The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance

LOLBullshit Phat, it simply mean that the content stands up to examination by logic, reason and reality. Of course the content is a human construct meant for human ears. What other possibility exists.But that does not follow from what you said. A great example is the tale of the Garden of Eden where the God character lies but the serpent tells the truth.If something is wrong or nonsense then the fact that it is attributed to God does not make it right.

I have no problem with you calling yourself a Christian, but as you said earlier you are a Christian as that is the environment you grew up in. It is your culture.Can you tell me what you believe that any theist couldn't believe? What is it that you believe for example that a moderate Jew, Muslim or Buddhist couldn't believe?As near as I can tell you believe that a god exists and that he is good. You also believe in life after death. Is that incorrect? I believe in the resurrection and I agree that it is a belief. Who else but God do you think could resurrect Jesus, and seeing as how there only appears to be one resurrection, (not resuscitation ), in human history then it seems clear that God is validating Jesus' message. Just maybe he was fanatically right. Sure, but once again all sorts of beliefs endorse the Golden Rule which is essentially what we are talking about. That's a throwaway line that is meaningless.

The no true Scotsman is certainly not a throw away line but rather the heart of the matter.I can't think of many things I believe that any other theist might not believe, certainly nothing of great or significant import.There have been many other tales of resurrection, Jesus is certainly not the only such example. Jews and Samritans believe that God will resurrect the dead. In the Bible there are three instances of resurrection in the Tanakh, the child raised from the dead by God after Elijah's prayers, two by Elisha, the son of the woman and a body thrown into his tomb that touches dem bones dem bones.The Greeks had a whole parade of resurrected folk, many resurrected more than once.There was Osiris and Baal and a whole bunch of other middle eastern resurrected gods. Of course I not only call myself a Christian but am a member of one of the recognized chapters of Club Christian.But if we are honest doesn't the environment we grow up in determine which faith we join? If I had been born in Japan I'd more likely be Taoist or Shinto, if India then Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu. I grew up in the US in a southern religious family and was educated in Christian schools. I was lucky enough to also grwo up in an almost all Jewish neighborhood (I thought the lions ate all the other Christians) and got to spend time at friends houses and celebrate Sukkot, Savout and Passover with my friends, and experience Jesus would have had.So my education and life experiences has lead me to recognize the similarities between religions and to explore other religions which might not be as common in the Christian community as a whole.That does not change the fact that I am a Christian.My beliefs have been posted here in detail over the years but my beliefs do not depend on being factual, correct, logical, reasonable or rational.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Then the only think that makes you specifically a Christian is your claim that you are one. This is a total red herring and not germane to the conversation, however being raised from the dead as in Lazurus etc is not the same as being dead and raised in a renewed bodily form that isn't subject to deeath in the future.If you want to consider the Jesus' resurrection as being a parallel to Osiri etc I really have to wonder why you would want to even call yourself Christian. We can find like thinking people of all persuasions. I believe you are part of the Episcopalian church.Here is a quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury who is the head of the church that you are a part of.

quote:

---

It is, in the end, Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, whom we serve. And our long term is assured, and our experience of the faithfulness of God certain, if, to use a phrase of Tony Baron’s, a psychologist and theologian in California, we are the people of the towel and the cross, not of the sword and the shield.

---

So your beliefs are actually outside the beliefs of the church to which you belong, which isn't saying that there aren't others that agree with you. Of course our cultures impact our beliefs. I'm just saying that your culture has brought you to a belief that can be found in virtually all religions which begs the question of what makes you specifically Christian.Actually, if you don't believe in a resurrected Jesus, and you think that if He existed at all that He was a prophet or Jewish philosopher then why don't you consider yourself Jewish. That is essentially what a Jew would believe. Which of course leaves you free to be critical of everyone else's beliefs and nothing of your own to defend.

