RoR: Forum

This essay was submitted before the split with SOLO directly to the editor along with a query as to whether or not it would be useful to the site. The response came back that it would be edited into two articles. Since the two sites went their separate ways I assumed it was a dead issue. It was my intention to give it another edit if it was published. Its publication came as a surprise to me. Try to forgive the errors.

Post 1

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 8:38am

Thank you for the perspective.

I am curious to know what you think of the alternative gospels. Thomas makes Jesus look like a fascinating, even prescient, man, instead of a raving demigod. I'm unfamiliar with the others.

Also, the idea that forgiveness lies in repentance, a rational notion, seems to be a real Jesus's, but it seems likely to have had antecedents. Any opinion? I am of two minds on this, reluctant to extend trust even in the case of sufficiently-broad, seemingly-genuine repentance.

Post 2

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 8:45am

Robert Davison,

There is sufficient empirical evidence to prove that Jesus existed, and even assemble a short biography.

What empirical evidence? Forged documents (The bible, etc)? I don't consider forged documents as empirical evidence, other than that we can tell to a degree who has forged them and what their intentions were, and in some cases we can have a good idea of what the original documents said.

Coming up with ways that Jesus could have existed but left no evidence behind, is not a form of empirical evidence. It may show that it could be possible, but it does not actually provide any evidence that Jesus existed.

Similarly, I could come up ways that a little green martian could be floating around your head in a toaster-shaped vehicle, but leaves no evidence behind, I am not providing any form of empirical evidence. I am just showing that it could be possible, but I am not actually providing any evidence that such a green martian exists.

assemble a short biography

Indeed, the forged documents do form a short biography-- yet I must point out that one can create a biography of a fictional character.

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 1/15, 9:00am)

Post 3

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 8:59am

T. David Hudson,

forgiveness lies in repentance, a rational notion

From answers.com:

forgive:
1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon.
2. To renounce anger or resentment against.
3. To absolve from payment of (a debt, for example).

repent:
1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.

Forgiveness in #1 is an act of injustice when an individual has no reason to excuse. Has the force initiator re-created or given back in full the means to re-create what it has destroyed? This would be grounds for an individual reasonably be willing to potentially begin or continue a mutually consensual relationship-- and this would not be forgiveness, it would be up-holding individual rights and justice.

To "forgive" is to take the stance of a pacifist, and to allow others to trample your individual rights. Simply because the force initiator feels "remorse, contrition, or self-reproach" is by no standard in one's self interest grounds to forgive.

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 1/15, 9:05am)

Post 4

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 10:46am

Jody,

It is unlikely that such fuss and bother grew up around a man that never existed. It seems likely that the stories of Jesus contain a 'kernel' of truth. Given what happened in Palestine in 66 AD, it is not surprising that Jewish history is incomplete for the later half of the first century.

There are historical writings, both Roman and Jewish sources referring to the existence of a man named 'Jesus'. The fact that these are late first and second century rather than contemporary accounts inspires skepticism and some have concluded that they are likely interpolations.

Do the research; believe what you wish.

David: You ask some challenging questions. I am busy now more on that later.

b

Post 5

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 10:49am

Robert-
You must be so used to arguing with me that you are trying to anticipate my questions.

Are could you be addressing Dean's questions?

Post 6

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 10:59am

Robert,

I'm not sure who Jody is, but have you ever heard of a man named Santa Claus?

I don't accept anything as true without verifiable evidence. I maintain that using the scientific method is the only method that one can use to create a knowledge base that is consistent with reality, a knowledge base that one can trust to make decisions on.

Adding "Jesus existed" to my knowledge base, when no verifiable evidence exists, when adding it to my knowledge base is completely independent of any decision I will ever make, to add it is simply foolish. Whether a man named "Jesus" existed or did anything that the bible says is completely irrelevant to my life and my actions-- until some sort of verifiable evidence shows a part of it to be true.

To act in any other way, or to expect others to act in any other way, is to act or to expect actions of unquestioned servitude. Who wants unquestioned servitude?

