Is this the Atheist Fanatics Forums Off-Topic?

[GoodGame]

Because he was a cool dude?

He doesn't necessarily have to say that he's divine, you know, just merely the messiah, and there were plenty of people who declared themselves the messiah during that time.

Well ok, but then they need to dig up gospels that don't bring up the God sent me/son of god-schtick. Being a messiah mostly implies that god sent ya (i.e. divinity), and the whole lineage from King David thing, plus the monarchy coming from God. So if they believe in the historicity of Jesus, and turn on the Messiaship, then they can't really deny God exists---that'd be like being an Atheist Jew, which I believe is something Bill Maher brings up in Religulous.

Not saying that people can't be creative and do their own thing, but if you say you believe in the historical guy then you can't pull out the messiah thing as rationalization without implying a divinity, since that is the historical story that was told.

So they'd (a hypothetical Atheist Christian) still be left with: jesus was delusional, but I think a delusional guy is a pretty good example for me to follow. I bet that sect drops lots of acid.

 

[Dachs]

Because he was a cool dude?

He doesn't necessarily have to say that he's divine, you know, just merely the messiah, and there were plenty of people who declared themselves the messiah during that time.

Did Jesus declare himself the messiah? I'm not clear on that point.

 

[Bill3000]

Being a messiah mostly implies that god sent ya (i.e. divinity)

No it doesn't.

I'm just downgrading the necessary level of delusion here, from, say, divinity to the messiah.

 

[GoodGame]

Did Jesus declare himself the messiah? I'm not clear on that point.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

Regardless, Christians tend to believe that Jesus was a the messiah of the jews even if the jews are doubtful of that.

 

[GoodGame]

No it doesn't.

I'm just downgrading the necessary level of delusion here, from, say, divinity to the messiah.

It does if you've read the Old Test. Messiaship is not generic in some modern sense, but very specific to the context of the OT. The jews expect a Davidian line messiah to help them out once more. The messiah's are sent by god to lead them. There has to be a divinity to send them then. Denying that would be as illogical as starting witht he assumption that God created the universe, then noting that the universe exists, and concluding from that syllogism that there is no god. It's internally inconsistent logic then.

Don't interject a modern sense of the word messiah, since the story of the OT is quite clear and because the arguement assumes the historicity is correct. It seems to me the historical person jesus does claim messiaship either directly (Mark) or indirectly (in the other books).

So I'd still say an Atheist Christian has to say Jesus is a historical person who was a philosopher with delusions, strictly. It's a minute point, and I won't argue it further. Just I'm saying to be an athiest Christian, you'd have to be pretty 'high'.

No reason you can't choose your own behavioral patterns influenced by your own collection of fave philosophers. Of course, just that they couldn't fit being a stringent Christian and Atheist at the same time. They might be a 'Golden Meanian Athiest' or something. Or a Golden Mean-Nietszche Athiest, etc..

 

[Dachs]

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

Regardless, Christians tend to believe that Jesus was a the messiah of the jews even if the jews are doubtful of that.

Yes, I'm aware of the passages in the Gospels to that effect, but the question is whether they were subsequent additions as opposed to the dude having probably said it - you know, inconsistent grammar and word usage, other things to indicate a later insertion...

 

[GoodGame]

Yes, I'm aware of the passages in the Gospels to that effect, but the question is whether they were subsequent additions as opposed to the dude having probably said it - you know, inconsistent grammar and word usage, other things to indicate a later insertion...

Who knows what histories have been perfectly passed down?

 

[Dachs]

Who knows what histories have been perfectly passed down?

Actually, people have been saying that certain passages, such as Mark 16:9-20, were inserted later on for some time. I am far from knowledgeable on which passages were added in after their initial composition, and which were not, but I am aware that there is a high likelihood that some parts of the Gospel were not actually part of the original text.

 

[GoodGame]

Actually, people have been saying that certain passages, such as Mark 16:9-20, were inserted later on for some time. I am far from knowledgeable on which passages were added in after their initial composition, and which were not, but I am aware that there is a high likelihood that some parts of the Gospel were not actually part of the original text.

