Ignorance and the Bible
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Margot
Verified User
Oh! You're doing Stand Up!
Based Chad
Was it me?
This interpretation defies historical context, and runs counter to human psychology.
Jesus wasn't the only Palestinian Jew that locals thought was the Messiah. Other presumed Messiahs had been killed by the Romans, and their followers just scattered to the winds, never to be heard from again, or they started looking around for a new leader.
There is no precedent for what happened with the Jesus movement.
The only resurrection Jews believed in was a general resurrection at the end of time; there was no historical context or expectation for a single individual to resurrect.
If you mean by "fixed the problem" that the Disciples and Evangelists cynically fabricated and concocted a story about Jesus being resurrected and being a divine being, then you're going to have to explain why apostles were willing to be executed for that idea. People do not willingly die for something they actually know is a lie.
Trinitarian doctrine doesn't make me angry. That's just a theological sideshow to me. Trinitarian doctrine happened centuries later and has no bearing on what I consider to be the historical facts of the first century:
The key events of the the first century to me are:
A Jewish rabbi named Jesus lived and taught in and around Galilee;
He was executed by the Romans for political crimes;
His followers came to genuinely believe they saw him after the crucifixion;
He was thought to somehow be God in nature from the very beginning, well before the canonical gospels were written.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It's also proof that atheists can be as fanatical as the biggest Bible Thumpers. Like them, they cherry-pick and love to take things out of context.
That's a good point. I don't think morality can be based on self interest or fear of retribution.
The parable of the good Samaritan was so radical because it taught that service to others had to extend beyond your family and community and involve selfless sacrifice, even for strangers and rivals who are in no position to reciprocate or return the favor.
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Atheist claim they can have morals, but it's really just following social rules....and not getting caught if violating them. LOL
Additionally, they rarely admit where those morals originated much less admit that all morals are relative in a materialistic POV. Ergo, killing one or killing millions is justifiable if it serves a purpose.
It doesn't have to be said, it's self evident.
Only stupid criminals get caught.
The clever and the powerful frequently get away with evil.
Joseph Stalin died peacefully in his dacha after 30 years of inflicting unbearable cruelty on the human race, and never facing any sort of justice.
I did write that it's entirely possible there is no ultimate purpose and meaning, and death is just the the final extinction of the human journey. I cannot categorically rule it out.
The atheist existentialist Albert Camus famously wrote that in a life without ultimate purpose or meaning, the key was to accept the absurdity of life and find ways to come to terms with it.
Ummm, yes. But I would think YOU would also want religion out of science education. Since it might not be your preferred religion that is at the fore.
The fact that many of these posters have no clue about implicit atheism and refuse to listen when it is explained to them, I'm guessing their assessment of "rational" may be a bit flawed.
Whenever anyone boils it down to "mutual cooperation" for the benefit of a stable community, it's being distilled down to basically self-interest. Even lion prides and wolf packs have rules for mutual cooperation to benefit the pack.
The Atheist New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman had an interesting insight into how ethics evolved from the Roman World to the zeitgeist of the New Testament:
There was an important and sustained discussion of ethics in the ancient Roman world. But it was simply understood at every level that the strong would and should assert dominance over the weaker.
The word 'service' is one way to describe the basic ideology celebrated by the early Christians. Not all Christians practiced this ideology, but it was the one that was taught, preached, and urged.
The Christians insisted that love of the other was more important than dominance, that it was more important to serve than to be served. It is important to note that the Christian views came out of Judaism.
With the Christianization of the West, there emerged hospitals, orphanages, public funding of welfare and private charities.
These things did not exist in the pagan world. They came into being because of the Christian church.
Most would consider this development a real plus, hugely beneficial to the human race at large and to most of us individually.
Bart Ehrman
Nope, it’s not self evident and to cherry pick one is disingenuous. Hitler committed suicide only after a decade or so in power. Mussolini was murdered and his body was desecrated.
The absurdists probably had it right.
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."