Forums Index >> General >> Religion and Faith - answer to Rabban
Page : 1 . . . . . 3 : 4 : <5>
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/5/31/jesusNeverLivedSpeakerSays
...“Jesus conforms so closely to the criterion of a mythic hero the probability that he was a mythic hero increases substantially,” he said. “There are 22 features that have been identified by scholars that are commonly shared by many mythic heroes. They can be ranked with a score according to how many features they have. Jesus clearly scores at least 19 out of 22.”
According to Carrier, Jesus shares many of the following mythic traits, including a virgin birth and divine lineage. An attempt is made to kill him when he is a baby. He is spirited away from those plotting his murder. He is reared in a foreign country. He is crowned king. He reigns over a period of peace. He prescribes laws. He then loses favor with the gods or his subjects. He meets with a mysterious death. He dies at the top of a hill. His body turns up missing.
Jesus scores higher on this scale than almost all other heroes, including Hercules and Romulus, Carrier said. Only Oedipus scores higher.
“Jesus competes for second place only with Theseus and Moses,” he said. “Everyone who scores more than 11 on this scale is most likely mythical. No historical figures who accumulated some of these features by chance or legend, such as Alexander the Great or Augustus Caesar, scores even as high as 11.”
Carrier pointed out that, in the ancient world, mythological figures often underwent the process of “historicization.”
“This had actually become a trend,” Carrier said. “It is called ‘Euhemerisation.’ Euhemerus wrote a work of fiction called the Sacred Scriptures in which he showed an imaginary scholar who had found out that Zeus and Uranus were real historical kings.
I know there's a debate about the reality of Jesus existence. I didn't want to touch on that because Jesus whether real or mythological is the only redeeming feature of Christianity and I don't think it is really beneficial to shatter the belief in his existence. Even if he didn't exist, there must have been someone of great wisdom there. Other possibility is a need to go back to a reversal to the "borrowing theory". It is very possible that there has been an appropriation of Indian's scriptures incorporated into the Gospels.
Borrowing theory
However the fact that Jesus appears nowhere in the Roman Empire writings, not a single record in non-biblical writings about a man who created such a stir around himself, is more compelling than the mythology that might have been attached to him. Let's remember that we're in the field of Religion, and the temptation to embellish a prophet's life to assert his link to God is all the greater.
On another hand, Christianity's doctrine is so far removed from the spirituality of Jesus, that it shouldn't matter either way.
Last edited: Sunday, October 08, 2006 at 3:45:20 PM
Seems I can't leave.
Let's see. As I said before, I did a personal comparative religion study years ago. As I think about it, that means about 17 years ago when I was in college. Unfortunately, for this conversation, I've forgotten a lot of the finer points and what each main religion believed in. However, I don't feel bad about that since we've got to chose what we invest ourselves in and I could either spend my time knowing a little about several religions or concentrating on knowing more about my own. I chose the later. Though I don't know as much as I'd like, I still think I'm doing OK, especially since I am trying to cut through tradition and the different sects and get down to the core of Christianity. That said, I still don't think we're going to come to the same conclusions. There's been too much personal stuff and observations to back off the path I've chosen for myself. Now, as far as the sort of answers you seem to want from me, well, there are far more educated and intelligent men than I would have addressed those issues. Again, I made a study of some of those gentlemen years ago too and it laid a foundation for me and my faith, but alas, I can't keep it all in my head and reproduce it here for you. So my faith isn't a blind faith or a zealot faith and I wouldn't even consider it fundamentalist, but then that's me and I know to whom I'm comparing myself. So dare I say it, I'm a pretty reasonable guy. ;)
And yes, I have refused to answer some of your questions or your charges just because I'm don't want to waste my time with it. You feel your conclusions lead to only one possible conclusion, so again, how do I surmount that? And when you say that I only love children based on what church they attend or that I'd rather be strapping on a dynomite belt than considering my faith, well, I'm not going to bother since I can't fight this image you have of me. However, with that in mind, think back to when we were on a TBML team together. Did I seem all that nutty when I was trying to coordinate our attacks, implement a plan and communicate with our teammembers? I think I was pretty reasonable then and I'm still pretty much the same now. I also think we got along pretty well. Those times you went rogue was frustrating, but overall we had a good time. Try to keep those interactions in mind as we talk, ok?
