Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2016, 08:38 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 02:59 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The pure legend option is only marginally better that the 5th option, that Jesus was a space alien.

Belonging to an audience ignored or dismissed, Lewis argument is addressed to an audience, Christians, atheist or otherwise, who accepts the view of most historians and scholars that there was a historical Jesus, not those belonging to the fringe that imagined otherwise.

I see this a little differently. Lewis's argument implicitly assumes not only that there was a historical Jesus, but that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what he said and did. I find the second of those to be a huge assumption, given that the Gospels were probably written 40 years or more after the death of Jesus, and probably by people who never knew him or even saw him. They are hearsay. And this is not a fringe or minority opinion. It is the general consensus of Biblical scholars.

I'd point out once again, Lewis wasn't a fundie literalist, and a lot of your suggestions are directed towards those type. Fundie-literalist are the sort that believes that Jesus said all four different things on the cross, while non-fundie literalist traditions don't.

Lewis assumes that the Gospels give an adequate representation to the historical character and message of Christ, while not holdings to a fundie-literalist view that Gospels provide a literal history in the same way modern historical writings do. But his questions is open to alternative views, that he was some good teacher that inspired the works, a conman, a lunatic that developed a following, etc...

He's addressing an audience at the time secular or otherwise, would agree with him on the contention that Jesus was a Historical person, who said and did a variety of things accounted for him in the gospels.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 08:50 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:59 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I see this a little differently. Lewis's argument implicitly assumes not only that there was a historical Jesus, but that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what he said and did. I find the second of those to be a huge assumption, given that the Gospels were probably written 40 years or more after the death of Jesus, and probably by people who never knew him or even saw him. They are hearsay. And this is not a fringe or minority opinion. It is the general consensus of Biblical scholars.

I'd point out once again, Lewis wasn't a fundie literalist, and a lot of your suggestions are directed towards those type. Fundie-literalist are the sort that believes that Jesus said all four different things on the cross, while non-fundie literalist traditions don't.

Lewis assumes that the Gospels give an adequate representation to the historical character and message of Christ, while not holdings to a fundie-literalist view that Gospels provide a literal history in the same way modern historical writings do. But his questions is open to alternative views, that he was some good teacher that inspired the works, a conman, a lunatic that developed a following, etc...

He's addressing an audience at the time secular or otherwise, would agree with him on the contention that Jesus was a Historical person, who said and did a variety of things accounted for him in the gospels.

Lewis's entire argument is based on the words of Jesus, as reported by the Gospels. If he didn't actually say those things, the argument is meaningless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 09:42 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(27-03-2016 08:49 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Since you brought it up in this manner, what would you look for in terms of supernatural vs natural phenomenon that is not understood yet? (i.e. lightning 500 years ago).


I think in our age the distinction between supernatural and natural is so blurred that it's non-existent. It's hard for me even to distinguish what they mean anymore in practice.

It seems to be casually assumed by atheists at least, that if theres observable properties than they can't be labeled as supernatural, beats me were this assumption came from. If we observed something supposedly supernatural, we might acknowledge some new and unknown properties of the universe, but it doesn't seem to follow for me that this acknowledgement makes it no longer supernatural.

I mean I would think an atom being able to be in two places at the same time, is supernatural. But others would find that term inappropriate. I think modern physics and cosmology paint a reality that's considerably spooky, that defies common sense, that tends to rip the veil off the manifest image we've grown accustom too.

So my inclination is to avoid the terms all together, and just wonder when I hear of an account about the sort of explanations my mind finds itself drawn to, and then wondering why that is. Such as when I think of the resurrection, the early beliefs that he literally rose from the dead, I tend to believe it partly because its hard to find a believable natural explanations. If i were to settle for the sort that might be commonly suggested, and be honest with myself, it would't be because I find those explanations likely, but more so because of a desire not to believe in the unthinkable, because I don't want to believe that.

Quote: Why would a god NOT make it obvious of his presence unless it doesn't want to be seen?

While there are variety of things to be said about the silence of God, particularly when it comes to questions of God's nature, but purely in terms of God existence, I think that is obvious.

