Ultrathread I: Thread of the Year - 2014

[afinalsin666]

Whether Jesus existed or not is kind of beside the point. Most scholars accept that he does (I wouldn't call it proof though). Like that grants any credibility whatsoever to the rest of the story.

And while we're on the subject, enjoy!

https://www.facebook.com/darndestthings?fref=ts

Religion is a common denominator there, but they have merkinishness and assholism even more in common.

 

[muzby]

Now you're just being stubborn for the sake of it. There is historical proof that a figure names Jesus existed.

 

[MKEB...]

Religion is more about the tradition. Faith is about trust. You can catagorise religion, but you cannot catagorise faith, I guess nether will want to be perceived as mutually exclusive. Not my thing either way.

Anyhoo.. to my understanding; In the book of Morman, The Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and showed him the way to the golden Tablets. Moroni (apparently) is the Navajo word for bourbon. This begs an interesting question, a whole faith following the visions of a man led by the bottle?

 

[Apey]

Despite my views I used to enjoy watching Jesus Christ Superstar.

[youtube]5DK0vsjn6rE[/youtube]

I always thought Caiaphas fella was pretty awesome.

 

[Misanthrope]

Proof, in religion? You serious bro?

You said that they were all equally ludicrous. I was simply pointing out that Christianity at least has a basis in the following of a person who is widely believed to have actually existed and who essentially preached (at the time) peace and love. He didn't preach about how he'd die for their sins, given he was f**king terrified of it.

Scientology, though, has no basis in the factual world. Nor does Mormonism.

I don't doubt there was a Moses or a Mohammad of some sort. I do doubt that Joseph Smith read anything anywhere, or that aliens sacrifice our souls to volcanoes on another planet.

I'm not saying I buy every word of any religion - just that some are clearly more bizarre in their founding than others.

 

[MKEB...]

Baha'i has an interesting viewpoint on the matter. They believe that all these people did exist, and that all of these people served to provide a message of morals and guidance for civilization at each stage of its development. Though that does seem to be hedging your bets a little.

 

[RHCP]

It's been 2000 years. For all we know Moses wailing on about his burning bush was treated the same way as L. Ron Hubbard and his aliens in it's day.

We say Scientology is ridiculous now, but if it survives 2000 years (they're pretty rich), will they understand the context enough to dismiss it? Or will it be legitimized through longevity?

 

[MKEB...]

Excuse my ignorance, how was scientology actually founded? (I am not trying to be a smartarse...I would like to know).

 

[Drew-Sta]

At face value, it is just as bad as Jesus and his gang of lovable misfits.

Except Jesus lived and breathed. The issue people have with him is they only listen to half of what He said and dismiss He is risen.

Well least Joshua and Mohammed actually existed.

True, but they're completely different claims. One claims to be God, one claims to know the way to God.

Proof, in religion? You serious bro?

More truth in a news proclamation.

Whether Jesus existed or not is kind of beside the point. Most scholars accept that he does (I wouldn't call it proof though). Like that grants any credibility whatsoever to the rest of the story.

So... most scholars accept and can show proof for His existance, but that's not proof?

I agree the stumbling block is His claim. He is Lord, liar or lunatic.

And while we're on the subject, enjoy!

https://www.facebook.com/darndestthings?fref=ts

That's embarrassing.

You said that they were all equally ludicrous. I was simply pointing out that Christianity at least has a basis in the following of a person who is widely believed to have actually existed and who essentially preached (at the time) peace and love. He didn't preach about how he'd die for their sins, given he was f**king terrified of it.

Not entirely true. He talked to the disciples about it all the time. Matthew 20 is a good section about it. He made it known to more and more as time went on.

But yes, He was completely terrified of what it was He had to do, as shown by Gethsemane.

Scientology, though, has no basis in the factual world. Nor does Mormonism.

I don't doubt there was a Moses or a Mohammad of some sort. I do doubt that Joseph Smith read anything anywhere, or that aliens sacrifice our souls to volcanoes on another planet.

I'm not saying I buy every word of any religion - just that some are clearly more bizarre in their founding than others.

Agree.

Baha'i has an interesting viewpoint on the matter. They believe that all these people did exist, and that all of these people served to provide a message of morals and guidance for civilization at each stage of its development. Though that does seem to be hedging your bets a little.

Its incongruent though because all of the major religions make different claims. Its a religion of universalism that cannot integrate as there is no universal claim each religion makes except the exclusive claim of it being the truth to the expense of all others.

Excuse my ignorance, how was scientology actually founded? (I am not trying to be a smartarse...I would like to know).

This is a good link on it. Fairly balanced (I think).

 

[Bazal]

I personally doubt that Jesus-shua ever claimed to be the son of god IRL. Haven't read the Gnostic gospels for a long time but IIRC there isn't mention of his divinity in them. Embellishment goes a very long way, especially with the time that passed between his death and the New Testament gospels being written down.

 

[Misanthrope]

It's been 2000 years. For all we know Moses wailing on about his burning bush was treated the same way as L. Ron Hubbard and his aliens in it's day.

We say Scientology is ridiculous now, but if it survives 2000 years (they're pretty rich), will they understand the context enough to dismiss it? Or will it be legitimized through longevity?

Except that other religions (smartly) base themselves firmly in the world of humanity, and then add the extraordinary.

Scientology has no such anchor, and unless a bunch of aliens are flying around in two years - it's still going to seem ludicrous.

Excuse my ignorance, how was scientology actually founded? (I am not trying to be a smartarse...I would like to know).

L. Ron Hubbard (a science fiction writer, haha) wanted to extort people out of their money.

Check out The Master, it's a film about him and the religion in all but name. Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant.

