Why I am not a Christian

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Hell, most Christians can't even agree that other people who believe Jesus was divine are Christians. You can ask BK what he thinks of the Mormons being Christian. Or ask most Evangelicals what they think of Catholics. Or a lot of Catholics what they think of Protestants. Or what the Jehovah's Witnesses think of anybody else.

I agree completely.
By theory, i'm only suggesting 'unproven'
BTW, who is this oft referenced Great Theist Evil called BK?

[Whaleboy]

EDIT: Better pm'd to you methinks

[Ned]

BTW, the Old Testament is filled with phrases such as sons of Man and sons of God. When Jesus used these terms, I think he may have been using them in the same sense as they were used in the Old Testament. Wouldn't this be logical?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bayraven
By theory, i'm only suggesting 'unproven'

And the suggestion is mistaken, as that site I linked to shows. Better yet, www.talkorigins.org is the best site you can find.

Evolutionary theory has been proven as fact, as much (if not more) than Heliocentricity, Gravity, Plate Tectonics, and just about any scientific theory. "Theory" does not mean unproven at all.

Now, many people disagree with evolution, but it's on purely faith-based reasons, not scientific ones (there has yet to be a scientific theory of Creationism, after all). That they can't accept reality due to their religious faith is a shame, indeed, and I would encourage them to heed the admonitions of Aquinas wrt to the potential of conflict between science and religion.

[Ned]

BTW, the Old Testament is filled with phrases such as sons of Man and sons of God. When Jesus used these terms, I think he may have been using them in the same sense as they were used in the Old Testament. Wouldn't this be logical?

[Berzerker]

Heliocentricity is also just a "theory," and one that the Bible contradicts as well, if taken literally...

One of the psalms says the earth is "yoked" to the sun. Another says God rest the earth on nothing...

[Ben Kenobi]

Agreed, though imo people would be better off following Socrates. Of the great men, he is surely greater

True. That would make sense if Christ claimed to be a man.

Of course, how I look at such a work in the light of popular opinion depends on its artistic merits, hence I’m far more inclined to read broadsheets than tabloids or anything that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

For we all know that the common man is much less refined than those who partake of the literary and philosophical societies scattered around the globe.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

I don't know how much of the NT is factual (probably not much wrt the life of Jesus, since we can see a clear progression in the gospels of the earliest account being the least detailed and then the latest account being greatly embellished, in addition to outright contradictions).

Wouldn't that be natural, given the nature of the narrative? The people who testify of Christ, testify of his life. Wouldn't they have more to say about the parts of his life they were there for?

As for building up towards a climax, that makes sense, if you realise that of his time here on earth, the most important part was his resurrection. To say otherwise would be to distort the Gospels, but to acknowledge this, in no way hinders their authenticity.

But John is quite far out there, and it is easily the most disputed of the gospels in terms of its authorship and authenticity.

He is writing in a different genre. Look at the letters of Paul, are they not constructed in a different format than the Gospels, or say, Revelations?

With respect to his authorship, his Gospel, is no more contested than any of the others. It is one thing to challenge his account, quite another to challenge the evidence that he wrote the account that bears his name.

Granted, John's Gospel is much different from the others, in how he presents the life of Christ, as one would expect from someone writing some time after the events occurred, and having more time to reflect on what has happened. He demonstrates a much greater concept of Christ, or Christology, in his understanding of both the nature of Christ, and the nature of his mission here on Earth.

This, in turn, gives him insights unavailable to the earlier of the Gospels. Although these insights may make his account less historical than the others, in no way renders the entire Gospel ahistorical.

which means we have to take them with heaping grains of salt. From what I can see, the agenda transformed from preaching the philosophical message of a religious reformer to proclaiming is divinity and forming a new religion entirely.

I would suggest that folks actually read the accounts that they contest, and challenge the specific historical claims made by John.

Should we not consider the claims made by ardent atheists opposed to Christianity with the same heaping grains of salt? Or should we treat them with their guise of authenticity?

He does not base his life on Christ solely on symbols, but rather, uses the symbols to illustrate his insights into the nature of Christ.

But the overall point I'm getting at is that it is entirely possible, IMO, for someone to look at the NT and, taking most of what it says as true, still believe that Jesus was just a good man who preached (mostly) good things, and that it makes sense for people to live by those tenets.

It would, but Christ never claimed to be a great man. He claimed to be God himself. To say otherwise, is to accept him in some things, while rejecting him in others.

Christ does not allow us this option. There are two responses to his claim. You can accept him for who he is, or you can stone him as the Jews did, for blasphemy.

You can ask BK what he thinks of the Mormons being Christian.

Sure, why don't you, rather than putting words into my mouth.

I do not assert that the Mormons are not Christians despite the fact they recognise the divinity of Christ, I challenge whether they in fact, recognise the divinity of Christ.

Surely this claim is much more different, then the one you would have me make.

As for the Protestants and Catholics, you can find them in disagreement in many things, but if both sides accept the divinity of Christ, you will not see them denying that the other is a Christian. Granted, this has not always been so, but times change.

As for the Witnesses, they deny that people can worship Christ. Why would you ask them to affirm the divinity of Christ?

Are you suggesting those folks are ignorant of what the word "theory" actually means in the context of science (i.e., it's not a "guess").

True, but theories are not facts, and are quite different from empirical evidence.

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW, who is this oft referenced Great Theist Evil called BK?

It is I.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now, many people disagree with evolution, but it's on purely faith-based reasons, not scientific ones (there has yet to be a scientific theory of Creationism, after all). That they can't accept reality due to their religious faith is a shame, indeed, and I would encourage them to heed the admonitions of Aquinas wrt to the potential of conflict between science and religion.

I don't attribute your lack of faith, due to the chains of atheism that bind you to the earth. Why do you assume that those who reject evolution do so on purely unscientific grounds?

Evolution has not always been the same as it was, and to say that the predicative outcomes of evolutionary theories come close to matching those of Chemistry or Physics, is a statement I find suprising.

One of the grounds in assessing the merits of a theory, is whether or not said theory makes predictions that can be tested. What predictions does evolutionary theory make about the progression of man beyond our current state that can, in any way, be proven?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Wouldn't that be natural, given the nature of the narrative?

I would think it be more natural that accounts written in the time period by those who were supposedly witnesses would have greater detail accuracy than those written 80-odd years later by someone who wasn't even born at the time.

As for building up towards a climax, that makes sense, if you realise that of his time here on earth, the most important part was his resurrection. To say otherwise would be to distort the Gospels, but to acknowledge this, in no way hinders their authenticity.

The dispute with the authenticity of John goes well beyond that--I was just mentioning one aspect.

With respect to his authorship, his Gospel, is no more contested than any of the others. It is one thing to challenge his account, quite another to challenge the evidence that he wrote the account that bears his name.

We've been over this before. The Gospel didn't bear his name originally. The earliest known manuscripts have no attribution on them at all.

None of the earliest manuscripts of any of the gospels have attributions, and we have no way of knowing who really wrote them without using maddeningly circular logic.

He demonstrates a much greater concept of Christ, or Christology, in his understanding of both the nature of Christ, and the nature of his mission here on Earth.

Or, perhaps, he demonstrates a much greater gift for embellishment and the hindsight of several decades of refinement of Christian philosophy towards these ends.

This, in turn, gives him insights unavailable to the earlier of the Gospels. Although these insights may make his account less historical than the others, in no way renders the entire Gospel ahistorical.

No one said it was completely ahistorical, though.

Should we not consider the claims made by ardent atheists opposed to Christianity with the same heaping grains of salt? Or should we treat them with their guise of authenticity?

Which ardents atheists?

He does not base his life on Christ solely on symbols, but rather, uses the symbols to illustrate his insights into the nature of Christ.

Which are which? How do you tell the difference, other than through personal bias?

It would, but Christ never claimed to be a great man.

Great men seldom do.

He claimed to be God himself. To say otherwise, is to accept him in some things, while rejecting him in others.

Erm, that's what the entire dispute is about...

I do not assert that the Mormons are not Christians despite the fact they recognise the divinity of Christ, I challenge whether they in fact, recognise the divinity of Christ.

Semantics. Mormons do believe in his divinity, you just don't like their take on it and ergo believe they aren't Christians.

As for the Protestants and Catholics, you can find them in disagreement in many things, but if both sides accept the divinity of Christ, you will not see them denying that the other is a Christian. Granted, this has not always been so, but times change.

A large swath of Southern Baptists will tell you, in this day and age, that Catholics are not true Christians, but rather are Mary-worshipping cultists.

Likewise, plenty of Catholics will tell you Protestants aren't true Christians. Mel Gibson recently said in an interview that he believed his wife--the woman he loved and who bore his children--would "likely" go to hell, not because she wasn't a Christian, but because she wasn't the right kind of Christian (Catholic).

As for the Witnesses, they deny that people can worship Christ. Why would you ask them to affirm the divinity of Christ?

I was pointing out that each sect (often) believes the others are wrong and only they embody what is a true Christian (despite not believing he is God). That they don't see the others as embodying "true" Christians.

True, but theories are not facts, and are quite different from empirical evidence.

You apparently didn't read anything on the linked sites.

Evolution is both theory AND fact. Nothing about the word "theory" in science denotes that it isn't a fact.

[Whaleboy]

True. That would make sense if Christ claimed to be a man.

Man, man-God, begat by God.... Socrates was a pretty cool guy though.... I feel like a celebrity deathmatch!

Good to have you on board!! (now don't **** up my baby! jk)

Should we not consider the claims made by ardent atheists opposed to Christianity with the same heaping grains of salt? Or should we treat them with their guise of authenticity?

My inclination would be to examine each claim on its merits and not automatically assign more, less or the same grains of salt as it were to something on the basis of theism or atheism. Again this boils down to distinctions between the empirical and faith.

It would, but Christ never claimed to be a great man. He claimed to be God himself. To say otherwise, is to accept him in some things, while rejecting him in others.

Would this not render Christianity a bitheistic religion? If one considers Christ to be a God, where does this leave the God of the old testament?

One of the few passages I am aware of in this regard is John 3:16, where God giving his son reminds me very much of the early story of Lucipher (in relation to God that is). Thinking of Job 1:7 for the most part there. Of course this is largely a pointless discussion with regards to the topic of the thread imo.

Christ does not allow us this option. There are two responses to his claim. You can accept him for who he is, or you can stone him as the Jews did, for blasphemy.

This, as (I think) Boris said is the problem. Now I am not a biblical scholar and I haven't studied any aspect of the bible, other than Leviticus for the purposes of refuting 18:22 and 20:13, but it seems to me a more admirable and humble trait to not present people with such a binary choice, but to allow ambivalence (which of course is a precursor to inquiry in the Platonic sense, which perhaps explains the NT's lack of praise in favour of intelligence). Furthermore, Socrates seems to me, particularly with his death, an actor to history, he knows that he and his views will be interpreted and subjectively evaluated, as is the case almost immediately with Plato, hence we no nothing of Socrates views other than through such an interpretation (sound familiar?). Jesus's choice as you put it seems to induce a dogmatism, unquestioning obediance through fear seems a reasonable conclusion of that.

I do not assert that the Mormons are not Christians despite the fact they recognise the divinity of Christ, I challenge whether they in fact, recognise the divinity of Christ.

If the only difference is that of post-Messianic prophets, then surely the question of the Messiah and belief accordingly is settled, and thus by any reasonable definition they are Christians. I'm not sure whether the Book of Mormon is considered apocryphal, but would acceptance of an apocryphal text render one non-Christian, if so, upon what basis?

True, but theories are not facts, and are quite different from empirical evidence.

Theories are facts, but the distinction we make here is that facts are not canonical in that they imply faith, for obviously they do not. Science accepts a theory provisionally. So when one says that evolution et al is a fact, that is not a misnomer and it does not devalue the statement by saying that regardless of the strength of evidence (which I dont believe we are calling into question here), it is a provisional fact. That imo strengthens the scientific cause because by removing the involvement of faith, you are turning science into a matter of reason.