What seems not to be obvious here is notion that we're a product of a cosmic accident, that we exists for no rhyme or reason, that a humanity with his moral, creative, self-aware, and intellectual capacities, with a desire for truth, and goodness and meaning, was an unintentional outcome, a freak accident of nature.

In my view anyone believing such a thing is not driven to it by his honesty, but his desire not to believe in God, at least that's the only reason I could think for myself believing such a thing.

Perhaps like many others here, you'd say you don't believe this either. That you lack a belief one way or the other. That you neither believe God exists, nor believe he doesn't exist. That you neither believe our existence was purposeful, or believe it was a cosmic accident. Settling to define yourself as merely lacking a belief. Which for me seems like another non-obvious position as well.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 09:53 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 09:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  While there are variety of things to be said about the silence of God, particularly when it comes to questions of God's nature, but purely in terms of God existence, I think that is obvious.

If it's so obvious, how about you explain it?

Quote:What seems not to be obvious here is notion that we're a product of a cosmic accident, that we exists for no rhyme or reason, that a humanity with his moral, creative, self-aware, and intellectual capacities, with a desire for truth, and goodness and meaning, was an unintentional outcome, a freak accident of nature.

It becomes obvious to the scientifically knowledgeable. You may find it unpalatable, but that does not make it unobvious.

Quote:In my view anyone believing such a thing is not driven to it by his honesty, but his desire not to believe in God, at least that's the only reason I could think for myself believing such a thing.

It is my view that you are once again making absurd assumptions.

Quote:Perhaps like many others here, you'd say you don't believe this either. That you lack a belief one way or the other. That you neither believe God exists, nor believe he doesn't exist. That you neither believe our existence was purposeful, or believe it was a cosmic accident. Settling to define yourself as merely lacking a belief. Which for me seems like another non-obvious position as well.

You misunderstand. An agnostic atheist does not accept god claims due to lack of evidence, and recognizes that the non-existence of any gods is not provable.

Your mischaracterization of what an atheist thinks is indicative of your deeply biased perceptions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-03-2016, 10:00 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 08:50 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Lewis's entire argument is based on the words of Jesus, as reported by the Gospels. If he didn't actually say those things, the argument is meaningless.

Lewis's entire argument is not dependent on a fundie-literalist view of the Gospels. And as such is not dependent on every single word and deed attributed to Jesus in the Gospels being from him. His view of Jesus as Lord clearly holds that many of things Jesus said and did belong to his historical person, but doesn't entail associating all of it to his historical person, as if the case with fundies.

While the question allows for two other options, lunatic, and liar, for other views on his historical character. And was a response to those that already agreed with him that Jesus existed, but he was neither the messiah or God, and merely as a good teacher, the acquired some fanciful accounts after his death.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 10:19 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 09:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 09:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What seems not to be obvious here is notion that we're a product of a cosmic accident, that we exists for no rhyme or reason, that a humanity with his moral, creative, self-aware, and intellectual capacities, with a desire for truth, and goodness and meaning, was an unintentional outcome, a freak accident of nature.

It becomes obvious to the scientifically knowledgeable. You may find it unpalatable, but that does not make it unobvious.

Have you changed your tune recently? As I recall you're not inclined to believe this either, and prefer to lack a belief on this question as well, or suggest that framing our existence as a cosmic accident to be inappropriate/inadequate, resorting to your common wishy-washiness.

Quote:You misunderstand. An agnostic atheist does not accept god claims due to lack of evidence, and recognizes that the non-existence of any gods is not provable.

No, all it takes to be an agnostic atheists, is to lack a belief in God, regardless of the reasons for that. What I find non-obivious is to identify oneself as lacking belief, as opposed to believing. To survey the world, and everything in it, and find ourselves only able to sit on the fence of lacking a belief, unable to declare that God does not exist. It seems to be a category exclusively created for religious questions.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 10:26 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 10:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 08:50 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Lewis's entire argument is based on the words of Jesus, as reported by the Gospels. If he didn't actually say those things, the argument is meaningless.

Lewis's entire argument is not dependent on a fundie-literalist view of the Gospels. And as such is not dependent on every single word and deed attributed to Jesus in the Gospels being from him. His view of Jesus as Lord clearly holds that many of things Jesus said and did belong to his historical person, but doesn't entail associating all of it to his historical person, as if the case with fundies.

