On reincarnation of God

[Valka D'Ur]

Oh in here, they taught in school about atheism&materialism.
It's because you don't live in an atheist country then you don't know.
They literally tell every child that science is real and there's no god.
But religious freedom anyway.
-------------------------------------------------
About it, it's just a funny thing I heard from my brother.

The word "atheist" is mentioned nowhere in the new draft curriculum the Minister of Education is determined will be taught this fall. This is after she's received tens of thousands of letters, emails, survey responses, phone calls, and even messages chalked on the sidewalk in front of her constituency office that have informed of of everything wrong with this new curriculum (it would honestly be book-length to gather and print).

Only a part of the criticism relates to religion.

First off, religion has no place in public schools at all, unless presented in a completely unbiased, completely neutral way, with the only details given being factual ones. The kids must be taught that MANY religions exist, and not all are the three mainstream monotheistic ones.

The first version of the draft curriculum presented Christianity as factual ("Jesus IS the Son of God") vs "Jews BELIEVE"/Muslims BELIEVE" (already "othering" them as saying that's what they believe but it's not really true). The curriculum went on to categorize indigenous beliefs as something that was "in the past." Um, nope, it's not in the past. It's very much in the present, despite the efforts of over a century of effort on the part of various denomination of churches, with the full backing of the federal and provincial governments of the day, proceeded to engage in cultural genocide by literally beating the original language and religious beliefs out of the native children forced to attend residential schools. The last of these schools did not close until only 30 years ago. My own MLA - the current Minister of Education - stated in a meeting of the Catholic school board in Red Deer in a meeting in 2015 that she wanted teachers to "teach the positives" about residential schools.

The only people who consider there was anything positive about those places are the ones who thought it was right to send the kids there and take their language and culture from them in the first place.

The rest of this introduction to religion in the draft curriculum went on to categorize other religions as "strange new beliefs brought by newscomers to Canada" and "we have to learn to tolerate them."

Oh? I'm sure that makes the descendants of the Chinese laborers who helped to build the cross-country railroad feel good - that their ancestors' beliefs were strange and new - but hey, the right-wing government in Alberta is willing to TOLERATE them! WHEEE! And any other non-mainstream faith would be treated the same, as though there haven't been believers of them in Canada for many decades already, most of whom were born in Canada.

I don't want atheism referred to as a religion in schools. I just want it to be acknowledged as an alternative for people who don't believe, feel worried and guilty about not believing, and don't know what to call themselves. They need to know that not following a religion doesn't make them bad or immoral or untrustworthy (words I've had thrown at me for decades, either in person or online).

Yeah, it's how atheism looks like religion or is in fact a religion.
Idk how're other people in an atheist state.
But I'm just theorizing something, then defining that something, and starting worshipping it.

How does it "look like religion"?

Who or what do I worship, for example?

Calling atheism a religion is a wet noodle attack tactic by religious folks to say, "You are no better than us." By trying to insult non believers, they are mostly insulting themselves and the power of belief.

When it comes to the point of getting abusive PMs from some individuals, it's gone beyond "wet noodle attack". I'm relieved I no longer have to put up with that here.

I don't know why it wouldn't be. Being given dominion over things which are sacred is a concept I think we could use some more of, really.

Given dominion doesn't give the right to destroy habit or hunt to extinction. And keep in mind that not all religions include man being given dominion.

I like the interpretation in this song by Will Millar:

where is the part god encouraging genocide including of babies?
i pretty sure Jesus didn't encourage such thing.
it would be his future followers committing such things.

There is a great deal of violence in both of the testaments. The Old Testament included plenty of child genocide/infanticide.

Ah okay, I hear that archaeology also says this. But perhaps this is for the best. It means the migration into Canaan was likely on a smaller scale and less genocidal then originally implied in the Bible perhaps!

I'm still croggled at how it would only takes weeks to go from Canaan to Egypt, but 40 years to go from Egypt to Canaan. When Peter Danielson novelized this, he condensed it down to 10 years, which would make more sense if they had to stop and start due to local wars or other reasons.

Perhaps. Though there is some archaeology which suggests it did. The most notable are the ruins of Jericho.

"During early archaeological excavations by the British archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a stone retaining wall was found at the base of the tell associated with Jericho, but a mudbrick wall wasn’t found. However, a deposit of collapsed mudbrick was found at the base of the retaining wall at certain locations around the tell. This is surprisingly consistent with the account in the Book of Joshua. This collapsed wall would have also created a ramp for the Israelite warriors to march up the embankment to take the city. In this way, the archaeological record makes the Biblical account surprisingly believable. It supports the idea that the walls tumbled “below themselves” as well as the statement that the Israelites went “up” to take the city.

Another specific part of the narrative that is also made plausible by the archaeological record is the account of Rahab’s house being spared. In the Biblical narrative, two spies were sent into the city and they were harbored by a prostitute named Rahab. For helping the spies, Rahab was promised that she and her family would be spared when the city was destroyed. It is implied in the Biblical text, when the walls collapsed that her house was not destroyed even though it was connected to the wall.