Now, should Christianity be reasonable? Yes. There is it. YES. However, there are caveats and you should be able to appreciate those things. As I mentioned before, there are plenty of instances in the Bible where God's followers were told to do things that we would consider to be irrational. So, in line with your desire to be careful, we've got to make sure we're not trusting in ourselves and only believing what makes since to ourselves since God does throw curve balls just to help us make sure we're actually trusting in him. And we do have another situation were you and I disagree on what is a reasonable course of action for God to take, in particular when it comes to eternity. I think it IS reasonable for God to eternally punish those who reject him. We may think its too harsh and all, but then perhaps we fail to accept the gravity of our transgression. Maybe it is that serious and maybe that is the only way justice is served when mercy is rejected. I also happen to support the death penalty. If we as men can decide that certain acts are so terrible that someone no longer deserves to live, then perhaps God can too. But see, it comes down to how we feel about certain topics that affect how we view God. So are we creating those views and making God fit into them or has God expressed himself thus and we accept or reject the idea?
That would be a round about answer to your Benedict question. No, I don't think Christianity is like Islam, but I don't think that means I have to revise my understanding that God will punish many for eternity. If I remember correctly, Islam has 5 pillars that any good Muslim must follow and even then, in the end isn't assured of Allah's pleasure and entering heaven. As I said before, Christianity is faith alone in Christ for redemption and seals believers for entry into heaven. So that seems pretty different. Make a movie called the Last Temptation of Christ and draw a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his head and you'll have a good example of how the two religions differ. You've even pointed out the differences between Mohammed and Jesus lifestyle and message, so there's another difference and even the books surrounding the two were authored differently. Mohammed is the sole author of the Koran while Jesus didn't write a thing, but several authors did. But I'll guess that the real question centered on their attitudes or mindset. Well, I think they're different as well. You can leave the Christian faith with in trouble at all. Sure, some family and friends may be sad and will urge you to return, but you're by no means taking your life into your own hands. Try leaving Islam. As a matter of fact, try criticizing Islam in the same manner Christian has been and prepare for a personal fatwa just for you.
Awhile back, you commented that the need for miracles showed a lack of faith. I couldn't agree me, though you seemed to say that opposite was my position. I was just pointing out that Christ's life was punctuated by miracles and made him a special person, but he himself talked about the lack of faith in those desiring miracles and that none would be given, save his resurrection. Also, the Christian faith has endured now for quite some time with no significant miracles, at least not on the scale of Jesus and the apostles (though I have heard some amazing things happen in third world nations during missionary visits).
From what you've said, it seems that the nutshell of your "system" is that good works/attempts/attitudes get you to heaven because God understands. For the sake of argument, let's say that's true. That's fine, but that's not Christianity and that's why I posted what I did on Oct 6. And another point I'd like to make. I don't think anyone can say we can accept these passages as authenic since they're reasonable but those aren't because they're unreasonable. If you're going to discuss Jesus' words as being his, you have to accept all or none of them as being authenic. So Jesus spoke of good works and treating each other well, but he also spoke of repentance, being "born again", judgement and Hell. Its a package deal and I really don't see how someone (even Jefferson) can be so confident to accept one verse, but reject the very next.
And just for fun, can you tell me who wrote the Gita and how close our manuscripts are to the originals? I tried looking into myself, but I couldn't easily find any websites critical of the Gita's origins or its teachings.
You are conveniently mixing up two different interpretations of the word "unreasonable". I'll allow you to believe in all "unreasonable" stuff you want as long as it is taken as meaning "inexplicable". Help yourself and believe in all the mysteries and miracles your heart desires. (Don't overdo it). But you're not allowed to believe in the "unreasonable" in the sense of a contradiction. And I don't mean a paradoxical idea, I mean a mutually exclusive incompatibility. God can't be untrue to himself. God can't be merciful, loving his enemies and overcoming evil with goodness while punishing eternally most of humanity for not having been lucky enough to be born into a Christian family or smart enough to see that the Gita is a pile of crap. (which you should read by the way). If God only loves those who love him, what better is he than the sinner?
The Gita's historicity is unclear. It is part of a much bigger set of scripture dating back between 900-300 BC. It is thought to have been added in a text form in the late period of the Mahabharata. It came after the very ancient Vedas, a huge collection of scriptures at the origins of it all, going back at least 2000 BCE. The understanding of cosmology in the Rig-Veda is purely astounding:
"Ancient Indians already operated with a time span of astronomical proportions long before the earliest signs of natural science in ancient Greece. It is undeniable that ancient Indian texts present astonishingly exact scientific calculations even by today's latest scientific standards, such as the speed of light, exact size of the smallest particles and the age of the universe.
The Surya Siddhanta, a textbook on astronomy of ancient India - last compiled in 1000 BC, believed by Hindus to be handed down from 3000 BC by aid of complex mnemonic recital methods still known today - computed the earth's diameter to be 7,840 miles, the distance earth - moon as 253,000 miles. These compare to modern measurements resp. As 7,926.7 miles and 252,710 miles for max. Dist. Moon-earth."