I tried following this up in Wikipedia. Apparently they base their criticism on different manuscripts having different endings to the chapter, though I'd guess that criticism would be strong if the ages of the various manuscripts conclusively supported that. But wikipedia points (I think rightly) that its all hypothetical:

Hypotheses about the ending
Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:

Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (at an early date) wrote the concluding lines.
Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death), whereupon another person finished the work before it was released for church-use.
The Gospel originally contained a different (perhaps similar) ending that was lost, for one reason or another, whereafter the current ending was added.
Verses 16:9–20 are authentic, and were omitted or lost from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidental, perhaps intentional.
Verses 16:9–20 were added later to conform with the endings from the other Gospels.

Occam's razor, be damned.

 

[Dachs]

Ignoring historiographical analysis isn't an example of Occam's razor.

 

[GoodGame]

Ignoring historiographical analysis isn't an example of Occam's razor.

No what I meant was, regardless of such analyses---which are still valid---the analyses still leave many unanswered questions (i.e. hypotheses/scenarios) towards which one might not benefit from eliminating with Occam's razor.

It might be fun to use the razor, but it's doesn't necessarily achieve factual results.


Ok that said, maybe with this approach---favoring one particular hypothesis for the manuscript differences, I can see an Athiest Christian believing that the 'messiah'-ship was latter day fabrication, and that jesus wasn't under delusions of divinity.

 

[dwaxe]

How does one go about building such a argument?

I keep reiterating the problem of evil (my favorite argument), while he liked to go with the the first cause argument (for some reason, all the highly religious teenagers (whether slightly agnostic or not) in my HS give me this argument first. Even my Muslim friend. Anyone any idea why? ), and I wear it down with the traditional refutation of "who created god?" The problem of evil seems to be getting to him because his only theodicies are the sin/punishment one and the one which uses Satan to go around giving people bad thoughts and making them do bad things. I said that even if the Satan one is true, you cannot make the jump to covering natural, non-artificial evil with the Satan theodicy. Then he told me that god punishes people who commit sin, and I reminded him of the relationship between Malaria and children in Sub-Saharan Africa. So for now, I think I'm getting to him.

I don't know for sure whether God exists or not...

But I do believe in Jesus Christ, that he came to us 2000 years ago doing good deeds, was crucified and later resurrected, and that we can achieve salvation and become closer to God by accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. I sometimes go to church and often pray so that I can have a relationship with God.

...yeah, very agnostic indeed.

The view you describe is agnostic. And this (however slight) agnosticism is what I use to differentiate fundamentalists from non-fundamentalists. I think that some of the politically inclined religious agnostics may join our school's freethinker club and become involved in debating.

 

[Defiant47]

The view you describe is agnostic. And this (however slight) agnosticism is what I use to differentiate fundamentalists from non-fundamentalists. I think that some of the politically inclined religious agnostics may join our school's freethinker club and become involved in debating.

I'm sorry, but that view makes no sense whatsoever.

There is a box on the table. I don't know what is in the box, it could be anything. However, I will choose to believe that it contains a Celine Dion CD case wrapped in tin foil with a slight rip in the middle of the foil. The CD case actually contains a DVD for Abba's greatest hits, although the DVD also features a bonus song from U2. The writing on the DVD itself says "Compilation 02". I put my entire faith into this belief, and would even be willing to place my eternal afterlife on the line over the fact that this belief is correct.

***

Agnosticism makes no sense unless used in conjunction with atheism or non-specific theism (i.e. I believe there may be a God, but I don't know its exact qualities).

 

[Holycannoli]

This place seems to be a kind of Atheist Sanctuary. How come there are so many atheists here? Religious people are a majority in the world (except in a few countries). Are "Civilization"-players more atheistic than the norm, or are they more likely to discuss on an Off-Topic forum? Or has religious persons tired of the many atheist provokations and left this place? Or just coincidence?

I'm a religious person and I pretty much left this place. I post once a week, if that. Way too many atheists who come here seemingly to do nothing but bash religion.