I personally doubt that Jesus-shua ever claimed to be the son of god IRL. Haven't read the Gnostic gospels for a long time but IIRC there isn't mention of his divinity in them. Embellishment goes a very long way, especially with the time that passed between his death and the New Testament gospels being written down.

The modern Bible is infinitely fallible. It was largely second hand to begin with, and was edited heavily by the Romans when they adopted the religion. It's why I have such a hard time believing people when they say "But it's in the Bible!" What is in the Bible today was put into it for political reasons.

 

[Drew-Sta]

I personally doubt that Jesus-shua ever claimed to be the son of god IRL. Haven't read the Gnostic gospels for a long time but IIRC there isn't mention of his divinity in them. Embellishment goes a very long way, especially with the time that passed between his death and the New Testament gospels being written down.

There's a number of books, several by secular authors, who agree the gospels accepted as canon do not read as embellished works. No beginning to a religion would have women as witnesses, the disciples looking as stupid as they did, nor allow incidents like Gethsemane, the cross etc to be present in them.

Also, why would the 12 have let themselves be killed in such horrendous ways to defend an embellished truth?

Not to mention, the gospels contain frequent claims that Jesus made suggesting He was God (John 8 / 10), or self claims (I am the son of man, or the Christ, or the son of God, etc).

You may disagree with them, which is your right, but He was very clear.

The gnostic gospels were a melding of Hellenistic philosophy with Jewish mythology. The do not sit consistently with the OT nor what the Messiah was to come to achieve. They're interesting reads, but sit well outside the arc of the OT and therefore were summarily dismissed. Not to mention, they weren't written by eye witnesses either.

 

[Apey]

So... most scholars accept and can show proof for His existance, but that's not proof?

Correct, most scholars accepting it to be true is not 'proof' in the slightest sense of the word. It's more likely that he did exist then he didn't, of course; but I always felt like the argument over his existence was just a case of people trying too hard to argue against religion. I'm more than happy to grant his existence considering it's beside the point to me.

 

[Drew-Sta]

The modern Bible is infinitely fallible.

Define fallible. I prefer inerrant.

It was largely second hand to begin with, and was edited heavily by the Romans when they adopted the religion. It's why I have such a hard time believing people when they say "But it's in the Bible!" What is in the Bible today was put into it for political reasons.

No, it wasn't. That's completely wrong, actually.

It was not second hand when it was written. It was written by eye witnesses. Copies of those documents have been made, to be sure, but the content was written by the actual apostles etc.

Secondly, it wasn't edited heavily (or at all) by the Romans. We have copies dating back to the early 100's (125CE, actually), which show that the content of the bible has not been altered at all. Since the Romans adopted the religion in the 300's, and there are manuscripts of the bible before that time (Chester Beatty has all four gospels dated at 250CE, when Christians were still be killed for being Christians), it is beyond doubt that what we have now is what we had as far back as the originals were concerned.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Correct, most scholars accepting it to be true is not 'proof' in the slightest sense of the word. It's more likely that he did exist then he didn't, of course; but I always felt like the argument over his existence was just a case of people trying too hard to argue against religion. I'm more than happy to grant his existence considering it's beside the point to me.

Fair enough.

 

[Misanthrope]

Secondly, it wasn't edited heavily (or at all) by the Romans. We have copies dating back to the early 100's (125CE, actually), which show that the content of the bible has not been altered at all. Since the Romans adopted the religion in the 300's, and there are manuscripts of the bible before that time (Chester Beatty has all four gospels dated at 250CE, when Christians were still be killed for being Christians), it is beyond doubt that what we have now is what we had as far back as the originals were concerned.

By 'heavily edited' I mean that the Romans chose what went into their Bible and what was left out.

Easy to select things that support your current way of thinking and conveniently leave out and lose those that did not.

 

[Bazal]

There's a number of books, several by secular authors, who agree the gospels accepted as canon do not read as embellished works. No beginning to a religion would have women as witnesses, the disciples looking as stupid as they did, nor allow incidents like Gethsemane, the cross etc to be present in them.

Also, why would the 12 have let themselves be killed in such horrendous ways to defend an embellished truth?

Not to mention, the gospels contain frequent claims that Jesus made suggesting He was God (John 8 / 10), or self claims (I am the son of man, or the Christ, or the son of God, etc).

You may disagree with them, which is your right, but He was very clear.

The gnostic gospels were a melding of Hellenistic philosophy with Jewish mythology. The do not sit consistently with the OT nor what the Messiah was to come to achieve. They're interesting reads, but sit well outside the arc of the OT and therefore were summarily dismissed. Not to mention, they weren't written by eye witnesses either.

You say that, but who says the writers did any embellishing? Luke was written a minimum 40 years after Jesus died. Matthew the same, Mark 30, and John 50. That's a lot of time for Chinese whispers.

Muslim "martyrs" die for far less than the Apostles did.

 

[muzby]

i steer away from religious conversations as i'm very much "each to their own" when it comes to spirituality..

however, so i can still enjoy this thread, i'm offering up a prize of a peppermint freddo frog to whoever can incorporate the most of the following words into their posts regarding religion:

 

[Misanthrope]

i steer away from religious conversations as i'm very much "each to their own" when it comes to spirituality..

however, so i can still enjoy this thread, i'm offering up a prize of a peppermint freddo frog to whoever can incorporate the most of the following words into their posts regarding religion:

f**k. I forgot Peppermint Freddos even existed.

I've been gone too long.

 

[Bazal]

Costco sell boxes of like 80 Peppermint Freddos for like $10-$20