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cosmology.htm
Below is an excellent link comparing the Abrahamic religions and their emphasis on grand historical narratives as opposed to the Indic live traditions of practical ways to access the truth. A bit long, but worth it.http://www.svabhinava.org/friends/RajivMalhotra/ScienceReligion.doc
And don't worry, I'm not mixing up Rabban the man with Rabban the Christian. You're very intelligent... Except in religion :P
Last edited: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 8:36:58 AM
There's a little thing you've done a few times in this thread and I think I need to say something about it. You've said a few things that call my intentions and character into question, such as my honesty. I assure you I am not trying to play a game here or "conveniently" mixing things up. If there are mistakes, then they are honest mistakes. It is often very difficult to communicate via text only, especially in a forum such as this.
Well, we're just going to have to disagree on how God's going to deal with us in eternity. I don't see it as contradictory to think a loving God can punish someone for eternity, not because of luck, but rejecting him. That's why its so important for Christians to obey the command to go into all the world. And the good news (from my POV) is that people from all nations are responding to the Gospel, sometimes at great personal cost (since the indigenous religious aren't very sympathic or tolerant of faith changes). My point being that everyone seems to be getting an opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel, regardless of being born into a Christian family, and make the same faith choices we make here in the US either to accept or reject the faith. Once that happens and mercy is rejected, what's left but judgement?
So maybe I'll reread the Gita. Perhaps its time for you to reread the Bible. I'm sure we've both forgotten a lot more than we care to admit. I just mentioned the Gita's origins to see if you would critique it as much as you have the Bible. I did see where Lord Krishna originally spoke the Bhagavad-Gita. Do you have any issues with that? I've also found where sinners are able to enter Nivana if they receive and apply spiritual knowledge. OK, but what if they don't?
Last edited: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 7:00:20 AM
I did see where Lord Krishna originally spoke the Bhagavad-Gita. Do you have any issues with that?
You mean before engaging in a battle? I personally take it as a metaphorical context and leave it aside. Just as I keep aside what I don't understand in any scripture. "Leaving aside" doesn't mean rejecting it, but admitting that I don't see the idea conveyed as of now. Simple humility that I would love to see more often in the Christian approach. Trying to use one's mental abilities is not evidence of arrogance as Christianity wants us to believe. It is in fact much more humble than pretending to know the Truth when there's no real understanding of the concepts we're trying to impose on others. I can see the sin nature of the latter much more clearly than the basic attempt to comprehend something.
.....
I've also found where sinners are able to enter Nivana if they receive and apply spiritual knowledge. OK, but what if they don't?
Where are you right now?
.....
I assure you I am not trying to play a game here or "conveniently" mixing things up. If there are mistakes, then they are honest mistakes
Are you implying that someone making an "honest mistake" should not be treated in a harsh way?
So earth is "hell"? Maybe. :) So when I die, without spiritual knowledge, I get a retread and try again?
I think there's a difference between an honest mistake or a misunderstanding vs. A depraved human nature that exalts itself over God. God knows our true intentions and desires and judges accordingly.
I keep getting this gnawing feeling that the same words don't have the same meaning for us.
So when I die, without spiritual knowledge, I get a retread and try again?
Is it reasonable to expect to live something very different if we're not very different?
................
I think there's a difference between an honest mistake or a misunderstanding vs. A depraved human nature that exalts itself over God. God knows our true intentions and desires and judges accordingly.
Sorry, I don't understand this.
Who do you have in mind with "A depraved human nature that exalts itself over God"
?
"God knows our true intentions and desires and judges accordingly"
Sounds very Eastern, so there must be a difference in "meaning of the words" between us as you suggest.
Last edited: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 11:22:18 AM
You're starting to get a bit cryptic, maybe that's the Zen coming out in you. XD
I wanted to add this. A quick Google turned it up.
CORNELIUS TACITUS (born A.D. 52-54)
A Roman historian, in A.D. 112, Governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius Agricola, who was Governor of Britain A.D. 80-84. Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also (Annals, XV. 44).
Tacitus has a further reference to Christianity in a fragment of his Histories, dealing with the burning of the Jerusalem Temple in A.D. 70, preserved by Sulpicius Severus (Chron. Ii. 30. 6).
When I talk about the depravity of man, I'm referring to the Calvinist idea that when Man sinned in the garden, he was infected with a sinful nature that is unwilling and unable to please God. And that's not a matter of this sin or that sin and how they accumulate over time, but a basic trait of man that separates him from a holy God. This is what I referring to in another thread and you didn't like that idea very much, so I doubt that changed here either.