During an early excavation in 1907-1909, German archaeologists found that, although most of the wall had collapsed, a portion of the wall had not entirely collapsed and appeared to have been preserved. They also found evidence that houses had been built along the wall. These houses typically had a thickness of only one brick, suggesting they were built for the poorer inhabitants of the city. Although this may not have been the location of Rahab’s house, it is consistent with the Biblical narrative.

Another detail that is also of interest in the archaeological site of Jericho is the presence of pots of charred grain that were burned from when the city was attacked and destroyed. What is unusual about these grain pots is that grain would probably have been eaten during a siege if it had been prolonged over a long period of time. The siege of Jericho by the ancient Israelites is said to have lasted only seven days. The fact that the grain pots were still full is consistent with a short siege. This also supports another part of the Biblical narrative, which mentions that the battle of Jericho happened in the spring, shortly after harvest time."

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/walls-jericho-0012893

Naturally there is rarely full agreement on such matters as whether the archaeology does fully support the bible account or not. For example archaeologist William Gwinn Dever says it doesn't, archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon says it partially does, and Professor Tom Meyer says it fully does.

So where's the supporting evidence that the Earth stood still for a day? Have any experiments been done to see if someone blowing a horn actually could make walls built with the materials, in the style of Jericho, fall down?

Also there is some archaeology which supports the Exodus from Egypt, primarily seen with the site of Avaris. Avaris is known to have had a high migrant population, with possible suggestions of a Jewish population due to a higher amount of Canaanite style artifacts and food remains which matched Jewish customs. The part of Avaris which housed these migrants was abandoned at the time of Ramesses II, which fits the Biblical account.

You need to take the Hyksos into account as well.

Anyway I always tend to favor (perhaps you might say biased towards) old historical accounts being based on some truth with likely exaggeration and embellishments rather than being entirely fictional, whether it be the accounts in the Bible, or Troy or Atlantis.

At least we know there were cities where Troy was said to be. Schliemann found them. Whether or not they were THE Troy is up for debate.

I don't think that's it, either. You're off into the weeds on servility. It's not like a lightning bolt is coming for messing up the Hail Mary. Kneeling is a choice every time it's done.

Tell that to the people who were punished and persecuted for not going along with Bloody Mary Tudor or anyone else in power during those centuries who didn't pray and make the gestures as the monarch of the day demanded.

I would add to this that they were expecting the second coming of Jesus soon, like in their lifetime soon. Why write something down when you will be around to tell someone in person. Their focus was not on sitting around and writing a book. It was on telling the good news to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. As the years went by and first hand witnesses started to drop off, and Jesus did not reappear presumably the need to document what they had witnessed increased. The gospel of John even makes reference to the belief among some that Jesus would return in his life time, and that this was incorrect.

"Sitting down and writing a book" would have enabled them to "tell the good news" to even more people. Sure, they had no printing press at the time, and every book ever written had to be hand-copied. But if a copy or two had made it to a receptive reader who was so impressed that he thought others should know, he could have paid a scribe to make more copies. The story would have been more accurate as it would have come from fresh memories, not those dulled by time or conveniently changed due to political necessity.

Also when people moan about a lack of archeology for Jesus, I do wonder what they are expecting. A minor Jewish prophet in a backwater Roman province is unlikely to have many coins or statues made in his name.

Contemporaneous writings would have worked. But nobody bothered. Oops.

Kings visiting from afar, miracle cures, water into wine... you'd think there'd be some record of the guy.

Yeah, you'd think... especially since the astronomers have been trying to figure out what the Star of Bethlehem could have been. And as much as Arthur C. Clarke wrote a sad and poetic short story about it, the best answer so far is a "planetary conjunction."

My take is that the kings would have had to travel for a long time, following this "star" (that apparently nobody else figured was worth the effort of following). So what astronomical phenomena are around for any length of time that would allow for this?

Comets. But if the astronomers didn't find any that were sufficiently visible for long enough back then, it couldn't possibly have been a comet.

Or maybe the Star of Bethlehem is just a part of the story that was made up. At least a virgin birth is possible with modern technology, provided you have people skilled in in vitro fertilization and implantation of the resulting zygote into the prospective mother's uterus.

 

[Farm Boy]

Tell that to the people who were punished and persecuted for not going along with Bloody Mary Tudor or anyone else in power during those centuries who didn't pray and make the gestures as the monarch of the day demanded.

Yes, it seems that things we really don't like do indeed happen in the world. People sometimes get fairly good at performing such deeds. But no, thank you. My TO: prayer card is already full for the time being.

 

[citizenofdoom]

Who or what do I worship, for example?

Believing in something supernatural doesn't mean you have to worship some Gods.
You made me remember 4 years ago, when I started to theorize that everything exists as a concept or set of well-defined concepts.
That everything simply exists because it makes sense to exist.
Because it doesn't contradict itself so it just simply exists.
That sentience itself is somehow well-defined in some way, so sentience exists.
And I feel like I exist because I'm something that belongs to that set of sentience things.
That when I died, because the concept of my existence existed before, it must be "well-defined".
And that the sentiences inside humans are capable of doing great things, and humans love other humans.
Current humans stand on the corpse of past humans to build greater things.
And I believe most of everything ever/will be discovered/built by future humans.
And future humans should somehow have empathy and gratefulness toward their corpse, at their peak of development, they somehow acquire the method of "concept recreation/creation"
That helps every other sentience find happiness.
That current humanity will be saved by some future humanity.
I called it's "human's hero".
I worshipped future humans, not as God, but saviors.
My duty was trying to give future human best things so they could achieve great things.
To pray for future humans, its prayers need to work, contribute and share ideas to the human community.
Regardless of your view, it's clearly a religion.
And it's one kind of atheism.
It's just what happens inside a child's mind when he feared his postponed death sentence happening around 55 years later.

 

[Samson]

There are definitely atheistic religions. I think certain interpretations of Buddhism are counted as such. That is different from saying atheism is a religion.

 

[citizenofdoom]

They need to know that not following a religion doesn't make them bad or immoral or untrustworthy (words I've had thrown at me for decades, either in person or online).

Religion exists within us.
The people who discriminated people not following the mainstream religions, they are bad.
I haven't met such people in my life.
Different culture, so most people around me are atheist.
But we are tolerate to people following religions anyway.
Although most of us are atheists, we pray to our ancestors.
Some pray because they believe their ancestors exist somewhere(religious, maybe)
Some pray because they missed them/respected them.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Ever heard of passover? It's a Jewish holiday celebrating the slaughter of African babies by god

This is speculative. But the Jews in Egypt were likely living in the migrant quarters of Avaris (see my previous post of the subject), alongside other migrants from the Levant. In times of hardship Phoenicians would sacrifice their first born. Perhaps this is what the Angel of Death is in reference to.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children

From what I've seen there is nothing in the bible that says the apostles didn't take notes on what they observed.

"Q" might well fit this description. A list of sayings of Jesus. It would make sense for it to have been recorded very close to the time, as I can testify remembering someone words is much harder then remembering actions. Maybe someday it will be found (if it does actually exist),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

Kings visiting from afar, miracle cures, water into wine... you'd think there'd be some record of the guy.

Contemporaneous writings would have worked. But nobody bothered. Oops.

I mean there are one or two contemporary (written within the 1st century AD ie by 100 AD or earlier) references to Jesus....

Thallus
Tacitus
Suetonius
Mara Bara-Serapian
Lucien
Letters of Peter
Letters of Paul to Timothy
Letters of Paul to the Thessalonians
Letters of Paul to the Corinthians
Letter to the Hebrews
Letter of Paul to Titus
Letter of Paul to the Romans
Letter of Paul to the Philippians
Letter of Paul to the Galatians
Letter of Paul to the Ephesians
Letter of Paul to the Colossians
Letter of Paul to Philemon
Letter of Jude
Letter of James
Josephus
II Timothy
II Thessalonians
II Peter
II Corinthians
Ignatius of Antioch
I Timothy
I Thessalonians
I Peter
I Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel According to Matthew
Gospel According to Mark
Gospel According to Luke
Gospel According to John
Clement of Rome
Acts of the Apostles

Here are some useful videos on the subject from Ten Minute Bible Hour:

These videos are short and accessible. I would highly recommend them for those who are interested in the historicity of Jesus.

I think we can all agree it is unlikely we would have much archaeology for Jesus (ie. no coins - not an emperor, no statues - his followers lived in secret for a long time so these would have been a bad idea to make, etc.). So all we can expect is written sources. I doubt you will find many other classical figures who have as many and as contemporary sources as Jesus does. If they are not sufficient for you, that is fine, but if you use the same logic you would probably have to stop believing in Alexander the Great, Hannibal of Carthage, just about every Anglo-Saxon king, etc. (again here we are purely talking about if judged on written documentation alone).

Have any experiments been done to see if someone blowing a horn actually could make walls built with the materials, in the style of Jericho, fall down?

Earthquake - horns likely coincidental.

At least we know there were cities where Troy was said to be. Schliemann found them. Whether or not they were THE Troy is up for debate.

I mean we know where Jericho is, it is 100% confirmed. Or is this in reference to Atlantis, if so I think this might be covered in a different thread (and is not a subject I am overly passionate on)!

I'm still croggled at how it would only takes weeks to go from Canaan to Egypt, but 40 years to go from Egypt to Canaan.

You need to take the Hyksos into account as well.

See videos by InspiringPhilosphy. However unlike the Ten Minute Bible Hour videos I would not describe them as either short or very accessible!

Yes, I know throwing videos at you is a cop out. But lets be honest, we are both pretty entrenched in our beliefs. It would be pretty naïve of me to feel that it was I who was the one person who could change your mind on the subject. Also when it comes to historicity of Jesus I feel like I have the high ground. When it comes to the historicity of the Exodus, that is more challenging, and is not hill I want to make my stand on!