Why do you assume that those who reject evolution do so on purely unscientific grounds?

Because the scientific argument is immeasureably stronger, though I am more than willing to entertain dissention from that view if you are willing to elaborate upon it.

Evolution has not always been the same as it was, and to say that the predicative outcomes of evolutionary theories come close to matching those of Chemistry or Physics, is a statement I find suprising.

Whether or not you mean macroevolution, clarification is needed here.

One of the grounds in assessing the merits of a theory, is whether or not said theory makes predictions that can be tested. What predictions does evolutionary theory make about the progression of man beyond our current state that can, in any way, be proven?

That's a woefully flawed test. A scientific test requires an independent and controlled environment, a good example would be the mosquitos of the London Underground, having evolved in the last century and a bit into a completely new species. To measure it against humanity is troublesome because firstly of our subjectivity and interference of human nature, and secondly because of how widespread we are. We know full well that we cannot observe an experiment without changing it, again basic uncertainty principle; and the interplay between our environment, our nature and our genetic structure adds numerous complexities that makes a linear genetic study impossible. If you want evolution to make predictions in that regard, you need to turn the progress of human society into a controlled, predictable factor that will influence, and I defy anyone to do so! Evolution is better tested using sound science, not guesswork.

[Whaleboy]

BK: Regarding fact, you would be better served reading the posts already made on the topic on the preceding pages, unless new points are made I won't repeat myself (we're getting scarily close to 500 posts already) but I consider evolution and biblical science to be the relevant topics of the moment.

For we all know that the common man is much less refined than those who partake of the literary and philosophical societies scattered around the globe.

Hehe I think we're all aware of my opinions on the "common man". He's an animal. No more so than you or I of course, but at least we're toilet trained. I know which one I'd choose for the better smell

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't attribute your lack of faith, due to the chains of atheism that bind you to the earth. Why do you assume that those who reject evolution do so on purely unscientific grounds?

Because there has not been, in the 140 years since Darwin formulated his theory, a scientifically accepted alternative to evolutionary theory. Mainstream science, the science accepted by 99.9% of the world's biologists, accepts evolution is true based on the evidence and facts.

As I said, there is no scientific theory of Creationism. Lamarckism is long dead (though Creationists continually seem to confuse it with Darwinism).

The evidence strongly supports evolution. Those who oppose evolution are, as far as I have seen, overwhelmingly from a staunch religious background. What other conclusion are we to draw?

Evolution has not always been the same as it was, and to say that the predicative outcomes of evolutionary theories come close to matching those of Chemistry or Physics, is a statement I find suprising.

Evolution has always been as it was. The theory of how evolution occurs (or rather, theories) have changed over time, yes. But so has atomic theory--it's all about the advance of information.

But you're again confusing the fact of evolution versus the theories of how it happens. The fact of evolution--that it occurs--is as solidly established as the facts of chemistry or physics, yes.

That we can predict the change in alleles in populations over time has been shown countless times in experimentation. Fruitflies, anyone? On the strength of the theory, Darwin predicted the discovery of many fossils that would show the progression of primate to man. See below.

One of the grounds in assessing the merits of a theory, is whether or not said theory makes predictions that can be tested. What predictions does evolutionary theory make about the progression of man beyond our current state that can, in any way, be proven?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can't consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so predictions about specifically what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely-used antibiotics.

The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we wouldn't have been able to say otherwise. These predictions don't have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we haven't found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions, for example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil evidence and genetic evidence [Ingman et al. 2000].
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients [Oliver et al. 2000].
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey [Yoshida et al. 2003].
Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction [Webster et al. 2003].
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. Based on a detailed study, the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" [Mallatt and Chen 2003].

With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests [Bull and Wichman 2001].

If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy.

It's easy when you commit such common mistakes for which I can readily find a rebuttal.

[Berzerker]

If Jesus was God, who was he talking to when he challenged/asked God, "why has thou forsaken me?" When Jesus was asked why he was advocating a change in divorce law, he said because in Moses' time God knew the hearts of men were hard and allowed those divorces. Why didn't Jesus say he knew the hearts of men were hard?