Science standards under threat in Arizona

[SkepticThinker]

I wrote, "Huh? Jesus prophesied in all four gospels He would rise again after dying in Jerusalem on the cross."

How would you determine if this was myth or fact, these statements? Do you only accept as true statements taken direct from witnesses? How would you decide a murder trial where someone says, "I witnessed this murder" but the murder victim was unable to speak?

That's up to the person making the claim. You figure it out and get back to us.

 

[Bear Wild]

I wrote, "Huh? Jesus prophesied in all four gospels He would rise again after dying in Jerusalem on the cross."

How would you determine if this was myth or fact, these statements? Do you only accept as true statements taken direct from witnesses? How would you decide a murder trial where someone says, "I witnessed this murder" but the murder victim was unable to speak?

There were more than four gospel first of all. The four kept for the new testament show very different perspectives thus there was variation the events. They were not written down at the times of the events and were each written for a purpose to describe their view of the events in their words. Did Jesus exist?- there is at least one documentation of his existence at the time he lived so based on fact. Was Mary a virgin? Jesus would have to be an exact genetic copy of Mary if that were true - presents a problem with myth vs fact. Did Jesus walk on water? Symbolic writing or actual event? For that to happen Jesus would be a supernatural being in a natural world. Jesus was to have described thing as parables thus not to be taken literally but symbolically. We will never know what actually happened during the life of Jesus that can be identified in the gospels but much of religious presentation is symbolic such as the creation myth.
As for the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary. They were written to depict the life and beliefs of Jesus how can we know that they were any more or less accurate that the ones included in the new testament. The gospels were written by men and chosen by men. Actually women were not included in the decision making from what I know otherwise maybe the gospel of Mary would have been included. That would have made for an interesting and different interpretation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Considering Jesus didn't start the religion of Christianity (Paul did, mostly), I'd pick the council for $200.

Are you that blithely unaware that almost 100% of Pauline doctrine:

1) Comes from the OT
2) Agrees with the other 11 NT writers

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm more of the opinion that anything supernatural is misguided nonsense.

So, my answering your question regarding the status of women is "answered" by your disdain and inherent bias, as above?

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you're just going to ignore my points, then forget it. Thanks anyway.

There are thousands of branches/sects/divisions of Christianity. When you guys can sort out amongst yourselves who is a "real" Christian, then get back to me. Until then, you don't have much to tell me.

So... your way of establishing a definition that you accept is to have complete coherence and agreement among all group members? Isn't that the opposite of what NTS is protesting?

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you're just going to ignore my points, then forget it. Thanks anyway.

There are thousands of branches/sects/divisions of Christianity. When you guys can sort out amongst yourselves who is a "real" Christian, then get back to me. Until then, you don't have much to tell me.

In every criminal trial, a jury is asked to evaluate the actions of one defendant related to a particular crime. While there are millions of other people in the world who could have committed the crime under consideration (and indeed, millions of these people were actually available to commit the crime), only one has been charged. If the jury becomes convinced this defendant is the perpetrator, they will convict him based on their beliefs. They will convict the accused even though they haven’t examined the actions (or nature) of millions of other potential suspects. They’ll render a verdict based on the evidence related to this defendant, in spite of the fact they may be ignorant of the history or actions of several million alternatives. If the evidence is persuasive, the jurors will become true believers in the guilt of this man or woman, even as they reject millions of other options.

I accuse you of the crime of being unwilling to think through the issues, "when you guys figure it out"... yet aren't YOU a Christian also?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There were more than four gospel first of all. The four kept for the new testament show very different perspectives thus there was variation the events. They were not written down at the times of the events and were each written for a purpose to describe their view of the events in their words. Did Jesus exist?- there is at least one documentation of his existence at the time he lived so based on fact. Was Mary a virgin? Jesus would have to be an exact genetic copy of Mary if that were true - presents a problem with myth vs fact. Did Jesus walk on water? Symbolic writing or actual event? For that to happen Jesus would be a supernatural being in a natural world. Jesus was to have described thing as parables thus not to be taken literally but symbolically. We will never know what actually happened during the life of Jesus that can be identified in the gospels but much of religious presentation is symbolic such as the creation myth.
As for the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary. They were written to depict the life and beliefs of Jesus how can we know that they were any more or less accurate that the ones included in the new testament. The gospels were written by men and chosen by men. Actually women were not included in the decision making from what I know otherwise maybe the gospel of Mary would have been included. That would have made for an interesting and different interpretation.