Its that idea that leads to why mankind needs a savior, not enlightenment or higher knowledge. The basic spirit of man cannot do anything that can please God and make himself justified in God's eyes, which is why God has to do it for him so God presented Christ as redeemer and savior. When a man has attained that knowledge, his need for a savior and accepts it in the person of Jesus Christ, then his is ushered into a relationship with God that otherwise can't exist.
Now, at this point, I don't see a good reason to continue with this conversation, at least here in the forums. You're not going to go for much in this post and I'm not going to deviate from it. There are several things I'm absolutely not going to deviate from and I suspect the same is true for you. However, if you'd like to engage in some personal and private conversations, I'm all for it. It might even be a little easier to voice a bit and perhaps then we'll overcome some of the barriers and limitations that this forum presents.
Last edited: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 2:22:03 PM
You're starting to get a bit cryptic, maybe that's the Zen coming out in you.
Well, I didn't think that was very "cryptic". When I say " Is it reasonable to expect to live something very different if we're not very different?", it is a personal thought that I deeply understand. Maybe it would have sounded better stated in the more common way: "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got". You see I really try hard to never impose an obscure belief to counter another obscure belief, as I do my best to not become the "thing I see in you". Try being appreciative of that effort because if I kept citing scriptures as argumentation, as you do it, the dialogue would have ended long ago.
Thank you for explaining the "depravity of Man", but I don't see the connection between humans being depraved and the fact that they often make "honest mistakes"? So I'll restate my question to you:
Are you implying that someone making an "honest mistake" should not be treated in a harsh way?
(can't believe we have to debate this evidence...anyway...)
....
Its that idea that leads to why mankind needs a savior, not enlightenment or higher knowledge. The basic spirit of man cannot do anything that can please God and make himself justified in God's eyes, which is why God has to do it for him so God presented Christ as redeemer and savior. When a man has attained that knowledge, his need for a savior and accepts it in the person of Jesus Christ, then his is ushered into a relationship with God that otherwise can't exist.
A lot of self fulfilling premises there that you do not really know for yourself. You're just reciting the Christian doctrine here, am I right? Watch out, nothing is hidden that will not be exposed.
Anyway, I see that religion isn't drawing a lot of audience within this forum and since we're the only ones involved into this discussion we'll probably end up emailing or IMing each other at some point, if you agree to it.
Last edited: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 8:06:03 PM
Not sure what you two yentas are talking about. A pause, if you will.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,194,Huw-Edwards-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,BBC
Quality interview.
^ probably because you didn't want to read the thread, just toss in a grenade. XD
I was reading, but the posts went from blurb to monolith . :)
God is dead, yet we still talk a lot about the fellow. A bit like Elvis; I never saw Elvis, yet it doe not prevent me to believe in him, and that he too was a son of the Creation.
Page : 1 . . . . . 3 : 4 : <5>
: :
@Rabban
You don't understand me. I never said you were a fanatic, only that by accepting to believe anything without using your mind seems like a step in that direction to me. Now, you go too far when you tell me:
"you don't seem to see any validity in anyone's faith or beliefs ".
I'm open to anything, and I tend to believe in "something" but I am also careful. It's so easy to get carried away and ending up believing your beliefs, thinking you know when you really don't. It procures peace of mind and certainly is helpful going through life. I'm even convinced that it can make "miracles" happen by allowing a flow of some force passing through by being in some kind of receptive state of mind. In every religion you can come across such experiences. I'm just not ready to believe fantasies just to acquire those benefits.
I strongly believe that by allowing false beliefs to enter your mind you get further away from wisdom. I know I'll never know the truth, but I think I have a better chance of grasping a couple of pieces of the puzzle by not polluting my mind with unbelievable fairy tales. How do I know your beliefs are false? :
“The thing is, there will come a time when the grace and mercy opportunity will be withdrawn and replaced with wrath and judgement. And its not about what political position one takes or the good deeds one does, but whether or not one is submitted to the lordship of Christ and repented for their rebellion against him.”
Not even a human court of justice would abide by such principles (well maybe a Taliban court) and God cannot be sub-human. This is an answer that doesn't come from any book and that's what gives it validity.
You might have experienced a "reality in your relationship with God that transcends religious drudgery" , again it happens in every religion. Do you doubt for 1 second that many of the 1.5 Billion muslims have also experienced a reality with God? Don't you see that Man can establish a relationship with God (or so he thinks) whatever the faith?
Last edited: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 1:19:54 PM