 

[Samson]

This is speculative. But the Jews in Egypt were likely living in the migrant quarters of Avaris (see my previous post of the subject), alongside other migrants from the Levant. In times of hardship Phoenicians would sacrifice their first born. Perhaps this is what the Angel of Death is in reference to.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children

I do not think that is quite as decided as they make out. I think that is this is the paper they are referring to, and here is a citing paper (that actually argues for the sacrifice model, but shows the controversy) from 2017:

There is also significant support for a ‘not-all-sacrifice’ hypothesis, which does not rule out sacrifice, but takes into consideration other factors (see references in Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010, Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Bondioli and Macchiarelli2012): Tophets lie outside city limits and house the remains of prenatal, neonatal and young postnatal humans, which are absent from the main cemeteries in city centres; only Tophet burials are cremations; and the age range of humans buried at Tophets is consistent with natural causes of death. As for the ‘seminal’ stele (see Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011: fig. 1d), the fully outlined, erect adult figure (with ear, open eye, upright shoulders, upraised right arm with forward-facing hand, distinct manual digits and a bent right leg, well forward of the left leg) contrasts with the minimally outlined small individual that it holds (with down-turned, featureless head, torso, slumped shoulder and a curved line hinting at a limp, handless left arm). Observed without preconception, the adult holds an inanimate (deceased, perhaps cloaked) infant.​

 

[El_Machinae]

The people who were later compiling the Torah had already forgotten their natural history, and that's why the myths of Canaan and Egypt were included. It also makes it very hard to sort out the stories of Abraham, etc. because they put the story of Abraham as being before the story of Egypt. So, if there was an actual Abraham figure, it will be quite lost.

The stories in the Bible start to approach Real History around the time of King David. So, it's no surprise that a retrospective tale telling is done to add legitimacy and grandiosity. Like, what stories should they tell about the ruined cities around them, other than that they were the conquerors?

For me, the moral errors of the Bible are highlighted by this lack of legitimate history. Like, they wrote a story about stabbing babies and then wrote themselves as the good guys. And that is without even actually having any good reason to believe those stories were true!

It would be like me bragging about being the descendant of Jack the Ripper, and then post-hoc justifying the killings

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

There are many, but that is a battle that has been ongoing for centuries. Refutations and rebuttals have been widely publicized. The only situations where non theological contradictions are relevant are when the inerrancy card is played and that is a game changer for discussion. At that point one side says "I believe." and the other says "I don't." Impasse. Best to shake hands or hug and then go get something to eat or drink together.

One of many:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions

I looked at the first contradiction in the wiki you posted. It says that Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2 but I'm not seeing it. The article makes statements that there are contradictions but it doesn't actually break them down in a verse by verse comparison. I'm confused.

Similarily the article says that Genesis 11:12 lineology gets contradicted in Luke but doesn't give the chapter or verses in Luke for me to compare. Again I'm confused with this example.

Btw here is an online bible tool I use somtimes when I don't have access to my phone app or the real bible book. I wouldn't trust any version other than the King James Version, maybe the New King James version if I didn't have the KJV. In man's attempt to modernize the language of the bible to be accessible by modern day readers things got changed and thus the meaning. That's why I rely on the yes harder to read KJV but more accurate of what the original scriptures were.

But the judge didn't create me.

It's more like a computer programmer getting angry at his Sims even tho he designed them.


But why do we need to be forgiven in the first place?

...

It says in the bible that God created man and woman. He is the creator of the original model and we are all descended from that original model.

As for why we need to be forgiven in the first place is because we all were born with the sin 'virus'. A condition which naturally seperates us from God. The cure that God offers is faith in his son. But again it's up to each individual on whether they want this cure or not. He's not getting angry if you don't except him, he's actually sad when someone rejects him. Like if a son/daughter rejected their mom or their dad because of some falling out. How would the parents feel? How would the child feel?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I looked at the first contradiction in the wiki you posted. It says that Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2 but I'm not seeing it. The article makes statements that there are contradictions but it doesn't actually break them down in a verse by verse comparison. I'm confused.

Similarily the article says that Genesis 11:12 lineology gets contradicted in Luke but doesn't give the chapter or verses in Luke for me to compare. Again I'm confused with this example.

Btw here is an online bible tool I use somtimes when I don't have access to my phone app or the real bible book. I wouldn't trust any version other than the King James Version, maybe the New King James version if I didn't have the KJV. In man's attempt to modernize the language of the bible to be accessible by modern day readers things got changed and thus the meaning. That's why I rely on the yes harder to read KJV but more accurate of what the original scriptures were.

I'm not into arguing contradictions and just chose a link that was at the top of the search. If you look more thoroughly, I'm sure you will find better and worse sites. I have no opinion on which version of the Bible is best. I will say though, that well made vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream hands down.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

I will say though, that well made vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream hands down.

I don't really have a favorite flavor of ice-cream, but feel duty bound to say it is 'Mackinac island fudge,' as clearly the best ice cream flavor has to come from the best state in the USA!

https://www.hudsonvilleicecream.com/flavor/mackinac-island-fudge/

 

[Modder_Mode]

Kings visiting from afar, miracle cures, water into wine... you'd think there'd be some record of the guy.

Contemporaneous writings would have worked. But nobody bothered. Oops.

Historians don't dispute a historic Jesus they agree there was a Jesus, if you are talking about the miracles of Jesus then no we don't have any evidence the miracles occurred, just the testimony.
The shroud of Turin is considered by some to be evidence of a relic of the resurrection, others claim its a medieval hoax whilst others still claim that it wasn't tested properly when the Vatican allowed its close inspection.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Believing in something supernatural doesn't mean you have to worship some Gods.
You made me remember 4 years ago, when I started to theorize that everything exists as a concept or set of well-defined concepts.
That everything simply exists because it makes sense to exist.
Because it doesn't contradict itself so it just simply exists.
That sentience itself is somehow well-defined in some way, so sentience exists.
And I feel like I exist because I'm something that belongs to that set of sentience things.
That when I died, because the concept of my existence existed before, it must be "well-defined".
And that the sentiences inside humans are capable of doing great things, and humans love other humans.
Current humans stand on the corpse of past humans to build greater things.
And I believe most of everything ever/will be discovered/built by future humans.
And future humans should somehow have empathy and gratefulness toward their corpse, at their peak of development, they somehow acquire the method of "concept recreation/creation"
That helps every other sentience find happiness.
That current humanity will be saved by some future humanity.
I called it's "human's hero".
I worshipped future humans, not as God, but saviors.
My duty was trying to give future human best things so they could achieve great things.
To pray for future humans, its prayers need to work, contribute and share ideas to the human community.
Regardless of your view, it's clearly a religion.
And it's one kind of atheism.
It's just what happens inside a child's mind when he feared his postponed death sentence happening around 55 years later.

You didn't answer my question. If I tell you I'm atheist (and by this point I'd find it hard to swallow that there are any OT regulars who do NOT know this as I've stated it many times over the years) and you tell me that atheism is a religion, tell me what I supposedly worship.

I didn't ask what you worship. I asked you what I worship. Some have accused me of worshiping Richard Dawkins (which was funny because at that time I'd never even heard of him).

This is speculative. But the Jews in Egypt were likely living in the migrant quarters of Avaris (see my previous post of the subject), alongside other migrants from the Levant. In times of hardship Phoenicians would sacrifice their first born. Perhaps this is what the Angel of Death is in reference to.

So... Moses tells Pharaoh, "Let my people go", Pharaoh says no, and the plagues keep on coming until Moses says that if Pharaoh won't let his people go, the first-born children will die... which prompts the Phoenicians living there to kill their own kids?

Seriously, WTH?

I mean there are one or two contemporary (written within the 1st century AD ie by 100 AD or earlier) references to Jesus....

Thallus
Tacitus
Suetonius
Mara Bara-Serapian
Lucien
Letters of Peter
Letters of Paul to Timothy
Letters of Paul to the Thessalonians
Letters of Paul to the Corinthians
Letter to the Hebrews
Letter of Paul to Titus
Letter of Paul to the Romans
Letter of Paul to the Philippians
Letter of Paul to the Galatians
Letter of Paul to the Ephesians
Letter of Paul to the Colossians
Letter of Paul to Philemon
Letter of Jude
Letter of James
Josephus
II Timothy
II Thessalonians
II Peter
II Corinthians
Ignatius of Antioch
I Timothy
I Thessalonians
I Peter
I Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel According to Matthew
Gospel According to Mark
Gospel According to Luke
Gospel According to John
Clement of Rome
Acts of the Apostles

Here are some useful videos on the subject from Ten Minute Bible Hour:

These videos are short and accessible. I would highly recommend them for those who are interested in the historicity of Jesus.

I think we can all agree it is unlikely we would have much archaeology for Jesus (ie. no coins - not an emperor, no statues - his followers lived in secret for a long time so these would have been a bad idea to make, etc.). So all we can expect is written sources. I doubt you will find many other classical figures who have as many and as contemporary sources as Jesus does. If they are not sufficient for you, that is fine, but if you use the same logic you would probably have to stop believing in Alexander the Great, Hannibal of Carthage, just about every Anglo-Saxon king, etc. (again here we are purely talking about if judged on written documentation alone).

Alexander left multiple cities named after himself, and plenty of evidence that he existed.

I just think it's a bit weird that during the 3-year ministry, NOBODY wrote about Jesus. People blame the Romans, but if you look at Pontius Pilate, he did try to find a reason not to go through with the crucifixion. He finally did it to avoid a full-scale riot among the different factions of people he was governing, not because he personally found fault with Jesus (or so I understand from my own reading). I did read the New Testament during and after working on a theatre production of Jesus Christ Superstar and realizing I didn't understand what a couple of the songs were about.

It's not that they had to be extremely worried about the Romans at that point because to the Romans they were just some weird little cult. It wasn't until later that they were noticed more. If you look at it from the Roman point of view (and I'm not saying this is a good pov, just a logical one), they really didn't care much about what local religions people followed as long as they paid their taxes and tributes and didn't break the laws. It's when you get the insane emperors like Caligula or Nero or some others who granted themselves divine status that you get the "worship me/the Imperial cult" or die" stuff going on.