Well, that and the fact that I am a member of a recognized Protestant chapter of Club Christian with my name carved in stone in the chapel of a Protestant Christian school who has helped found missions (new churches), taught adult and children's Sunday school and ... I call myself a Christian because I are one. HUH?How is what I believe outside or in conflict with anything the Archbishop said? And understand, just because there is an Archbishop does not mean that the Archbishop defines individual belief. There are lots of areas where I and many other Episcopalians including Episcopal clergy disagree with the Archbishop's positions.Yet they are still Christians. That really is simple; what makes me specifically a Christian is that I are one. What makes me specifically a man is that I are one. What makes me specifically an American is that I are one.It really is that simple. Really you need to learn to read.Where have I said that I do not believe in a resurrected Jesus?I do not call myself a Jew (although Jesus was a Jew and never a Christian) because I am not a Jew.What is so hard for you to understand? No shit Little Beaver. Religious beliefs are a matter of Faith and personal experience. There is nothing to defend when it comes to beliefs. Someone can say they believe there was a Biblical flood and I would have no problems but when they say there was a Biblical flood then that is subject to criticism.Learn to actually read what I write.I have not said the Jesus was not resurrected. I have said that the stories are conflicting, not all support a physical resurrection and that it really doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed, was resurrected, was bodily resurrected or was simply not a physical critter.It is what folk believe whether based on fact or fantasy that is determinant.

I know that you are a great guy and have done great things. I have no problem with you calling yourself a Christian. I am only saying that you are a philosophical or cultural Christian as opposed to one who holds to the basic creeds of the faith. How do you do with the 39 articles of faith of our church such as:

quote:

---

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

---

Well, I'll leave it to others to decide whether anyone that believes that it doesn't even matter whether Jesus existed or not is actually an adherent of the Christian faith.I'm a member of the equivalent of your church in Canada, (the Anglican Church of Canada), and your views are totally incompatible with the most fundamental elements of our church and faith.

The 39 Articles were developed in the 1500's mainly to differentiate the CoE from the RCC and the various Calvinist churches, but we are not living in the 1500s. I know you keep saying that but it is simply wrong. But you have already admitted that there is no direct evidence to support that Jesus actually lived, died, was resurrected or ascended into heaven other then the bible stories. Certainly people believed those things but belief is not evidence of fact other than to state that is what folk believed or believe.So there is no support for the beliefs other than faith. If there is no external evidence of fact then does it matter whether or not the facts exist? Is it not simply a matter of what people believe is true?

What has when they were written got to do with anything? You agree that you don't believe anything that any theist of any faith, or for that matter an agnostic, couldn't agree with. You reject the fundamentals of the specific church you belong to as well as the Christian faith in general. Just because you claim it to be wrong doesn't make it so. I have not agreed that the Bible is the only record of the life of Jesus. There is Josephus and Tacitus and Tacitus talks about the crucifixion of Jesus. However that isn't the point.Christianity is about believing those things to be historically true. If they aren't true then Christianity is a sham and you seem to think that it is just fine to base one's life on something that is totally fictitious.If I didn't believe that Jesus lived and was resurrected by God then I certainly wouldn't call myself a Christian.

Fine. That is you but learn to read what you write as well. You are supporting my position.You believe.That does not mean anything but that you believe. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus lived or was resurrected.

Well, you've changed the subject again, but I contend that truth matters. If Jesus wasn't resurrected then maybe the Islamic suicide bombers understand God better than we do.Sure you can say that my beliefs aren't going to hurt anybody and might even do some good, but it would still mean that my whole life is based on a lie, and you seem to think that is still a good thing.If Jesus doesn't matter then why waste your time and money on ministers and church buildings with all of the maintenance that goes with it. Why not spend your time and money as part of a good service club? It sure appears to me to be far more efficient.The whole Christian faith is based on the idea that God perfectly revealed His nature in the one man Jesus and then confirmed that life and message in His resurrection. Christian theology is based on determining how we are to understand the message with the first theologian being Paul. It is the acceptance of that that makes one an adherent of the Christian faith.Certainly one can accept the concept of love and peace that we read about in the Gospels without believing but then anyone can take that concept on board from many other sources. If you live in Saudi with your beliefs you could just as easily call yourself a Muslim.

