Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Benguin]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I prefer to think of Jesus as a great (but purely human) moral philosopher and popular leader - so popular, it seems, that the authorities saw him as such a threat that they put him to death.

His followers were then highly effective in promoting his ideas over the decades and centuries after his death, mainly through the merit of those ideas but partly by talking up his divine status, at a time when deities were almost universally believed in.

 

I presume you'll know more than me about when different parts of the New Testament were written, but the 4 Gospels were written later, weren't they?

Between 30 and 70 years later, and at least some by people who never met or heard Jesus, I think?

Even 45 AD (if that is the earliest part of the New Testament?) would have been about 12 years after the crucifixion, wouldn't it?

 

Your first argument ("nutter, liar or Son of God") is discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma

 

"Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument traditionally used to argue for the divinity of Jesus by arguing that the only alternatives were that he was evil or deluded. One version was popularised by C. S. Lewis. It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma — a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept"

 

"A frequent criticism is that Lewis's trilemma depends on the veracity of the scriptural accounts of Jesus's statements and actions. This omits the possibility of those accounts instead being an invention of the early Christian movement, seeking to glorify Jesus. The trilemma rests on the interpretation of New Testament authors' depiction of Jesus: a widespread objection is that the statements by Jesus recorded in the Gospels are being misinterpreted, and do not constitute claims to divinity".

 

"Another criticism raised is that Lewis is creating a false trilemma by insisting that only three options are possible. Philosopher John Beversluis comments that "he deprives his readers of numerous alternate interpretations of Jesus that carry with them no such odious implications". For example, it is logically possible for Jesus's claims (if any) as to his divinity to have been merely good-faith mistakes resulting from his sincere efforts at reasoning, as well as for Jesus to have been deluded with respect to the specific issue of his own divinity while his faculties of moral reasoning remained intact. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig cites this as a reason why he believes it is an unsound argument for Christianity".

I do agree with Craig's sentiments on this and don't generally use this as a form of apologetics. It is incredibly useful for those who make claims about who Jesus was though as many people have a misguided view or are simply unaware of the facts surrounding the historical jesus. 

 

I personally find a lot of these critisims to be flawed though. Most of the apostles dies horrible deaths for their beliefs, so whilst they may have been deluded it is almost certain they believed them. 

 

I don't see a problem with when things were written. Acts deals with this well. The early Church was about spreading the gospel, preaching in the streets. Paul's letters were to early churches who has received the gospel but were still in sin. Time had to have elapsed for these things to happen. That said the time elapsed is not.cinsidered long enough to become legendary. 

 

Ad 45 is the universely agrred date but there is strong. Indications it is dated to the thirties. 

[Benguin]

Also FYI, I'm heading out with my Girlfriend now so will struggle give any insightful responses. Will get back to you tomorrow. 

 

In the meantime if anyone wants to try online church, I encourage you to come along tomorrow.

 https://live.alivechurch.org.uk/

[worthosoriginals]

You can always tell a Christian, but you can't tell a Christian anything. 

[Suzie the Fox]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Also FYI, I'm heading out with my Girlfriend now so will struggle give any insightful responses. Will get back to you tomorrow. 

 

In the meantime if anyone wants to try online church, I encourage you to come along tomorrow.

 https://live.alivechurch.org.uk/

Hope you have a pleasant evening and thanks for the discussion. Very insightful. 

[worthosoriginals]

40 minutes ago, Rain King said:

When Noah was 500 years old, he had three sons. Genesis 5:32

 

Hosea 13:16 - "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

 

 

Might be worth digging out a few other crackers, like how to treat your slaves in the exodus section nonsense. 

It's a book packed with mentions of a cruel god, written by some blokes in a desert 2 or 3 thousand years ago. 

Humans have created about 3000 gods in their own minds, yet each believer denies the existance of all the other gods so even Christians are a form of atheist. This often angry Christian God, that kept popping up in those days has been very silent since, seeming to be apathetic even incompetent. 

There's no evidence for biblical fairy stories, science, evolution and nature look a better prospect. 

Science is open to debate and new evidence etc, religious people arnt. 

[The Bear]

3 hours ago, Benguin said:

Jesus was either a nutter, a liar or the Son of God.

Probably a mix of the first two. In my eyes, if he even existed which isn't in any way evident, he was probably a clever con man and founder of a successful cult. Successfully convincing people of ridiculous theories without evidence is still in force today, just look at Scientology. Or politics! 

