Originally posted by Oliver North
so when he says "52 nations have banned the bible", he could be including predominantly Christian nations that ban specific versions as well?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's possible. But really, with his exacting specifications on what counts as "real" Christianity, I'm not entirely sure if I've ever met a "real" Christian in person.
It's a question I try to avoid most of the time, as, not being a Christian, I'd have no idea what one really is.
It comes up all the time in the Muslim/violence debate, as if the ability to point and say "these aren't the real Muslims" (said by both sides of course) settles anything other than a theological penis measurement.
I'm sure it is like anything, ask 10 different Christians, get 15 opinions.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
I'm shocked that I didn't look at the OP sooner. You have an incredibly false premise on why you are atheist.This same baloney has been spewed in countless sensationalist novels and films for years, including Acharya S. and her works, Jordan Maxwell and his works, Peter Joseph (the maker of Zeitgeist) and his works, and etc.
Here is a great video debunking the notion that Jesus' story was based on any pagan god:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP7-GPW9A8U
At the 8:38 mark, they start talking about it. I highly recommend this series of videos. This is only part 2 of 6. Again, I highly recommend watching the entire series from 1 to 6. It does a wonderful job debunking the notion that true Christian customs (that did NOT come from the Roman Catholic Church) are from pagan sources.And one last thing: If Jesus and His resurrection was a myth, why did all the apostles die for what they supposedly knew to be a lie? And why is the Bible banned in 52 countries?
The last paragraph has no logical connection to the earlier stuff, and it's been handled on the last page sufficiently. If you think those questions somehow provide evidence or justification, you need lessons in critical thinking.
On the earlier - actually relevant - point of the historicity of the Jesus myth...
- No less an atheist figurehead than Christopher Hitchens has stated he thinks that someone existed that became the Jesus of the Bible, and that something happened that led to the creation of various Biblical stories. We're not talking about his existence here, just the veracity of his divinity (or lack thereof).
- Even numerous Biblical apologists know there were contemporaries of Jesus, or imitators, and that the Church assimilated various beliefs and traditions into Christianity, thus making the conversion process easier. They differ only on some of the details, and whether or not they influenced Christianity or were influenced by it.
- We know there are non-Christian predecessors to much of the Old Testament, which begets the question of their inclusion in a supposedly divine text.
- We also know that many stories - let's take the Ark or Eden - were once interpreted literally, and later revised to metaphor by most Christian sects. How are the frankly impossible stories of the Jesus myth any different?
- Elements of Christ's divinity - walking on water, various other miracles, resurrection - all existed in various forms prior to Jesus. He didn't invent the idea of them. The nature and details of the stories differ, true, but we still have unexplained "miracles" as related to us by a superstitious and scientifically uninformed culture, with none of the writers being eye-witnesses to any of it. That's the heart of it, really. I'm actually even happy to concede that some elements of Jesus' story originated with him and early Christianity. But the story itself is myth, fable, whatever you want to call it. Some elements might be borrowed, but the underlying truthfulness of it - or lack thereof in this case - is absurdly obvious.
I'm passingly familiar with the videos you mention. I'm not a huge fan of any of them. Most are agenda-driven, and at best only present a skewed single side of the story. At worst, they are working with incomplete scholarship and failing to properly cite sources. Zeitgeist in particular is paranoia-driven drivel. At least "The Naked Truth," though it oversteps occasionally, attempts a more scholarly approach to the subject.