Again, how do you know "why the gospels of Thomas and Mary were written" and how do you know whether some or all of the gospels were 100% myth, 100% facts, or a mix?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you that blithely unaware that almost 100% of Pauline doctrine:

1) Comes from the OT
2) Agrees with the other 11 NT writers

I am aware that people make that claim. From what I can tell, though, it is false.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So... your way of establishing a definition that you accept is to have complete coherence and agreement among all group members? Isn't that the opposite of what NTS is protesting?

If you guys can't sort it out amongst yourselves, how can I? You guys are the ones all claiming to be Christians.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In every criminal trial, a jury is asked to evaluate the actions of one defendant related to a particular crime. While there are millions of other people in the world who could have committed the crime under consideration (and indeed, millions of these people were actually available to commit the crime), only one has been charged. If the jury becomes convinced this defendant is the perpetrator, they will convict him based on their beliefs. They will convict the accused even though they haven’t examined the actions (or nature) of millions of other potential suspects. They’ll render a verdict based on the evidence related to this defendant, in spite of the fact they may be ignorant of the history or actions of several million alternatives. If the evidence is persuasive, the jurors will become true believers in the guilt of this man or woman, even as they reject millions of other options.

I accuse you of the crime of being unwilling to think through the issues, "when you guys figure it out"... yet aren't YOU a Christian also?

How does any of this help us identify who is a "true Christian?" And why should I take your word for it when somebody else will tell me something differently?
Were the people carrying out the Spanish Inquisition true Christians? They would tell you that they were, and that they were carrying out God's work. I have a feeling you might not agree with that (or maybe you do). So, who's right?

If somebody tells me they are a Christian, I take them at their word.

 

[Bear Wild]

Again, how do you know "why the gospels of Thomas and Mary were written" and how do you know whether some or all of the gospels were 100% myth, 100% facts, or a mix?

The gospel of Thomas, Mary, Matthew, John, Luke and Mark appear to have some historical events but most are symbolic writing with a purpose. I cannot assign a percentage. I do not know enough of the archeological and historical writings of the time to give great detail. Clearly there are things sighted which are not consistent with natural processes which are more likely symbolic/myth with intent of support of the beliefs of the writer of that Gospel. Since we do not know the identity of the writer nor a reference for their sources it will always be a mystery as to how much is fact or symbolism. What seems to matter more is - does their message have meaning to those who read it regardless of the amount of true historical fact.
This is no different than the example I gave of Oisin meeting St. Patrick. I do not know if Oisin was a real man and if St. Patrick ever spoke to him. The story has meaning to those who learn from it whether it be of evidence of the pre-Christian beliefs or meaning in how St. Patrick came to understand Irelands history and shows how he changed the way they believe. True or not it can have meaning.
The creation story teaches those of the Jewish faith about their relationship with god and why the go through suffering. Impossible as a true account of the natural world but meaningful for religious teaching to those of the faith.
There is no possible way of conformation of Christ speaking to Saul later Paul and it could have been a dream he had and not a true vision. Whatever happened it changed Paul's view and inspired him to create the Christian religion. The writing is symbolically important no matter how true it was. The result was the formation of Christianity with inclusion of the gentiles.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am aware that people make that claim. From what I can tell, though, it is false.

Do you read the Bible daily, as I've done, for decades? Have you grown up, like me and Paul, Jewish, knowing Jewish doctrines? Have you read the Bible multiple times in multiple versions? Do you intimately care, and therefore scrutinize doctrine, and constantly find OT references NOT mentioned by Paul? Do you not know many of the famous quotes taken from Paul are also direct OT quotations?

Do you discount hundreds of councils, synods and sect forming bodies that scrutinized all of the NT and beyond to check on it? ALL 12 NT writers use the same doctrines.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you guys can't sort it out amongst yourselves, how can I? You guys are the ones all claiming to be Christians.

But you are a Christian also, aren't you? Isn't that the lame definition you are using here, "Born to a sect"?

My definition is the founder's...

 

[BilliardsBall]

How does any of this help us identify who is a "true Christian?" And why should I take your word for it when somebody else will tell me something differently?
Were the people carrying out the Spanish Inquisition true Christians? They would tell you that they were, and that they were carrying out God's work. I have a feeling you might not agree with that (or maybe you do). So, who's right?

If somebody tells me they are a Christian, I take them at their word.

The reason why skeptics love to point out 1492's inquisition, now 500 years in the past, is that it's so UN-Christian, so alarming, compared to Jesus's words about never using coercion in faith.

Based on the fact that you accept the inquisitors as believers, because they were murderers and thieves born to a Christian sect, I say YOU are also a Christian. So if you want to point a finger at unwillingness to define terms, point it at yourself.

"So, who's right?"