 

And you keep saying words like evidence and fact in regards to Jesus and what he supposedly did. It's all human written anecdotes. And the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. 

 

Every religion around the world has similar stories and themes about their creators, flood myths, resurrection, etc. I put it down to human nature and the need to feel as though something else has absolute power over our lives giving them some kind of meaning. 

Edited 18 July 2020 by The Bear

[Dr The Singh]

Teilemens is fat

[Dr The Singh]

3 hours ago, Benguin said:

The evidence that Jesus claimed to be the son of God is overwhelming hence not leaving any other options than the ones I said. With that claim he can only be telling the truth, lying or be delusional I don't see how anything else is logical. 

 

There is of course a lot of debate about what should or shouldn't be in the bible but the current composition is widely considered by scholars to be the correct composition as lots of the other documents you are referring too are historically falseifiable. 

 

Scholars use textual critisism to determine this for example if we had the following copies with mistakes

 

1. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son. 

2.For God so adored the world that he gave his one and only son. 

3. For God so loved the earth that he gave his one and only son. 

4. For God so loved the world that he gave them candy.

 

We can see which copies are accidental mistakes and which one is blatantly wrong. . 

 

 

 

I'm very unknowledgeable on the Bible.  Does Christ acknowledge stuff in the old testament.

[The Bear]

3 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Teilemens is fat

I always think he looks like a pre pubescent kid with puppy fat round his face. 

[Dr The Singh]

4 hours ago, Benguin said:

I believe in Microevoltion, that changes occur within a species. I am not convinced about macroevoltion but what I'm saying is that I can't see any reason why macroevoltion being proved true would alter my worldview.

 

Whether God litterally created Adam from dust on the ground or whether dust refers to a set of biological changes that resulted In Adam is neither here nor there for me personally. That said, I do see the bible as absolute authority though. 

The amount of in breeding and disease and genetic mutation that would happen from just 2 people start the human race

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, The Bear said:

I always think he looks like a pre pubescent kid with puppy fat round his face. 

With a body of a big boy with abs

[worthosoriginals]

36 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I'm very unknowledgeable on the Bible.  Does Christ acknowledge stuff in the old testament.

It's all very Hans Christian Anderson for the gullible, all religions, until I see proof, not heresay, Chinese whispers from books written in desert regions a couple of thousand years ago. 

I believe more in santa cos I seen him in the co op

[Izzy]

16 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

It's all very Hans Christian Anderson for the gullible, all religions, until I see proof, not heresay, Chinese whispers from books written in desert regions a couple of thousand years ago. 

I believe more in santa cos I seen him in the co op

As recent research shows, being gullible is tethered to a whole host of good things—including above-average intelligence.  

"I suspect that one reason why psychologists and other social scientists have avoided studying gullibility is because it is affected by so many factors, and is so context-dependent that it is impossible to predict whether and under what circumstances a person will behave gullibly," writes Stephen Greenspan, author of Annals of Gullibility.

 

But gullibility is closely tied to trust, and that is easy to study. "Intelligent people are more likely to trust others, while those who score lower on measures of intelligence are less likely to do so," reports a just-released study from Oxford University. "A good deal of research has shown that these counter-factual insights can kick-start new behaviors, new self-exploration and, ultimately, self-improvement," he told The New York Times.

 

That's real, people. It's science. Being gullible suggests you're more intelligent, and it means you're more open to self-improvement. 

 

Edited 18 July 2020 by Izzy

[worthosoriginals]

Write war and peace all you like Izzy, gullible means prone to believe easily. Susceptible. 

If you want to believe in fairies at the. Bottom of the garden and unicorns, etc, that's up to you, il stick with science, and fact and what is proven in recent years rather than heresay from a few desert dwellers a few thousand years ago. 

Thanks

 

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

Write war and peace all you like Izzy, gullible means prone to believe easily. Susceptible. 

If you want to believe in fairies at the. Bottom of the garden and unicorns, etc, that's up to you, il stick with science, and fact and what is proven in recent years rather than heresay from a few desert dwellers a few thousand years ago. 

Thanks

 

No worries mate, each to their own 

[Facecloth]

@Izzy I think there's different kinds of gullibleness. Those that if someone told them something believable but that wasn't true, they'd believe it, because they are trusting and they have no reason to not believe it. And there's those that will believe absolutely everything they hear and read, not matter how nonsensical it is.

 

The first group might be the type your post is talking about, but the second group certainly aren't intelligent.