Earthquake - horns likely coincidental.

That's quite a coincidence. It's been awhile since I read that part of the Old Testament. Does it say anything about an earthquake?

I mean we know where Jericho is, it is 100% confirmed. Or is this in reference to Atlantis, if so I think this might be covered in a different thread (and is not a subject I am overly passionate on)!

LOL, no, I'm not referring to Atlantis. We've had plenty of threads about Atlantis over the years. If you want to see the one that permanently broke any impulse I might have had to take it seriously, do a search for the "Ask an Atlanteologist" thread (use the last word as the keyword since the word "Ask" isn't searchable).

The Atlanteologist thread is why I'm reluctant to invest much time in videos unless they were made by real scholars instead of people just making stuff up with no credible sources to back it.

Yes, I know throwing videos at you is a cop out. But lets be honest, we are both pretty entrenched in our beliefs. It would be pretty naïve of me to feel that it was I who was the one person who could change your mind on the subject. Also when it comes to historicity of Jesus I feel like I have the high ground. When it comes to the historicity of the Exodus, that is more challenging, and is not hill I want to make my stand on!

We agree that you won't change my mind. As for the high ground? People who die from crucifixion don't come back 3 days later unless they somehow didn't die in the first place. I've looked into the physical effects of being crucified and it's pretty brutal. Depending on the initial health of the victim and precise manner of the crucifixion (how they were fastened in place), the victim might die of slow dehydration over a period of days, or they might die of asphyxiation or a heart attack within hours. It was actually an act of mercy to break the legs so the victim would die faster (no support to stand on so asphyxiation would kill them long before dehydration would).

Bringing people back from the dead? Sorry, no. Not unless they were mistakenly declared dead in the first place. Water/wine, loaves/fishes? Do your videos explain those in any way not requiring the word "miracle"?

It says in the bible that God created man and woman. He is the creator of the original model and we are all descended from that original model.

As for why we need to be forgiven in the first place is because we all were born with the sin 'virus'. A condition which naturally seperates us from God. The cure that God offers is faith in his son. But again it's up to each individual on whether they want this cure or not. He's not getting angry if you don't except him, he's actually sad when someone rejects him. Like if a son/daughter rejected their mom or their dad because of some falling out. How would the parents feel? How would the child feel?

Well, let's see... my mother was physically and verbally abusive to me, and she was also a racist. She disapproved of me knowing and socializing with someone in the theatre just because he was originally from India. She pulled into a gas station once and the first words out of her mouth to the kid at the pump were "Is this station owned by whites?" When the kid stammered out a 'yes' (he was shocked and flabbergasted at her question), she told him to "fill 'er up." I should think that nowadays there might be owners who would tell her got GTFO of there, that they would not serve racists. The only reason I didn't get out and walk home (I was terribly embarrassed) was because it was too far.

My mother's reaction to my telling her I'm atheist was to throw up her hands in disgust, and look away from me. She didn't want to hear any more about it.

And then she wondered why I had more regard for my dad - who was her total opposite in most ways (his only hangup was same-sex marriage and an absolute belief in ufos).

So thanks, but I've had enough issues with real parents.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

With or without technology? Even in Harry Potter there are characters that make use of wandless and nonverbal spellcasting

we don't live in the world of harry potter though, at least not to my knowledge/any evidence i have seen. in our world, a being trivially doing things that completely break modern understanding of basic physical laws (per our models) such as conservation of matter would be an incredible piece of evidence. the first instinct would be some kind of deception, though that could be dispelled through repeated feats under scrutiny.

or to put it another way: in harry potter's world such a being does not break their model of reality (probably, their magic system is pretty soft). in ours, accepting experimental verification of it creating matter from nothing that continues to exist would force drastic updates to our models for reality. that doesn't make it a "god" (unless we feel like calling it one)...but yeah, i'm still not going to quibble with something that can break what i thought were fundamental laws of physics. i might not worship it, but that wouldn't be the time/place to argue either. and if it said "worship or i will crush you with water or drain all the water from you", i'd do what it said lol.

I get the impression you're not that familiar with the Sliders TV show.

that is correct. sadly, i don't see much tv any longer. grinding out high levels of ability in eu 4, hoi 4, dominions 5, dungeon crawl stone soup, battle brothers (i am not yet a skilled player in BB, learning that now) etc over the past decade or so has cut into the things i watch otherwise. it's a trade i took willingly, i have a lot of fun going through the learning process and mastering games. but it does mean i sacrifice alternative choices.

i will take your word that this is in character for him, and an impressive character in a way lol.

First off, religion has no place in public schools at all, unless presented in a completely unbiased, completely neutral way, with the only details given being factual ones. The kids must be taught that MANY religions exist, and not all are the three mainstream monotheistic ones.

imo one of the better places to cover it is in its historical context. while religion makes non-falsifiable claims and mostly centers beliefs on things outside of reality, the impact of the beliefs themselves had very tangible impacts on history. they informed choices in war, but also rejection of how the catholic church was behaving was a non trivial component of the renaissance etc. the same religions (plural) have been used as a tool to initiate atrocities and as a push to treat people better/end slavery, depending on the nature of the people wielding the tool.

through that lens "x faith has y tenets which led to z decision in this historical context" is useful. like you say, i'm not comfortable with literally any model of belief that ignores/disregards/doesn't emphasize empirical evidence taught as if it's more "correct" than others. however, we *can* model the consequences of those beliefs at scale to human experience...those have actual outcomes we can observe, both good and bad.