While the question allows for two other options, lunatic, and liar, for other views on his historical character. And was a response to those that already agreed with him that Jesus existed, but he was neither the messiah or God, and merely as a good teacher, the acquired some fanciful accounts after his death.

I never said Lewis was "fundie-literalist" (whatever that is). But he clearly thought that the Gospels were more or less historically accurate, because his argument doesn't make sense without that assumption. That's why he didn't consider the "legend" option. I don't see that this is really worth arguing about, so I will say no more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
28-03-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 10:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 09:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  It becomes obvious to the scientifically knowledgeable. You may find it unpalatable, but that does not make it unobvious.

Have you changed your tune recently? As I recall you're not inclined to believe this either, and prefer to lack a belief on this question as well, or suggest that framing our existence as a cosmic accident to be inappropriate/inadequate, resorting to your common wishy-washiness.

I have been and remain consistent in my position.
Your childish demand for answers when there is insufficient data does not make my position 'wishy-washy'.

Quote:
Quote:You misunderstand. An agnostic atheist does not accept god claims due to lack of evidence, and recognizes that the non-existence of any gods is not provable.

No, all it takes to be an agnostic atheists, is to lack a belief in God, regardless of the reasons for that.

Wrong. If one claims there are no gods, one is a gnostic atheist.

Quote:What I find non-obivious is to identify oneself as lacking belief, as opposed to believing.

What I find ridiculous is believing when there is no evidence.

Quote:To survey the world, and everything in it, and find ourselves only able to sit on the fence of lacking a belief, unable to declare that God does not exist.

Lacking a belief is not sitting on the fence. Facepalm

I declare that I believe no gods exist, but I do not make a fact claim. You seem unable to discern the difference.

Quote:It seems to be a category exclusively created for religious questions.

No, I lack a belief in any particular origin story, I lack a belief regarding the nature of dark matter/dark energy. I lack belief in those (and other) instances because there is insufficient data.

Your demands that people declare a position when there is lack of evidence are silly and childish.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 11:31 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  What I find ridiculous is believing when there is no evidence

And yes, we all know what you mean by evidence, or at least what you don’t mean by evidence. You also believe there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, by that logic we might as well label folks like Bart Ehrman as believing a ridiculous thing to hold to the existence of a historical Yeshua.

You basically resort to labeling everything you don’t believe in but that other mights, as consisting of “no evidence”. Which is not uncommon, creationist who don’t believe in evolution, commonly claim there’s no evidence for it either, rendering the term “evidence” more hallow than it’s worth.

Quote:Wrong. If one claims there are no gods, one is a gnostic atheist.

Wrong, if one claims to know there is no God they would be a gnostic atheist. If one merely believes that God does not exist, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true, he would still an agnostic atheists still, as is the case for agnostic-theist.

Quote:I declare that I believe no gods exist, but I do not make a fact claim. You seem unable to discern the difference.

So does that make you a gnostic or agnostic atheist in your view?

If believing that no Gods exists is not making a factual claim, is believing that God exists making a factual claim? How about believing that you don’t exist, is that making a factual claim? Are you suggesting that believing x exists is a factual claim, but believing x doesn't exist is not?

Quote:Your demands that people declare a position when there is lack of evidence are silly and childish.

I think the whole notion of a lack of belief when it comes to the God question is ridiculous. I don’t lack a belief in Santa, I believe that Santa does not exist. In fact it’s a position composed entirely for tactical reasons, more driven by your desire to have no position to defend, than anything else. More protective, than honest or reflective.

Quote:What I find ridiculous is believing when there is no evidence.

If one thing is true here, it's that each of us finds the other ridiculous.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 05:06 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 11:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think the whole notion of a lack of belief when it comes to the God question is ridiculous. I don’t lack a belief in Santa, I believe that Santa does not exist. In fact it’s a position composed entirely for tactical reasons, more driven by your desire to have no position to defend, than anything else. More protective, than honest or reflective.

Well you make knowledge claims that I don't think any person can possibly have. Well good for you. Then again, I don't know that so maybe you know something about knowing i don't know.

I just don't think the details of what could of been a crazy person or lying rable rouser should be taken as anything close to known as much as could it being a legend or truth.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: