h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"By which I mean someone who follows the teachings of Jesus."

First observation: never met one. Never, in my life, have I met or even heard of someone who actually follows the teachings of Jesus, properly. Most of the people who come close, oddly enough, turn out to be Buddhists.

Now here's another very serious question: If that's ALL a Christian is, someone who follows the teachings of Jesus - why the irrational superstition? Can't you love your neighbour and do all the other stuff without actually believing what is clearly a load of allegorical fairy stories designed to appeal to gullible sheep-herders and fishermen of 2000 years ago? Does living the Christian ideal of a good life REQUIRE you to check your brain in at the door?

SoRB

Do you remember back around posts 70-72?


I tried to inform you that the consensus among serious historians is that Jesus lived. Your response was:

"Really? This is not the information I have."

I don't know what your information was, but you claimed

"there is not a consensus among objective, non-religious historians that Jesus even existed in the first place."

I told you to check your facts before talking total clap-trap. You came back admitting:

"the consensus among historians does indeed seem to be that Jesus was an historical figure."

And the relevance of that is...?

I asked for your definition of a Christian. Your reply: a follower of Christ. A follower of the teachings of Jesus.

The historicity or otherwise of Jesus is irrelevant. When you say that Jesus was "a historical figure", ALL that implies is that a man - a HUMAN - named Jesus or something similar lived at or around the time and said or did some of the things he was reported to have said or done.

I have no problem, particularly, believing that a man named Jesus lived. I have no problem believing he claimed to be the son of God. Any moron in a shellsuit can do that on the Wogan show. I have no problem believing the Romans crucified him. And I have no problem believing he had certain teachings, among which were "love your neighbour", for instance.

So, to repeat the question: is it not possible to follow his teachings, loving your neighbour etc., without believing any of the fairy story nonsense cribbed from earlier myths (virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc., in similar manner to Osiris, for instance)?

Does being a Christian absolutely require blind, irrational superstition, or couldn't you just live a good life?

SoRB

I'm not sure he was the one claiming to be son of God. Actually I think he was just a preacher who went around teaching people basically to be kind and loving, and then others built him up a reputation of making miracles and being son of God and whatnot. Some sort of Brian effect, I would say.

This is the sort of things that people (well, some people anyway ) do when they are really, really impressed by a guy. Are there not still claims that Elvis Presley was abducted by aliens?

The relevance of this is that you should learn a bit of humility instead of talking cobblers and being offensive.

You hadn't a clue about the historicity or otherwise of Jesus but chose to come out with totally false statements such as

"there is not a consensus among objective, non-religious historians that Jesus even existed in the first place."

This is unintelligent and annoying.

We established a LONG way back down this thread that I was uninformed about something.

However, we've moved on, and the fact or otherwise of Jesus's existence as a historical figure is, as I have repeated at tedious length, irrelevant to what we're discussing now.

We can, if you'd like, go back and rehash that discussion again rather than move on. Here we go...

Me: Jesus the man probably didn't exist.
WG: Historians generally agree he did.
Me: Crikey, I've looked into it, and you're right. General consensus appears to be the man did exist.
WG: Told you so.
Me: OK, next question. Why do you need to believe in the fairy story stuff.
WG: I said, I TOLD YOU SO.
Me: Yeah, you were right, I was wrong. Why do you need to believe in the miracles and virgin birth and resurrection and stuff.
WG: Jesus DID exist! See! I was right.
Me: Yes, we did that bit. The man existed. Why do you cling to superstitions and myths surrounding him?
WG: You spouted claptrap about Jesus not really existing! You're a bad man!
Me: Christians are morons.

etc. etc. ad nauseam.

OR....

Can we please move on from whether or not a human named Jesus existed and get to the question about believing myths surrounding him. The analogy with Elvis still being alive is a very good one.

SoRB

You write:
<>

I would say what you write here is true.

Now the central key thing that he is famous for doing is rising from the dead. It's not a case of much later a sort of myth arose and developed, or grew up when people had cobbled it together as an idea.

It was there from the very beginning, as a complete, coherent theology.

The historicity or otherwise of Jesus is not irrelevant. If he never lived in the first place it certainly would be ridiculous to believe he rose from the dead. As it is, it is likely that we would never have heard of him if he hadn't been raised from the dead.

For a start, the disciples would hardly have been inspired to go around proclaiming his resurrection knowing that it was a lie for which they would ulimately be tortured and killed.

Furthermore, if hadn't been raised from the dead, the Jewish leaders such as Caiaphas who wanted to quash this new faith could simply have said, "Look, here's his body. See, he's dead."