Post 7

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:27pm

I'm trying to figure out how the possibility of there being a historical Jesus could translate into "unquestioned servitude."

Post 8

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:43pm

L W, you could try believing what others say, without taking the time to discover whether reality backs up their claims.

For example, "L W, you have been a foolish and evil. Almost everything you do is selfish and evil. God is true. God is ... claims of perfectly able and good etc. God said that worshiping him is good and that eating pork is bad."

Welcome to slavery.

Edit: forgot to mention: God also said it is good to give me 15% of your income, and your evil and selfish, and don't love him if you don't. Also, I'm extremely skilled at doing what God says, and leading others to God. So the more money and resources you give me, the more good you are.

Edit: did you ever wonder why religious leaders are against the scientific method, and the discoveries it brings forth? Do you still wonder now? The scientific method is the method for discovering Truth, of discovering what reality is and how it works. Religions are static knowledge basis that contradict reality, and people who's lively hoods are based on it are either rationally or intuitively aware that science will uncover their false ideas.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 1/15, 12:57pm)

Post 9

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:36pm

Sorry Jody. I do consider you peas in a pod. ;-)

Post 10

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:42pm

Dean,

I maintain that using the scientific method is the only method that one can use to create a knowledge base that is consistent with reality, a knowledge base that one can trust to make decisions on.

That would mean that all that you know is falsifiable. I doubt that.

I have asked you to leave me alone. If you don't I will say something ugly and you will have to whine about it again. Just talk to someone else.

Post 11

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 3:10pm

Dean, The point I was trying to make was a separation between Jesus as a person who could have truly existed and the subsequent religion which came into being after his death.

I could hold as possible(using what information is available) his having actually lived without believing the tenets of the faith which hold him as some kind of deity. To me they do not have to be one and the same.

Post 12

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 3:25pm

I agree with L.W. Hall's post 11.

My parents were both raised in religious households, but they chose to raise there children without religion. I never attended a single service nor read the Bible or any other religious text until I chose to investigate them on my own.

Robert's article is interesting to me from the perspective of understanding the politics that went into the creation of the Bible, which some Christians hold to be the exact and true word of God.

I don't beleive in God or gods for that matter. I deal with people of various faiths and beliefs all day long. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and many others. Understanding their beliefs is just as important to me as understanding the various philosophers throughout history. It all adds information and understanding to my thoughts and arguments. As an activist , that works for me.

Ethan

Post 13

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 3:40pm

Robert,

You probably have seen me post on this before, but your article merits a recap.

I have found the work of Earl Doherty to be extremely useful in understanding why an historical Jesus is so hard to document and is probably a myth. There are no concrete facts, but Doherty himself thinks Jesus might have been a minor preacher of some sort.

His contention, which I find convincing, is that religious thinking at that time involved some kind of supernatural realm where earthly events occurred. This was the case with Greek and Roman mythology. He contends that a supernatural realm for earthly events type thinking was probably the case for Hebrews, also, (involving the Son of God idea) and the need for an historical Jesus arose much later when the big shots adopted Christianity in order to make it superior to mythology.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 1/15, 4:09pm)

Post 14

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 3:50pm

Moreover, there are, even tho many were destroyed, an immense amount of other writings not in the bible, which include many which do not consider Jesus as other than a human, a Jew who preached rabbinically. Secondly, the idea of promulgating fiction and passing it off as fact as such, among Jews especially, in the context of the times of that era and before, goes against their cultural view. Christianity as a religion, the deification of Jesus, and most all the strappings - was created later, as said, by Saul/Paul, as a means of survival, of distancing themselves, from the Roman's treatment of the Jews after the uprising in the late 60'sAD. In other words, one knows of Jesus the man by inference, just as often is the case in physics. Jesus the deity is, of course, mythology.

For Christians, perhaps moreso those not, knowledge of the culture of the times, especially of Jewish life, is so lost in ignorance, it is pathetic, especially when knowing just that alone would make for tremendous differences in understanding western history. Politics is politics, whether clothed in religion or not.

