Jesus: a discussion.
This is to discuss a little more without choking up the Hero thread, as VegHead hinted at .
So, continuing on from the hero thread.....
Regarding the epistles and the credibility of the "evidence" from that era:
"Saint Saul And His Letters
Having eliminated the OT and the gospels from the list of possible biblical "evidences" of the existence of Jesus, we are left with the so-called epistles.
At first blush, we might think that these epistles - some of which are by far the oldest parts of the NT, having been composed at least 30 years before the oldest gospel - would provide us with the most reliable information on Jesus. Well, so much for blushes. The oldest letters are the letters of St. Saul - the man who, after losing his mind, changed his name to Paul. Before going into details, we must point out right away, before we forget, that St. Saul's testimony can be ignored quite safely, if what he tells us is true, namely, that he never met Jesus "in the flesh," but rather saw him only in a vision he had during what appears to have been an epileptic seizure. No court of law would accept visions as evidence, and neither should we."
I didn't want to post the whole article, it's a little lengthy but there is good justification, based on rational discussion and research, that much of the "evidence" from outside sources of that time were later in actuality or at a minimum, highly questionable. The rest can be read at http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html.
sorry I don't know how to imbed links yet.
SnowQueen, in this thread, I don't think it's philosophy that isn't making sense.
I think some are trying to dominate the discussion with their own opinions. I don't think Snowqueen is trying to say what she thinks is right. She's just explaining what she believes.
SnowQueen, in this thread, I don't think it's philosophy that isn't making sense.
I think some are trying to dominate the discussion with their own opinions. I don't think Snowqueen is trying to say what she thinks is right. She's just explaining what she believes.
My understanding of the "to one's imagination" or "from one's imagination" is simply this... (I could definitely be wrong, as I'm not the one who said it, but this is how I understand it.)
startaurus proposed that if God wasn't real, people wouldn't be dedicating art to Him. If God were just a figment of people's imagination, no one would care enough to put the time, money, & manpower into making art in His name.
When some others on this board gave examples of people dedicating art to things/people/ideas that aren't necessarily real, startaurus said there is a difference between creating art from one's imagination (like making up a mythical place or creature) & creating a piece of art to one's imagination (meaning, if God wasn't real, no one would feel inspired enough to create religious art)... The idea behind this is that because people are inspired enough to create art for God, this proves He is real.
I do not agree (as you can probably tell ;)) & I personally do not think this is a logical argument, but this is what I think she's saying... Please correct me if I'm wrong! :)
Thank you JessaCita!!!
The mud has cleared a little. It is a philosifical concept, I was right about that, and what I meant to say earlier is that philosophy does not make sense to ME. I also don't agree with the whole, "if God was make believe, then why would people dedicate art to him?" thing, why not? How many children can give an exact description of their invisible friends?
Thank you JessaCita!!!
The mud has cleared a little. It is a philosifical concept, I was right about that, and what I meant to say earlier is that philosophy does not make sense to ME. I also don't agree with the whole, "if God was make believe, then why would people dedicate art to him?" thing, why not? How many children can give an exact description of their invisible friends?
Yes, exactly! And I also have a hard time with philosophical concepts! Oftentimes, it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the ideas.
A little off-topic: I used to have a boyfriend who was a Philosophy major & he thought it was SO fun to debate every little detail! To him, it was debating--to me, it was arguing. One time we passed by a bowling tournament on TV & I mentioned that I didn't think bowling was a sport, but more of an awesome hobby, and he said, "Well, define sport. What makes a sport? Explain why you think bowling is any less of a sport than baseball. What makes baseball a sport? Why?" He thought it was so fun & awesome; I was just frustrated because it was a frivolous statement on my part & I didn't think I needed to defend something so trivial! ;D
SnowQueen, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't making sense...
;D ;D Your cool Tkitty! Anyway, I woudn't have been surprised if I wasn't making any sense, it wouldn't be the first time! :D
SnowQueen, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't making sense...
You meant to sing it.
SnowQueen, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't making sense...
Read my mind.
You meant to sing it.
jesus died for his own sins, not mine
Crass/The Feeding of the 5000/Reality Asylum
Great band/albulm/song
(^_^)d
I think that I may not understand what you are saying. To their imagination rather than from their imagination? I don't get it.
What I meant was and why I was so offended at Ecstastics comments about the greeks building stuff to their imagination. If you say that you calling my ancestors and me a bunch of a illliterate hicks. We have never been or never will be that. (I just to explain that)
SnowQueen when we (humanity) builds something it's out of neccessity or for entertainment purposes. Now let's put those statues, buildings etc from the ancient world in the catergory of entertainment since people are saying they were built to the imagination (because they felt like it the ancients they weren't built for any particular reason).
I say it wasn't done that way because it doesn't make sense to much manpower and resources have gone into them which they could've been used another way.