If I were raised in a Jewish environment and had been educated like Jesus as a Jew then I would likely be Jewish.Had I been raised as a Muslim I would likely be a Muslim.But I have said that before. Nope, no change of subject. Truth may well matter but as long as we are alive there is no way to determine the truth.It is what you believe, whether factual or not. And you continue to conflate belief and fact.Read what you write. Everything there deals with belief, not fact. Again, no, I don't say it is a good thing, I say it is irrelevant. There is no way to determine while we are alive whether that belief is based on fact or not. Your belief is sufficient as a basis of your Faith.I will repeat what I have said so many times here.I am a cradle Creedal Christian. I subscribe to the statement found in the Nicene Creed. I believe that.But there is no way to ever determine if that belief is based on fact or fiction, at least I can see no way as long as I am alive.So I acknowledge that my belief is only that, a belief and may well be wrong. That is simple honesty and acknowledgement of the reality of the situation.Christianity is the Path I follow, I understand that it almost certainly is wrong and incomplete just as any map is certainly wrong and incomplete.But it is still my path.That does not mean I don't also look at several different maps understanding that each different maps will be more accurate at times and places than the others and that as we go thorough life we need to test the data from the maps against the reality of the moment and place.But we are alive now and so the message of importance at this moment are those that deal with living this life. We try to live this life as well as we can following the parts of the map related to our time and place. It's possible there may be another life off the edges, beyond this time and place but we will look at that part of the map at another time and place.

Actually they are probably both interpolations. Probably additions and changes by later christian scribes. Even if they are not, they are not evidence, they are just hearsay. Not direct evidence of your jesus.At best he was reciting things learned from gospels. Basically worthless information historically. His information has no effect on the probability of historicity, or myth for that matter.

Richard Carrier is not infallible. He too sells books and has an agenda. Just sayin.... Jesus Did Exist: A Response to Richard Carrier

Have you even read Carrier? Has anyone said he is absolutely correct? He is by far not the only scholar to present convincing evidence and arguments that these are interpolations. Do you have any evidence to show they are not? Attack the evidence not the person presenting the evidence.I know you like to skirt around the edges but your link is laughable. It is not a critique of his book or his arguments as a whole it is a critique of a web article and the main criticism is that he doesn't argue the way this writer wants him to. In a lot of ways Mr. Akin's article is ad hominem attacks against carrier. Ehrman goes the same route. Read what carrier actually writes not what an apologist thinks he wrote.If you cannot put forth logical responses and evidence to counter, on your own, don't bother. I have read both sides extensively. There is no contemporary evidence for historical Jesus Christ. If you have it present it.Edited by Theodoric, : Minor spelling and formattingEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

GDR, Phat, jar,Very interesting discussion. Thank you. Why such a devout atheist would find this discussion of such interest goes to one of my many personality flaws. I like people and I like to watch them tick.I find that there is, philosophically, no difference in any of you. What I see is some misunderstanding of what jar is espousing.If you find the words I put in your mouths distasteful please feel free to spit them back out.I see jar saying he is a Christian. I see him saying that he believes, as a matter of faith, in the reality of god, Jesus, the resurrection, the whole Christian creed thing, just as do you others. Where I see the misunderstanding is where jar acknowledges that his beliefs may be erroneous. GDR and Phat are taking this as some form of disbelief on jar’s part. Further, jar states that whether god/Jesus/resurrection, which he does believe in, are actual realities of this universe or not, to him the message, the teachings, are more important.In the Christian vernacular, I hear jar saying that he acknowledges and accepts The Gift while being quite straightforward in saying that whether this self-serving belief is real or not does not enhance nor diminish the teachings a Christian life is to follow.While the philosophy is the same, in detail GDR and Phat seem to put more emphasis on The Gift as the defining belief of a Christian rather than on the teachings. And, no, I am not implying that the teachings are not important to them.Jar is saying that since the reality of a Christian’s beliefs in god/Jesus/resurrection cannot be known until they have passed over the most important thing on this side for the Christian is to conduct one’s life in accord with the teachings; that though the beliefs are certainly important to being a Christian, thus he is a Christian, the only presently known demonstrable reality for the Christian is to follow the teachings.Maybe this is what resonates with me from this discussion: whether Jesus the Jew said it, or Jesus the resurrected divinity said it, or Paul the Christian said it, or Gandhi the Hindu said it, or Arthur Clarke the humanist said it, the teachings of respectful compassionate love for others are paramount over any belief, or lack thereof, for the conduct of one’s life.Thanks, again, fellas.