Whoever does the work and will of Jesus Christ, is right. Good question.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The gospel of Thomas, Mary, Matthew, John, Luke and Mark appear to have some historical events but most are symbolic writing with a purpose. I cannot assign a percentage. I do not know enough of the archeological and historical writings of the time to give great detail. Clearly there are things sighted which are not consistent with natural processes which are more likely symbolic/myth with intent of support of the beliefs of the writer of that Gospel. Since we do not know the identity of the writer nor a reference for their sources it will always be a mystery as to how much is fact or symbolism. What seems to matter more is - does their message have meaning to those who read it regardless of the amount of true historical fact.
This is no different than the example I gave of Oisin meeting St. Patrick. I do not know if Oisin was a real man and if St. Patrick ever spoke to him. The story has meaning to those who learn from it whether it be of evidence of the pre-Christian beliefs or meaning in how St. Patrick came to understand Irelands history and shows how he changed the way they believe. True or not it can have meaning.
The creation story teaches those of the Jewish faith about their relationship with god and why the go through suffering. Impossible as a true account of the natural world but meaningful for religious teaching to those of the faith.
There is no possible way of conformation of Christ speaking to Saul later Paul and it could have been a dream he had and not a true vision. Whatever happened it changed Paul's view and inspired him to create the Christian religion. The writing is symbolically important no matter how true it was. The result was the formation of Christianity with inclusion of the gentiles.

If you "can't/won't give a percentage," that means you are categorically uncertain what is myth, what is fact. Interestingly, you think Noah's Flood is a myth, despite all the details given like construction of ship, size, carrying load, design, days of Flood, etc., etc. and Jesus's resurrection is myth, despite over 10 post-resurrection appearances recorded by multiple authors to up to over 500 witnesses, etc.

If I give you my Bible and a pen to cross off the myths, you can't or won't do it, so how can you help me "escape my Christian delusion"? You're not much help.

Just admit it, if it's supernatural and in the Bible, you don't want to believe it. Be honest!

 

[gnostic]

Just admit it, if it's supernatural and in the Bible, you don't want to believe it. Be honest!

That’s a absurd challenge, BB.

 

[Audie]

That’s a absurd challenge, BB.

Not that a barf of psychological projection
is actually a challenge at all

Urging you to reluctantly confess some made up
nonsense because otherwise you aint honest So
establshes our Exemplar as the honest one!

While to some it may seem but a crude and
well worn ploy. we are shocked that you
dont fall for it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you are a Christian also, aren't you? Isn't that the lame definition you are using here, "Born to a sect"?

My definition is the founder's...

I used to call myself a Christian. I no longer consider myself one.

If someone tells me they're a Christian, I believe them. That's my "definition."
Like I said, when you guys can figure it out among yourselves, please be sure to let the rest of us know.

Otherwise, I'd like to get off this tangent to nowhere and get back to what we were actually talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The reason why skeptics love to point out 1492's inquisition, now 500 years in the past, is that it's so UN-Christian, so alarming, compared to Jesus's words about never using coercion in faith.

And yet those people thought they were being good Christians. Who are you to say they weren't? They would probably say you aren't a good Christian. How can someone on the outside determine who is the "right" Christian and who is the "wrong" Christian?

I could have also cited the Westboro Baptist Church. They also think they're doing God's work.

Based on the fact that you accept the inquisitors as believers, because they were murderers and thieves born to a Christian sect, I say YOU are also a Christian. So if you want to point a finger at unwillingness to define terms, point it at yourself.

I don't claim to be a Christian, I don't believe in any God(s) and I don't think Jesus Christ was the Messiah. So I don't know why you would call me a Christian since I make no claim to being one. That would just be silly, but have at it, if you want.

"So, who's right?"

Whoever does the work and will of Jesus Christ, is right. Good question.

That solves nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you "can't/won't give a percentage," that means you are categorically uncertain what is myth, what is fact. Interestingly, you think Noah's Flood is a myth, despite all the details given like construction of ship, size, carrying load, design, days of Flood, etc., etc. and Jesus's resurrection is myth, despite over 10 post-resurrection appearances recorded by multiple authors to up to over 500 witnesses, etc.

If I give you my Bible and a pen to cross off the myths, you can't or won't do it, so how can you help me "escape my Christian delusion"? You're not much help.

Just admit it, if it's supernatural and in the Bible, you don't want to believe it. Be honest!

There's no evidence of a worldwide flood ever occurring. Claims from the Bible are simply that .... claims. They are not evidence of anything.

So again, where can we read the testimonies of these 500 witnesses you cite? We both know they don't exist and so that is just another claim as well.

Sorry, but it looks like you've demonstrated that you're the one who can't decipher myth from fact.