After Jesus's crucifixion, Peter was brought before Caiaphas and the Jewish council and commanded not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. He and John replied, "We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard", which is as you'd expect if such an extraordinary thing had happened. Why should they not speak about it?

Background about Caiaphas http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caiaphas/caiaphas.htm

<>

No, it's not blind, irrational superstition. There's a good historical basis to it.

"Now the central key thing that he is famous for doing is rising from the dead."

Well, yes, but the problem you have with that is that that is NOT recognised as a historical fact. The only thing recognised as a historical fact is his EXISTENCE.

I don't know why I bother, I really don't.

His existence passes the test of reasonableness. Is it reasonable to suppose a man named Jesus existed? Well, yes, obviously. Is there evidence that he did? Yes, and it seems it's good enough to convince the majority of historians. I didn't think it was, but I was wrong. Whatever.

Is it reasonable to suppose that a man literally died then came back to life? No. This goes against all reason and experience. It is an event which simply does not happen in the experience of anyone alive today. What is the REASONABLE explanation for a story of resurrection?

"It's not a case of much later a sort of myth arose and developed, or grew up when people had cobbled it together as an idea."

No, you're right. It's a case of a pre-existing myth applied to many earlier man/god figures being applied to a new subject. Jesus was not first offspring of god and woman to rise from the dead, nor was he the last. He was merely the most famous. But *it's a story*.

"It was there from the very beginning, as a complete, coherent theology."

I don't think I even need to bother challenging that. It's not a complete, coherent theology NOW, after two millenia of development. It is riven by sectarian divides all over the world. No two interpretations seem to agree even between members of the same denomination. Silly assertion, but let's ignore it.

"The historicity or otherwise of Jesus is not irrelevant. If he never lived in the first place it certainly would be ridiculous to believe he rose from the dead. As it is, it is likely that we would never have heard of him if he hadn't been raised from the dead. "

That is by no means true. Anyone with a smattering of education has heard of Homer, he of the Odyssey and the Iliad. And yet, modern scholarship suggests that there was no such person. No single author of the Iliad or Odyssey is likely to have existed.

It is more likely that we have heard of him because his followers were successful in spreading the STORY of his resurrection. It's a persuasive one, as it promises eternal life. People, especially vulnerable people or gullible people, would WANT to believe it. It makes perfect sense that a man could simply die, then become more famous after his death. I direct your attention to James Dean, Elvis Presley and Kurt Cobain. Dean especially has a degree of fame far more than one might expect of an actor with only three films to his name.

"For a start, the disciples would hardly have been inspired to go around proclaiming his resurrection knowing that it was a lie for which they would ulimately be tortured and killed."

We've already discussed why that in fact makes perfect sense. I've done my research on the historicity of Jesus. Have you done yours on cognitive dissonance?

"Furthermore, if hadn't been raised from the dead, the Jewish leaders such as Caiaphas who wanted to quash this new faith could simply have said, "Look, here's his body. See, he's dead."

You presuppose:
1. they had the body
2. it was impossible for the disciples to steal it.

You admit the possibility of a miraculous resurrection, yet discount the possibility of a simple grave-robbery.

"After Jesus's crucifixion, Peter was brought before Caiaphas and the Jewish council and commanded not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. He and John replied, "We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard", which is as you'd expect if such an extraordinary thing had happened. Why should they not speak about it?"

Interesting phrasing.

It's also as you'd expect, as I've already said, if they'd had the basis of their belief system destroyed by unexpected information. Specifically, if they truly believed Jesus to be the son of god, and they then saw him, against their expectation, killed, anyone with a knowledge of human psychology would actively expect them to reject this information and rationalise it, even to the detriment of their own health. This sort of thing has been observed to happen among members of religious cults over and over again. And yet you do not even ACKNOWLEDGE, much less accept, this more realistic explanation.

So... I shall put it to you bluntly - do you accept that the disciples' actions in preaching the resurrection could be explained by cognitive dissonance?

"it's not blind, irrational superstition. There's a good historical basis to it."



Why do I bother?

There is NOT a good historical basis to it. Jesus lived. Jesus died. On this, history apparently agrees. I've even acknowledged this to be the case, having previously been misinformed. However, there is NOT a "good historical basis" to the myth of the resurrection. It's just a story told about a man who lived, just as there are stories of Elvis flipping burgers in Swindon. These stories cluster around famous people - you know this to be true.

It does seem, however, from your answers here, that Christianity absolutely does require blind irrational superstition. Or at the very least, that's what it gets from you. You have rejected reason, logic and evidence in favour of believing a nice story because it makes you feel better about yourself and the world. And good for you, and if it stops you stealing my watch, I'm all for it.