I respect the truth like no one. I do dive into ancient history alot. The only thing I can think of what they were they were the first beings of this earth. Of course that doesn't mean I'm right it just means it's something else to ponder.
I think that I may not understand what you are saying. To their imagination rather than from their imagination? I don't get it.
What I meant was and why I was so offended at Ecstastics comments about the greeks building stuff to their imagination. If you say that you calling my ancestors and me a bunch of a illliterate hicks. We have never been or never will be that. (I just to explain that)
SnowQueen when we (humanity) builds something it's out of neccessity or for entertainment purposes. Now let's put those statues, buildings etc from the ancient world in the catergory of entertainment since people are saying they were built to the imagination (because they felt like it the ancients they weren't built for any particular reason).
I say it wasn't done that way because it doesn't make sense to much manpower and resources have gone into them which they could've been used another way.
I respect the truth like no one. I do dive into ancient history alot. The only thing I can think of what they were they were the first beings of this earth. Of course that doesn't mean I'm right it just means it's something else to ponder.
The truth is, Startaurus, that you are often a prime offender. No one has or means to call you or your ancestors illiterate hicks. Where is that even coming from? You are quite combative at times, making others uneasy with your argumentative posts. You say you respect the truth but what you do not respect is other people's opinions. You are easily and wrongfully offended by replies that are clearly not directly specifically to you or anyone else.
If someone says "I think the greeks made all that stuff up out of their heads" (still just their opinion)
A proper response would be "I don't believe that's true, here's why...." (notice the maturity)
and NOT "First, you're entitled to your opinion but....." (notice something else)
I hope you catch my drift...
I think that I may not understand what you are saying. To their imagination rather than from their imagination? I don't get it.
What I meant was and why I was so offended at Ecstastics comments about the greeks building stuff to their imagination. If you say that you calling my ancestors and me a bunch of a illliterate hicks. We have never been or never will be that. (I just to explain that)
SnowQueen when we (humanity) builds something it's out of neccessity or for entertainment purposes. Now let's put those statues, buildings etc from the ancient world in the catergory of entertainment since people are saying they were built to the imagination (because they felt like it the ancients they weren't built for any particular reason).
I say it wasn't done that way because it doesn't make sense to much manpower and resources have gone into them which they could've been used another way.
I respect the truth like no one. I do dive into ancient history alot. The only thing I can think of what they were they were the first beings of this earth. Of course that doesn't mean I'm right it just means it's something else to ponder.
The truth is, Startaurus, that you are often a prime offender. No one has or means to call you or your ancestors illiterate hicks. Where is that even coming from? You are quite combative at times, making others uneasy with your argumentative posts. You say you respect the truth but what you do not respect is other people's opinions. You are easily and wrongfully offended by replies that are clearly not directly specifically to you or anyone else.
If someone says "I think the greeks made all that stuff up out of their heads" (still just their opinion)
A proper response would be "I don't believe that's true, here's why...." (notice the maturity)
and NOT "First, you're entitled to your opinion but....." (notice something else)
I hope you catch my drift...
The only person who doesn't respect another's opinion is you.
Startaurus, this is evidenced by?
I think that I may not understand what you are saying. To their imagination rather than from their imagination? I don't get it.
What I meant was and why I was so offended at Ecstastics comments about the greeks building stuff to their imagination. If you say that you calling my ancestors and me a bunch of a illliterate hicks. We have never been or never will be that. (I just to explain that)
SnowQueen when we (humanity) builds something it's out of neccessity or for entertainment purposes. Now let's put those statues, buildings etc from the ancient world in the catergory of entertainment since people are saying they were built to the imagination (because they felt like it the ancients they weren't built for any particular reason).
I say it wasn't done that way because it doesn't make sense to much manpower and resources have gone into them which they could've been used another way.
I respect the truth like no one. I do dive into ancient history alot. The only thing I can think of what they were they were the first beings of this earth. Of course that doesn't mean I'm right it just means it's something else to ponder.
The truth is, Startaurus, that you are often a prime offender. No one has or means to call you or your ancestors illiterate hicks. Where is that even coming from? You are quite combative at times, making others uneasy with your argumentative posts. You say you respect the truth but what you do not respect is other people's opinions. You are easily and wrongfully offended by replies that are clearly not directly specifically to you or anyone else.
If someone says "I think the greeks made all that stuff up out of their heads" (still just their opinion)
A proper response would be "I don't believe that's true, here's why...." (notice the maturity)
and NOT "First, you're entitled to your opinion but....." (notice something else)
I hope you catch my drift...
And you have gall to tell me how I should feel????????? I think is my point proven.
No. But I have the gall to suggest how you should react and to tell you you're offensive to others. Clearly two different issues.
No. But I have the gall to suggest how you should react and to tell you you're offensive to others. Clearly two different issues.