 

[PhroX]

Alexander left multiple cities named after himself, and plenty of evidence that he existed.

I just think it's a bit weird that during the 3-year ministry, NOBODY wrote about Jesus.

We don't actually know whether or not people wrote about Jesus during his ministry. All we can say with certainty is that we know of no such writings that have survived. And, given that only a tiny proportion of ancient writings have survived, that's not particularly surprising. If major writings from famous and popular philosophers, historians, playwrights etc. are missing, and known only from references in other works, what is odd about there being no contemporary accounts of a short lived minor religious figure from a backwater province of the Empire? Remember, during his lifetime, Jesus was nothing special by the standards of the literary classes. He was one of many self proclaimed prophets and cult leaders, preaching mainly to the lower classes in a region and religion few people really cared about. In all honesty, I would be more surprised if we did have such accounts - while I think it's likely a few references to him were probably written down during his life, the chances of them surviving to today are pretty small.

(As an aside, as far as I'm aware, we have no contemporary accounts of Hannibal Barca. Yet I can't remember seeing anyone claiming he was a myth...)

There are however, several sources from relatively soon after he died. Most are Christian, and that should definitely be considered when evaluating them, but that's not the same as completely writing them off. It's likely that Paul, "Mark" (i.e. the author thereof, unlikely to be the apostle), "Q" (the other material used by "Luke" and "Matthew") and maybe "John" are relatively independent of each other, and the first of those began writing soon after Jesus' death.

But there are references to Jesus in other material, for example Josephus' work (there two references in there, one of which has definitely been edited by later a Christian writer, but it's not clear exactly whether they changed the wording or inserted the reference wholesale and one which is pretty unequivocal, unless you're a looney like Richard Carrier...).

This is actually a decent amount of material supporting Jesus' existence given the time period, location and circumstances of his life.

And going back to the Christian writings, there are elements in how they are written which fit much better with the idea that Jesus was a real person, even in parts which are likely fiction. A classic example is the nativity story. You know how it goes, there was a census which meant that Joseph had to take his pregnant wife to Bethlehem. There was no room at the inn, shepherds, wise men and all that. This story is almost certainly not true. It's riddled with holes, particularly with regards to the census - for example, at the time of Jesus' birth, Judea wasn't part of the Roman Empire so wouldn't be subject to a census, there's no records of a census happening in the Empire around that time, not to mention that the whole point of a census is to find out who you can tax, so the authorities would want to know where you live now, not where you were born.

So why was this story fabricated? Well, probably to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, in accordance with an Old Testament claim about the Messiah. But, why goes through all this? If you wanted to have your fictional character be born in Bethlehem, why not just have their family live there? On the other hand, if you were writing about a real person, who was known for coming from the town of Nazareth, but wanted to place his birth elsewhere? Well, you might well come up with a story about his family were forced to visit Bethlehem just before his birth. Can we be certain of this explanation? No, of course not. But it seems more plausible.

None of this is proof of Jesus' existence of course. But the same can be said about pretty much anything in history. All we can do when looking at the past is to consider the evidence and say what is the most likely explanation. And I, and from what I've seen most serious historians, consider that it is likely that Jesus was a real person. One who's deeds and nature have been exaggerated and fabricated beyond what a minor eschatological preacher in the early first century Levant probably actually did, but probably a real one none-the-less.

 

[citizenofdoom]

You didn't answer my question. If I tell you I'm atheist (and by this point I'd find it hard to swallow that there are any OT regulars who do NOT know this as I've stated it many times over the years) and you tell me that atheism is a religion, tell me what I supposedly worship.

I didn't ask what you worship. I asked you what I worship. Some have accused me of worshiping Richard Dawkins (which was funny because at that time I'd never even heard of him).

Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements;[1] however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3]

Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacred things,[5] faith,[6] a supernatural being or supernatural beings[7] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".
So it's expected that our own definitions of religion are fundamentally different.
As I stated above, my definition of religion is belief of a pair of <start state, transformation function>.
It's the same as "what could be true", comparing to science "what is extremely likely to be true"
Your own atheism religion depends on what you consider moral, what your beliefs are, what your worldview is, what your prediction of future maybe(Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Slurp,...)
It also depends on your belief of what will happen when you die.
You worship whatever make/lead your enlightenment.
You are very likely to worship yourself or science or set theory or anything/anyone.
Ever you thought that the only existence you can feel and verify is having sentience is only you?
I'm not you, so I can't know what you worship.
I'm not you, so I can't know what specific kind of atheism you are practicing.
Is it weak-atheism or strong-atheism?
Is your own belief include the creation of the World? Like before Big Bang, which is very likely to be true and likely to be universally accepted by almost everyone. Before that is the realm of religion, you can theorize whatever things till Big Bang.
Is your own belief include some future salvation?
What's your belief of death?
Do you believe in fate or your job/role in this world?
I don't know mate. It's too hard for anyone to guess the exact statements of your atheism.
Atheism is broader than you might think.
Imagine you put some quantum thing and theorize about quarks that involving in the sentience thinking process. No one can actually guess if you worship some specific properties of quarks or not.
And I believe religion doesn't require a God or something to worship.
My belief could be true because there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
In contrast, to set theory, there is no formal definition of religion.
So you can define your own definition according to your belief.

