Contemplating my decision to leave Christianity (preacher, disciples, mythology, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LM states, "Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth with no agenda other than greater knowledge and understanding of universal truth for all human beings. This path or quest of scientific discovery offers the way to peace."
So what you said before was not really correct. He says "the most universally accepted effort". That's different. Not quite sure I'd still agree with him, because I would say that verifiable historical records would be another means of arriving at some degree of truth.
so then you believe in the existence of something for which (a) there is no evidence at all except what is written in the Bible or hearsay well after the person died; and (b) because it is "a figure in human history far as most people are concerned."
interesting. just like many people believe in God because it is written in the Bible and is a figure in human history as far as most people are concerned.
sounds like those are acceptable criteria for you, and that you are just fine believing in something because it is written in the Bible or second hand accounts (anectdotes), and because "most people" believe it. those are acceptable criteria for you to hold a belief. so i guess scientific evidence is not needed for you to believe in the existence of something after all.
You didn't answer her/his question, which was, "is it accurate ("right?"), that many jews accept that Jesus was an historical figure".
We definitely exist so that is diametrically OPPOSDITE of Mystic. My spiritual friends of the Oneness and I disagree about the illusory nature of our "SELFNESS." I cannot adequately explain it verbally, but we are individual "consciousness cells" of the " multicellular consciousness of the Oneness" that you call the multiverse.
Ah! Good to know...
Since you question the very essence of reality as often as you do, I get confused about what we can know is reality and what we can't, and of course when we go down the road of questioning reality itself, everything is in question. Including our own existence. Right?
The self is an illusion in the sense of the ego we feel as present in our consciousness, and the idea that in our consciousness we are the author of our thoughts, or that it is this ego entity of us that is having our experiences. Your whole interconnected body and brain is having the thoughts and the experiences. Thoughts stream into your conscious mind from your subconscious. Our conscious experience is more viewing our lives, than authoring it. I know it doesn't feel like that within our egos, which is why the self is an illusion.
Right. What I thought. "The self is an illusion" and as such, what isn't?
then that other poster (an atheist) can provide sources.
and pay particular attention to what year they were written, which "Jewish historians" wrote them, and the reliability of the sources.
this will be interesting (and entertaining) to see what is produced. because the references he's alluded to thus far were written 500, 600, 900 years later.
[insert here the popcorn icon from Trout]
You can look up all sides of this debate just like anyone else. Like I have many times, and although it's true there is no archeological evidence to prove Jesus actually existed, he was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians within a few decades of his lifetime. I've not said Jesus actually existed. Only that historians, including Jewish historians have noted his existence. This is why he is considered a "historical figure" by a good many historians whether he was actually real or not.
"Among scholars of the New Testament of the Christian Bible, though, there is little disagreement that he actually lived. Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. “Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, “but they never said he didn’t exist.”
I mean pick your source and/or history. There is lots to choose from and no doubt confirmation bias (as in our religion) might keep us from recognizing the obvious, but regardless what any of us believes at a personal level, that Jesus is not considered a historical figure by many a historian is a difficult if not impossible argument to make let alone win.
so then you believe in the existence of something for which (a) there is no evidence at all except what is written in the Bible or hearsay well after the person died; and (b) because it is "a figure in human history far as most people are concerned."
interesting. just like many people believe in God because it is written in the Bible and is a figure in human history as far as most people are concerned.
sounds like those are acceptable criteria for you, and that you are just fine believing in something because it is written in the Bible or second hand accounts (anectdotes), and because "most people" believe it. those are acceptable criteria for you to hold a belief. so i guess scientific evidence is not needed for you to believe in the existence of something after all.
Again, I have not argued what I believe. Only that historians have and/or do believe Jesus existed, and that this is what makes Jesus a "historical figure" whether he actually existed or not.
The distinction is understandably a little confusing, but needs to be understood regardless. Personally, I think so much in the way of historical accounts even if afterward tend to make the case Jesus actually existed. This too is what makes Jesus a historical figure far as many a historian is concerned. Contrary to the claim you made originally.
You have never understood my criteria for establishing what is true and what is not. I don't think there is any point in you trying to start now, but if you do please try not to let your significant biases get in the way of your efforts.
LM claims that science establishes "what is true."
there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the human LM is referencing existed.
Much of the "historic evidence" is questioned because either accounts were written later, or because documents were altered.
however LM claims the human is a "figure in history."
LM also claims that only science can establish what is "the truth."
so it is interesting to see that LM believes in the existence of something based on what the Bible says about it, and because in his view "most people do."
(notwithstanding that "A 2015 Church of England survey found that four in 10 people did not believe Jesus was a real person." And a 2021 survey found that "less than half of all Australians believe Jesus was a real historical person.")
Somewhere else I posted a comment about a book I'm reading, about Leonardo da Vinci...
Of course no one debates whether Leonardo existed, but the book is a fascinating account of how historians and/or art experts have been able to piece together what Leonardo did and when. (He didn't date most of everything he did). A great deal known is based on historical accounts. In some cases no evidence other than historical accounts made by others who were around during his time or afterward. In some cases, what we now know about Leonardo was discovered many decades even centuries later.
Sometimes even if something can't be proven as unquestionable truth, very often we can establish the truth of such matters "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Also, it's not the people who believe differently that PROVES Jesus was not a historical figure. Right? There are all the others that at a minimum have made Jesus a historical figure. Even among Jewish historians.
Where does he actually say that? Because...I disagree with him...if he said it. But I want you to show me where he said that.
I appreciate the scrutiny, and I'm always glad to clear up misunderstanding about me or my Ten Truths or whatever comment I might post in this forum, but I am sincerely amazed at how often, how continuous and how wrong some of this confusion can persist. No wonder why the dust never seems to settle with some here!
I do not believe I have ever posted that ONLY science can establish what is the truth, and if I have, I'd like anyone who is claiming this to be true to provide the comment. If I were to misstate my belief about this, I will be glad to correct the misstatement, because -- bottom line -- I do not believe ONLY science can establish what is the truth. I never have.
Thanks for asking. About this anyway, we don't disagree. Don't let someone who can barely understand the fundamentals about any of this cause you to think otherwise...
LM states, "Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth with no agenda other than greater knowledge and understanding of universal truth for all human beings. This path or quest of scientific discovery offers the way to peace."
Yes, and considerably different from suggesting that science is the ONLY way to establish the truth. Right?
This rather different quote you have posted as evidence is another truth I've shared in the past, but not the only truth. I can sometimes know the truth about what my wife is thinking, for example, without any help from science.
Though I sometimes could use any help I can get...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
