even trying to accomplish here again?
Erm, what?
So his numerous children, his wanton destruction, the fact that he cursed all of humanity with all troubles in Pandora's box... These are just footnotes? You sure about that one?
First of all, (A) Greek religion, and (B) no, the gods do not have humanity's best interest in mind. They have their own best interests in mind. That does not mean they are never benevolent. That does not mean they are always evil. This does, however, mean they are self-centered and capricious, and don't really give a damn about you except when you offer them thighbones or piss them off. They are not moral arbiters.
The tradition that they hold some sense of justice does date back to Hesiod, but this has always been problematic and view and certainly is the minority. You seem to want to characterize it as, "Oh yeah, that was what they believed in the barbaric past, but afterward they became civilized and abandoned all that." First of all, it's very odd that you would say that when you yourself were trying to argue against the whole "barbaric past" thing, although this would hardly be the first time you've contradicted yourself in this thread. Second, as anyone who has studied either Greek or Roman civilization will tell you, what you're saying is entirely false. Zeus as philanderer continued as long as Zeus did.
No, this is your problem. I said SOME were. The majority accepted it.
It's also worth noting that Plato advocated worship of The One.
Yes, I do, actually.
You didn't address my point. What made them Jewish in the first place? Yeah.
Are you going to claim that:
A) No human sacrifices took place amongst pagan religions, and if you acknowledge that they did, point stands,
or
B) That NASA has found scientific evidence that burning thighbones of cows alters sun activity?
Never claimed they did.
Amusing, considering that the pagan religions of the past held that the God of Israel did exist.
Want to show me where?
I haven't read any of the posts in this thread except this one so I don't feel obligated to respond to another religious debate, but I will mention that some people I know just got married under a Wiccan blessing; watching them cast the circle before the ceremony was pretty cool, and I didn't feel at all uncomfortable being there. I'm personally a Taoist; I reached this conclusion through a lot of soul-searching and vivid dreaming while I sleep, as well as attempting to connect what I know about science and spirituality to the world around me. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that what I believed was parallel enough to Taoism that I didn't mind slapping the label on it, because it was cool to me that I'm not the only person who had realized what I realized, and that, in fact, a whole slew of people had these same epiphanies and based a moderately popular religion that we still see nowadays on it.
So, in short, media-wise, yes, I'm sure other religions get a lot of negative attention, especially from Abrahamic religions - but there are also a fair number of people who simply don't care if people practice and believe what they practice and believe - and so they do.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I'm an atheist, if that's relevant.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Please do. Taoism is fascinating to me.
Logical =/= rationality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Reason_compared_to_logic
But--at any rate--there I was talking about internal consistency, nothing more.
You should try addressing what I'm actually saying instead of whatever it is you wish I was saying.
I hope it's the awesome kind with elixirs of immortality and exorcisms, not the lame kind that's just a glorified version of "go with the flow".
Hahaha, very true. Taoism as philosophy and Taoism as religion are PROFOUNDLY different.
Most catholic theology is neoplatonic, for starters, from ethical reasonings to divine interpretations.
Depends, but appearently so, as latter pagans came to think of Herakles' labours as metaphors for the Zodiac.
To a superficial perspective, yes. But when their roles are blatantly that of moral arbiters and defined as all benevolent (Hestia, for starters), then this particular accusation is more or less akin to me dissing Yahweh as a selfish prick for not waning mankind to eat from the Tree of Life.
He wanted union with The One, not [just] worship; to him, The One was the source of all things, but to approach that source you needed to udnerstand the powers that mediate, like Helios.
Their cultural identity. Which is not solely focused on Yahweh.
I'm not delusional. However, it's such a cheap way to exaggerate that it might as well not exist (for starters, only a select Aztec gods demanded human deaths as opposed to more placatory blood lettings, instead of the pop cultural depictions of all deities eatng hearts)
Same with iconography. There's no activity detected in Jesus statuettes, yet they don't loose their spiritual value.
And I'm not denying they did. However, if you do not want to come across as an hypocrite, accusing other deities of nonexistence when using ostensibly the same arguments for one particular deity is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
Even putting aside the "Ego eimi" mistranslation, a closer examination of the verses in greek doesn't show any indications that he proclaimed himself to be Yahweh.
Except you blatantly equated "internal consistency" with dogma. Memory lapse much?
... Except for the part where Herakles doesn't exist without Zeus' wanton debauchery.
Two problems:
1. Old Testament God is also defined as all benevolent. Are you getting the sense yet that just because the Greeks claimed their gods were all benevolent, this doesn't exactly mean they were?
2. Yeah, of course God as he's presented in Genesis 3 is antagonistic. I've never argued otherwise.
Why?
Their cultural identity was DEFINED by their relationship with God. That's what made them Jewish in the first place!
... What the hell are you even saying here?
Didn't I just get through saying I place no stock in iconography?
So in other words, doesn't that mean you must therefore believe in and worship the God of Israel in order to not contradict your beliefs?
Quite the contrary.
You have no ability to disprove the existence of God.
We have ABUNDANT data disproving that the sun, the moon, the stars, and the trees are intelligent lifeforms that can be appeased by the sacrifices of grain, livestock, and human beings.
Furthermore, the pagan polytheistic beliefs that you're describing accepted the existence of God. Therefore any attacks against the credibility of my belief in God undermine the credibility of your religion. Note that the reverse does not apply.
And finally, even if you somehow proved these pagan gods did exist, why would anyone ever worship them?
And then there's the Gospel of John.
Once again, justify that your religion has any credibility. And don't say, "Well, Christianity also believes some outlandish things" like somehow deflecting the burden of proof onto another topic is going to help you. Demonstrate your religion has any basis at all.
Because it seems like all you seek to do is alienate everyone on this thread with your arrogant attitude and empty posts. Which leads me again to ask: exactly what did you seek to accomplish by this thread again?
1. There are forces of nature
2. These forces are sentient and have wills like humans do
3. These forces can be appeased by the sacrificing and redistribution of meat
That last part was the big part of religion in antiquity. The sacrificing and redistribution of meat was central. That's one of the biggest reasons why the Jews were seen as so odd, and why the Christ movement was so persecuted: because they refused to participate in the sacrifices to the gods of other peoples, or in the case of the Christ movement amongst the Gentiles, the gods of their ancestors. Meat sacrificing was a big deal.
So, once again, I would like the OP to make the case that the forces of nature, the trees, the sun, the moon, and the stars:
1. Are sentient beings
2. Are actual gods
3. Can be influenced by burning the fat and thighbones of cattle, or other animal sacrifices, or human beings
Because without this, ancient paganism falls through.
You can--of course--met the same requirement for your religion and make the case that the universe/love:
1. Is a sentient being.
2. Is actual God.
3. Can be influenced by prayers.
Because without this...
Yes, and that's irrelevant to this line of discussion. We're discussing paganism.