Post 15

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 5:21pm

That would mean that all that you know is falsifiable. I doubt that.

When you find me saying something that isn't falsifiable, you can point it out. I'd actually appreciate it if you did, so that I can correct it, or provide evidence.

I have asked you to leave me alone. If you don't I will say something ugly and you will have to whine about it again. Just talk to someone else.

I do not whine, and I have not whined, you are making a false accusation. You have no evidence because your claim is baseless and false.

How about this: I will not talk to you again unless you ask me to, or if you perform some sort of injustice. If you write something that I think is misleading or false, I will still point it out. I just won't be talking to you. I will be talking to whom ever may be interested in discovering the truth.

Post 16

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 7:50pm

L W,

I could hold as possible(using what information is available) his having actually lived...

I hold that Jesus could have existed too. What I am maintaining is that no information is available to support such a claim as "Jesus existed". All we have (for evidence of Jesus) is a collection of writing by authors whom have been proven to consistently perform acts of forgery and deceit. I'm confident that there exists some truth in the Bible (considering it's content as a historical document). I'm confident that the Bible has some useful ideas in it.

And you know what? I bet there were men in the past that did many of the things that the bible says Jesus did. Maybe some of them were even called "Jesus". But I am extremely confident that not one man did everything that the Bible claims Jesus did, whether you drop the mysticism or not. Whether they were named "Jesus" or not is pretty much useless information.

I could almost say that I don't care-- but I do care. I'm not going to give them belief-without-evidence promoters any ground what-so-ever to stand on. That's what I've got on my side, you see? I've got evidence, I've got reality backing me up, with my use of the scientific method. I'm not going to throw that out the window. How could I? Why would I accept an idea as true when there is no evidence supporting it?

Post 17

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 8:04am

Dean Michael Gores wrote,

When you find me saying something that isn't falsifiable, you can point it out. I'd actually appreciate it if you did, so that I can correct it, or provide evidence.

Okay. How about "A is A"; "Existence exists"; "Existence is identity"; "Consciousness is identification"; "Existence, consciousness and identity are axioms"; "Selfishness is a virtue"; "Man has individual rights"; "Laissez-faire capitalism is the only rational politico-economic system"; etc.? Would you never make any of these statements?--because none of them is falsifiable, which is to say that there is no conceivable state of affairs that would or could render them false.

- Bill

Post 18

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 9:04am

David,

I am curious to know what you think of the alternative gospels. Thomas makes Jesus look like a fascinating, even prescient, man, instead of a raving demigod. I'm unfamiliar with the others.

I am afraid I disagree with your characterization of these Gospels.

Gnosticism is closer to Buddhism than it is to Christianity. Cells existed as least 500 years before the birth of Christ. There was a surge of interest and any converts to its beliefs with the advent of Christianity, because Gnostics were eager to believe that Jesus was the promised savior-god that would help their souls reconnect with the Supreme God of the Universe. They believed that they alone truly understood Christ's message, and that mainstream Christianity had misinterpreted Jesus' mission and sayings.

The Greek word "gnosis" which literally means knowledge is best understood by the English words insight and enlightenment. They believed that the real God, the Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. This is Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. Gnostics viewed him as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion, prone to genocide, and responsible for the sorry state of the world and the blind, ignorant condition of mankind.

Gnostics were hostile to the physical world, to matter and the human body. Spirit is of divine origin and good; the body is inherently earthly and evil. A person attains salvation by learning the secret knowledge of their spiritual essence. They pursue the goal of escaping the prison of their bodies at death to be reunited with the Supreme God.

Origin is the best known of the Gnostic Christians but most of his writings have been destroyed. Early Christians found their believes deplorable and hounded them out of the movement. The Gnostics settled primarily in Egypt to escape persecution, but when the Roman Empire endorsed Christianity as its official language they were no longer safe even in Egypt which accounts for the need to have buried their texts near the town of Nag Hammadi where they were rediscovered in 1945.

I am not sure I understand your question about repentance.

Post 19

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 9:16am