I told how I feel. You condemn me for that. I write about my opinions. You condemn me for that. That's really funny. No your offensive to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you understand I don't think I asked your permission for anything.
Just for the record ... I think you missed my point in my message. I never said I thought the Greeks were building monuments and statues to something they knew was fiction. I don't think that at all. I think, at the time, this was their religion and how they explained the world. To them, it WAS real. Just like the Christian religion, God, the afterlife, etc., is real to a lot of people nowadays. The only thing they did imagine, I think, is HOW Zeus, Hera, etc. looked like. Obviously, they hadn't seen them, so they had to use their imagination for that. Just like artists, now, use their imagination in depicting Jesus, Mary, the saints, etc.
However, I (me personally) think it's ALL a bunch of fictional stories or metaphorical myths - from Zeus to God to Allah to pagan gods, etc.
When I said that people have a tendency to fill in the gaps with god, i.e. "god of the gaps" ... I meant that, when we don't know the answer to something, i.e. the origin of the world, thunder a long time ago, some people feel comfort in turning to an explanation of faith, i.e. god did it, zeus did it, etc. And when they turn to that answer, they believe it to be true. So, they erect monuments in the belief of that truth.
I, personally, don't find comfort in that explanation and think it's too easy of an answer. Such gaps have been filled in by science historically as time went on. So, I think, much like we explained thunder, we will eventually explain the origin of the universe.
But, as I said, this is my personal opinion.
By no means do I think anyone's ancestors were illiterate primitives. (Except mine, lol). Greek culture, at any rate, certainly has never fallen under the category of "illiterate." All I meant was that I, personally, think religion (all of it) is fiction. It doesn't mean that others don't see it as truth.
Just for the record ... I think you missed my point in my message. I never said I thought the Greeks were building monuments and statues to something they knew was fiction. I don't think that at all. I think, at the time, this was their religion and how they explained the world. To them, it WAS real. Just like the Christian religion, God, the afterlife, etc., is real to a lot of people nowadays. The only thing they did imagine, I think, is HOW Zeus, Hera, etc. looked like. Obviously, they hadn't seen them, so they had to use their imagination for that. Just like artists, now, use their imagination in depicting Jesus, Mary, the saints, etc.
However, I (me personally) think it's ALL a bunch of fictional stories or metaphorical myths - from Zeus to God to Allah to pagan gods, etc.
When I said that people have a tendency to fill in the gaps with god, i.e. "god of the gaps" ... I meant that, when we don't know the answer to something, i.e. the origin of the world, thunder a long time ago, some people feel comfort in turning to an explanation of faith, i.e. god did it, zeus did it, etc. And when they turn to that answer, they believe it to be true. So, they erect monuments in the belief of that truth.
I, personally, don't find comfort in that explanation and think it's too easy of an answer. Such gaps have been filled in by science historically as time went on. So, I think, much like we explained thunder, we will eventually explain the origin of the universe.
But, as I said, this is my personal opinion.
By no means do I think anyone's ancestors were illiterate primitives. (Except mine, lol). Greek culture, at any rate, certainly has never fallen under the category of "illiterate." All I meant was that I, personally, think religion (all of it) is fiction. It doesn't mean that others don't see it as truth.
Don't worry about it.
Just for the record ... I think you missed my point in my message. I never said I thought the Greeks were building monuments and statues to something they knew was fiction. I don't think that at all. I think, at the time, this was their religion and how they explained the world. To them, it WAS real. Just like the Christian religion, God, the afterlife, etc., is real to a lot of people nowadays. The only thing they did imagine, I think, is HOW Zeus, Hera, etc. looked like. Obviously, they hadn't seen them, so they had to use their imagination for that. Just like artists, now, use their imagination in depicting Jesus, Mary, the saints, etc.
However, I (me personally) think it's ALL a bunch of fictional stories or metaphorical myths - from Zeus to God to Allah to pagan gods, etc.
When I said that people have a tendency to fill in the gaps with god, i.e. "god of the gaps" ... I meant that, when we don't know the answer to something, i.e. the origin of the world, thunder a long time ago, some people feel comfort in turning to an explanation of faith, i.e. god did it, zeus did it, etc. And when they turn to that answer, they believe it to be true. So, they erect monuments in the belief of that truth.
I, personally, don't find comfort in that explanation and think it's too easy of an answer. Such gaps have been filled in by science historically as time went on. So, I think, much like we explained thunder, we will eventually explain the origin of the universe.
But, as I said, this is my personal opinion.
By no means do I think anyone's ancestors were illiterate primitives. (Except mine, lol). Greek culture, at any rate, certainly has never fallen under the category of "illiterate." All I meant was that I, personally, think religion (all of it) is fiction. It doesn't mean that others don't see it as truth.
Well said!! :D That makes a lot of sense, and I agree (my opinion).
I hope you realize, startaurus, that no one meant to be offensive to you. Including Cheezees.
Pages