I even suggested that maybe religious discussions shouldn't be allowed here anymore, but guess who didn't like that idea? I shouldn't have to tell you

 

[Defiant47]

I even suggested that maybe religious discussions shouldn't be allowed here anymore, but guess who didn't like that idea? I shouldn't have to tell you

The moderators encourage discussion. Anything that is (obviously polite) relevant discussion is what this forum is for. You will see most rules enforced (and infractions given) with the point being that the poster did not further the discussion, such as with spams of "I agree" or pointless posts.

If one dislikes a certain type of discussion, one can easily refrain from entering the relevant threads. For example, I am insufficiently educated in Economics, having taken only a few intro courses; and thus I do not participate in such discussions (though I will observe and enjoy).

 

[Aegis]

I even suggested that maybe religious discussions shouldn't be allowed here anymore, but guess who didn't like that idea? I shouldn't have to tell you

People who believe in Freedom of Speech? =o)

 

[Holycannoli]

The moderators encourage discussion. Anything that is (obviously polite) relevant discussion is what this forum is for. You will see most rules enforced (and infractions given) with the point being that the poster did not further the discussion, such as with spams of "I agree" or pointless posts.

If one dislikes a certain type of discussion, one can easily refrain from entering the relevant threads. For example, I am insufficiently educated in Economics, having taken only a few intro courses; and thus I do not participate in such discussions (though I will observe and enjoy).

There are times when a lot of the topics have to do with something anti-religious. It got to a point where I don't even want to visit here anymore. It's like I'm a pilgrim in an unholy land when I'm here. And rarely is a religious discussion polite, there are always the atheists who will bash religion and God, and the religious who will bash them back. It's no good. I'm talking the threads who by their very titles are designed to upset the religious.

You can't tell me there aren't posters here who enjoy doing that on a regular basis, just like the Fox and Republican bashers. I really am a pilgrim in an unholy land when I'm here; I don't even know why I bother visiting anymore except that once in a while I want a political argument.

 

[Earthling]

Lo, for you have not seen the light of the Specialist Economy, and the holy crusade to troll and flame all unbelievers.

And no, for myself I really do not enjoy bashing or dismissing various stupidity, I would much rather it wasn't there in the first place. But you can't expect people to swallow lies just for the sake of someone's ego - it's not our fault that Fox is so incredibly stupid all the time they deserve to get made fun of. I'm glad to have a place on the Internet that for the most part isn't full of conservative, racist jerks, talk about being a "pilgrim in an unholy land"

 

[civ_king]

There are times when a lot of the topics have to do with something anti-religious. It got to a point where I don't even want to visit here anymore. It's like I'm a pilgrim in an unholy land when I'm here. And rarely is a religious discussion polite, there are always the atheists who will bash religion and God, and the religious who will bash them back. It's no good. I'm talking the threads who by their very titles are designed to upset the religious.

You can't tell me there aren't posters here who enjoy doing that on a regular basis, just like the Fox and Republican bashers. I really am a pilgrim in an unholy land when I'm here; I don't even know why I bother visiting anymore except that once in a while I want a political argument.

*Impales Holycannoli for bashing The Constitution*

 

[Bill3000]

There are times when a lot of the topics have to do with something anti-religious. It got to a point where I don't even want to visit here anymore. It's like I'm a pilgrim in an unholy land when I'm here. And rarely is a religious discussion polite, there are always the atheists who will bash religion and God, and the religious who will bash them back. It's no good. I'm talking the threads who by their very titles are designed to upset the religious.

You can't tell me there aren't posters here who enjoy doing that on a regular basis, just like the Fox and Republican bashers. I really am a pilgrim in an unholy land when I'm here; I don't even know why I bother visiting anymore except that once in a while I want a political argument.

Oh, stop whining. No one's forcing you to come here, no one's forcing you to read these threads. You're not being persecuted, so stop with your damned middle aged masculine menopause syndrome crap and leave if you hate CFC OT so much. Or better yet, become computer literate and use the tools here on CFC which allow you to ignore certain threads that you don't like. Here's the link. Now you can ignore all threads which with "religion" in it, etc.