[The Bear]

44 minutes ago, Izzy said:

As recent research shows, being gullible is tethered to a whole host of good things—including above-average intelligence.  

"I suspect that one reason why psychologists and other social scientists have avoided studying gullibility is because it is affected by so many factors, and is so context-dependent that it is impossible to predict whether and under what circumstances a person will behave gullibly," writes Stephen Greenspan, author of Annals of Gullibility.

 

But gullibility is closely tied to trust, and that is easy to study. "Intelligent people are more likely to trust others, while those who score lower on measures of intelligence are less likely to do so," reports a just-released study from Oxford University. "A good deal of research has shown that these counter-factual insights can kick-start new behaviors, new self-exploration and, ultimately, self-improvement," he told The New York Times.

 

That's real, people. It's science. Being gullible suggests you're more intelligent, and it means you're more open to self-improvement. 

 

Good job you're not a scientist as it doesn't say that at all. It says intelligent people are more trusting of others, not that they're gullible. Which makes sense when you look at something like climate change and those who don't trust the scientists. 

 

It also says that trust is only one aspect of gullibility, and that its hard to define it as there are so many aspects that make it up. 

Edited 18 July 2020 by The Bear

[the fox]

5 hours ago, The Bear said:

Probably a mix of the first two. In my eyes, if he even existed which isn't in any way evident, he was probably a clever con man and founder of a successful cult. Successfully convincing people of ridiculous theories without evidence is still in force today, just look at Scientology. Or politics! 

 

And you keep saying words like evidence and fact in regards to Jesus and what he supposedly did. It's all human written anecdotes. And the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. 

 

Every religion around the world has similar stories and themes about their creators, flood myths, resurrection, etc. I put it down to human nature and the need to feel as though something else has absolute power over our lives giving them some kind of meaning. 

 

 

He was neither known as a liar nor was he crazy (by the testimony of the people who knew him). He was an honest, sinless man who did his best to help the people. This baseless slander is unjust and to throw such a claim, you need evidence. Just because you didn't like the massage, it doesn't give you the right to insult him. It is not his fault that people corrupted the scripture. I believe that the verses talking about killing the innocent are absolute corruption and he's (and every prophet for that matter) are free of such nonsense.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Edited 19 July 2020 by the fox

[the fox]

..

Edited 19 July 2020 by the fox

[UpTheLeagueFox]

There's some good, moral stuff in the bible.

There's also a lot of bizarre, hard-to-believe stuff.

If it makes people happy believing in "their" God then crack on.

I'm agnostic, sitting on the fence.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

As recent research shows, being gullible is tethered to a whole host of good things—including above-average intelligence.  

"I suspect that one reason why psychologists and other social scientists have avoided studying gullibility is because it is affected by so many factors, and is so context-dependent that it is impossible to predict whether and under what circumstances a person will behave gullibly," writes Stephen Greenspan, author of Annals of Gullibility.

 

But gullibility is closely tied to trust, and that is easy to study. "Intelligent people are more likely to trust others, while those who score lower on measures of intelligence are less likely to do so," reports a just-released study from Oxford University. "A good deal of research has shown that these counter-factual insights can kick-start new behaviors, new self-exploration and, ultimately, self-improvement," he told The New York Times.

 

That's real, people. It's science. Being gullible suggests you're more intelligent, and it means you're more open to self-improvement. 

 

If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

@Izzy I think there's different kinds of gullibleness. Those that if someone told them something believable but that wasn't true, they'd believe it, because they are trusting and they have no reason to not believe it. And there's those that will believe absolutely everything they hear and read, not matter how nonsensical it is.

 

The first group might be the type your post is talking about, but the second group certainly aren't intelligent.

I’m in the second group and I think we are much smarterer than you wallys think.

[Izzy]

Just now, Strokes said:

If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

Hey, I just ripped it off some article on the internet. I'm O.K. being called gullible for believing. I've been called a lot worse on here  

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Izzy said:

Hey, I just ripped it off some article on the internet. I'm O.K. being called gullible for believing. I've been called a lot worse on here  

Not gonna lie, I didn’t even read the post, I just went for the cheap gag. 

[the fox]

3 hours ago, worthosoriginals said:

It's all very Hans Christian Anderson for the gullible, all religions, until I see proof, not heresay, Chinese whispers from books written in desert regions a couple of thousand years ago. 

I believe more in santa cos I seen him in the co op

Out of curiosity, What kind of proof would you consider sufficient?

Edited 18 July 2020 by the fox