So imagine if you haven't read my message above, if I tell you that I'm an atheist, what do I worship?
Can you ever guess it once was "future generations of humans"?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices

the term "atheist" does not predict any behaviors, however. it merely rules out a relatively small subset of potential behaviors/practices.

there are things you can predict about a person who is "catholic" that you can't predict about someone who is "atheist". this is because one is a system of belief unto itself, while the other is not (atheism can arise from principled application of empirical models of reality, but it doesn't have to).

It's the same as "what could be true", comparing to science "what is extremely likely to be true"

no. at best you're then comparing religion to science, not religion to atheism.

even then, it is a reach to call an empirical model of reality a "religion", because it dilutes predictive usefulness of the term "religion" itself. expecting the sun to rise tomorrow being a "religious belief" makes the term "religious" meaningless. like having religious flies and religious gravity.

I'm not you, so I can't know what specific kind of atheism you are practicing.

atheism is not practiced. that's a distinction we've tried to make multiple times now. you don't replace "religious worship" with "atheism". you replace religious worship with *nothing*.

So you can define your own definition according to your belief.

in the english language, as well as most other languages, words have meaning. there are things you expect to see given a word, and things you do not expect to see.

when you "define" "religious" so broadly that everyone is religious, you can't distinguish them. it's no longer a functional term.

in common usage, refusing to privilege a randomly chosen belief w/o evidence is not a "religion", and it does not imply "worship" of anything.

 

[Gorbles]

To be fair, a lot of people "practise" atheism in that they see it as far more than a simple rejection of human-defined deities. And there's a large cultural overlap between stages of agnosticism and outright atheism that - while technically unhelpful - still contribute to the perception of atheism at large. Not unlike organised religion in that sense.

And then you have things like New Atheism, which despite arising in relatively benign circumstances, have in turn been turned into a form of zealotry by some (still in the service of criticising what can be seen to be problems in organised religion, but often having a far wider and less helpful purview).

So I can see where citizenofdoom is coming from, but I can also see where Valka is coming from with her specific experiences. They should be respected as being her position on the subject, and the fact that they don't seem to be is half the problem - even if citizen thinks the issue is trying to define where Valka sits on some hypothetical Map of Atheism.

As an atheist myself, I would trust a fierce adherent of New Atheism far less than the phrase "being an atheist" would normally suggest. That's just the predictions being made at play. I can't make it of all atheists, but likewise, I can't really make it of all Catholics, either. I can assume "believes in the Pope as the head of Church on Earth", for example. But I can't even accurately predict what parts of the Bible come through in teaching. The same goes for any Protestant I meet, etc, et al. Your argument is correct insofar that atheism has less commonalities that bind atheists together, but you can absolutely predict at the very least the rejection of deities (as popularised by organised religion, if not in general). There's probably more if you put some time to it to understand the more philosophical arguments (vs. individual belief / non-belief / rejection of belief).

 

[citizenofdoom]

in the english language, as well as most other languages, words have meaning. there are things you expect to see given a word, and things you do not expect to see.

there's no scholarly consensus about what it means to be a "religion"

when you "define" "religious" so broadly that everyone is religious, you can't distinguish them. it's no longer a functional term.

to distinguish between people who believe in something or anything from people who don't believe and don't have intention to believe in anything.
like:
- what do you believe about the world?
- i don't care about that matter.
that's someone with no religion to me.
in some senses, we already have the word "atheism" to distinguish from yes god exists to no god exists. in my sense, you dont need a word like "religion" to define it.

in the english language, as well as most other languages, words have meaning. there are things you expect to see given a word, and things you do not expect to see.

this is likely the case that my mind is kinda eff-~.

if that causes more division in the subject of atheism, there might be need of defining atheism more.
to properly classify which atheism is religious, and which atheism is not.
because discussion takes us to questions. questions take us to answer.
it's a process of generating knowledge.
your example and my example can be used to generalize into a bigger picture tho.

As an atheist myself, I would trust a fierce adherent of New Atheism far less than the phrase "being an atheist" would normally suggest.

you are a strong atheist. you believe all atheists are as strong as you are.
search about weak atheism. i'm one of those.
Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" assert that "At least one deity exists necessarily" is false, without asserting the above.
write it in a mathematical statement kinda: Weak atheism = belief that the number of deities is a natural number ({0, 1, 2, ...}).

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, I don't believe anyone is quite like me. And not in a superior way. Just a run-of-the-mill everyone has a story kind of way