I just don't understand why Christianity - the whole being nice to other people stuff - apparently requires one to check one's brain in at the door. I don't get the reason why one can't take the lessons Jesus taught and follow them, without retaining that childish belief in the big daddy figure in the sky.

As Douglas Adams once said: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without believing there are fairies at the bottom?"

SoRB

"As it is, it is likely that we would never have heard of him if he hadn't been raised from the dead."

Why not? Many people haven't been raised from the dead and we still heard of them: most biblical figures for one thing, or also Confucius (whose existence is open to debate, and whose teachings are also being followed).

"For a start, the disciples would hardly have been inspired to go around proclaiming his resurrection knowing that it was a lie for which they would ultimately be tortured and killed."

Well, they could have believed in it in good faith (pun not intended). Someone might have lied to them, or they might believe it just because Jesus was impressive. Or someone said that Jesus was still alive meaning that his teachings were immortal, and they misinterpreted the statement.

Also, remember the gospels were written by people (and quite long after Jesus's death if I remember well), so they might report things inaccurately for a number of reasons, deliberate or not.

"Furthermore, if hadn't been raised from the dead, the Jewish leaders such as Caiaphas who wanted to quash this new faith could simply have said, "Look, here's his body. See, he's dead.""

I don't think hardcore believers would be convinced by any amount of evidence. Not just a dead body anyway.

Simulpost, sort of

Oooh, 111 new posts, had to skim them, but I get the gist. It is a good example of why you cannot reconcile science and religion. Have a scientific argument with a religious person, and eventually - inevitably - the logic gets twisted or the science gets distorted somewhere to make the beliefs fit.

<>

On what basis? What possible train of bizarre logic leads you to this conclusion? It's just a fudge to get round the paradox of God's own creation.

You *solve* the mystery of life by invoking a second-order intelligence, for which there is no evidence. You *solve* the mystery of its existence by pretending it has "always been there" - a hypothesis for which there is not only no evidence, but no possible scientific mechanism.

Logically, would it not be much more likely for the first-order life to have "always been there", instead of unnecessarily abstracting to a second level?

Ahh, but hang on, we have evidence to suggest that first-order life evolved, so if we extrapolate backwards...

Invoke second-order life; no evidence to dispute; case closed. There might be a complex hierarchy of dieties - maybe God's God's God is the one that has "always been there". But the theists will always stop thinking where the evidence runs out.

A logical analogy - a Star Trek universe in which we routinely travel to other worlds is a fanciful and endearing image. It seems highly unlikely that we would be confined to our own little planet forever. It is such an attractive prospect that many believe that technology must inevitably progress to the point where rapid interstellar travel is possible. So, logically, we must someday work out how to break the light barrier. Therefore it must be possible to travel faster than light. You have just disproved Einstein.

It is logic captain, but not as we know it.

"the theists will always stop thinking where the evidence runs out. "

The available evidence suggests their thinking stops a good way short of that point...

SoRB

Hey Dave Blackeye, in your post we get:
"<>On what basis? What possible train of bizarre logic leads you to this conclusion? "

To answer the logic, see post 199 where I explained:

When we speak of God, we mean the creator of everything. Time is a dimension, and dimensions are part of the created universe. The created universe is subject to the creator, so time as part of the created universe is subject to God.

At the risk of tedium... define "universe".

SoRB

I'm aware that you are making another point questioning the need to put God outside of time. I can't address that right as I don't have time! Just want to say I do realise you are making this point.

I am subject to time, you see!

<>


At the risk of answering a question with a question, when would you say time began?

Define "universe".

SoRB

I agree with WG saying SoRB is a predicuded biggot. In fact when he finally told us how he felt I've decided that I'm not going to bother with him. I could define Universe, I could say when I belive time began but it's not worth talking to him.
In answer to WG's questions we belive from measuring the speed to the galaxies moving away that the Universe began 12.5 billion years ago give of take 2.5 billion years either way. That means at the upmost extreme our Sun could be 1/3 the age of the Universe and at the lowerst point could be 1/2 the age of the Universe.
My source tells me life began on Earth 4 billion years ago and human 350 million years ago.

I'm not going to say anything more about religion. I'm Christian and if anyone want to slag me off go ahead. I'm going to stick purely to science in this forum from now on and hope that eveyone else can take the hint and take religious arguments which are clearly not going to go anywhere, somewhere where they belong.

How old is the Universe?
From what we can determine from measuring how fast the galaxies are moving away from each other we can make about that the universe it about 12.5 aeons old + 2.5 aeons (1 aeon is one giga-year or 1,000 million years). This can be done by looking at a galaxy. Measuring how fast this is moving away we can work back to when both galaxies are at the same point in space and this was around 12,500 million years ago + 2,500 million years.