However, your video is open to that same type of skepticism. The whole channel seems to trend toward conspiracies, which always raises some red flags for me. I prefer peer-reviewed scholarship that's treated as accepted canon in the field, not Youtube videos pushing one particular person's beliefs. If you really want to find the kinds of things I'm talking about, it's out there. Lots of it, in a variety of formats that do a more thorough job than a Youtube clip ever could, and from sources without a vested stake in the religion/anti-religion debate. And it's only a drop in the bucket compared to the entire case against religion and Christianity.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I remember him telling me once that it was "obvious" that Christianity was the true religion and that the Bible was all truth because--this is where it gets good--there's "clearly" a New Age conspiracy against Christianity and Christians are being persecuted worldwide. Of course what complicates this is that Bat Dude doesn't believe that Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians [or Mormons...or Jehovah's Witnesses] are real Christians. I have no idea how many Bat Dude-approved Christians there are, who knows--maybe he's right and the "real" Christians are a "persecuted" cult of about fifty people living in a compound somewhere in Western Texas.
Added stuff...
Originally posted by Digi
We're not talking about his existence here, just the veracity of his divinity (or lack thereof).
Yes, this.
I wish cellphones were around during Jesus' ministry. A video of him healing leapers in an instant would go a long way in helping those with faith/belief issues. 🙁 I know it would help me. *Cue the "you need a crutch* arguments and "your faith is weak" arguments*
what boggles my mind, is that, you (or at least the community you are from DDM) would consider using video evidence to support your faith would even be a crutch in the first place. I have a lot of issues with the idea that someone believes something so fervently that they require no further validation, and in fact, further validation would do nothing to their opinion, as it is at ceiling value anyways.
of course video evidence would bolster one's faith, as well it should... that is almost an epistemological law: You can be more sure of something you have personally witnessed than not.
Originally posted by Oliver North
what boggles my mind, is that, you (or at least the community you are from DDM) would consider using video evidence to support your faith would even be a crutch in the first place. I have a lot of issues with the idea that someone believes something so fervently that they require no further validation, and in fact, further validation would do nothing to their opinion, as it is at ceiling value anyways.[b]of course
video evidence would bolster one's faith, as well it should... that is almost an epistemological law: You can be more sure of something you have personally witnessed than not. [/B]
It's because one can never "know" the truth. The eternal can only be known by that which is eternal: your soul. So I am appeasing my mind by not my soul by wanting video evidence. The Holy Ghost is supposed to testify to your soul, not your mind.
Here's why: the video could be a fake or what I observed my mind did not get the truth from it because of a bias.
But...a video would certainly help assuage my mind so that I can focus on the soul a lot more.
Edit - For you (I talked to Digi about this already), would something like a video showing a real miracle help create some faith for you? Meaning, would you be more open to the transcendent if you saw a genuine miracle (if it were a video, pretend it was reviewed by digital forensic specialists and deemed authentic)?
Double Edit - This dude I work with mentioned that they stopped being atheist because of DMT. They said their consciousness was opened and they felt God. Would that also function as evidence for you? Or is that just too questionable (hey, it worked for that guy)?
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's because one can never "know" the truth. The eternal can only be known by that which is eternal: your soul. So I am appeasing my mind by not my soul by wanting video evidence. The Holy Ghost is supposed to testify to your soul, not your mind.Here's why: the video could be a fake or what I observed my mind did not get the truth from it because of a bias.
But...a video would certainly help assuage my mind so that I can focus on the soul a lot more.
your last sentence is sort of what I am getting at. Like, soul/mind whatever, they would see no value, if only cognitively, to video evidence? Your position, that it helps the mind but not the soul, seems reasonable... why would they think helping the mind is a crutch?
In my own interpretation, that sounds like someone justifying the fact there is so little physical evidence for what they are talking about, by painting people who want "mind" satisfaction as inherently weak, which I think would be the opposite (someone who accepts to live in ignorance versus someone who seeks supernatural truth).
Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - For you (I talked to Digi about this already), would something like a video showing a real miracle help create some faith for you? Meaning, would you be more open to the transcendent if you saw a genuine miracle (if it were a video, pretend it was reviewed by digital forensic specialists and deemed authentic)?
I think your question is more about the degrees of evidence it would take for me to accept something as miraculous (a supernatural event caused by a divine agent) than about showing a "real" video. I mean, lets assume it is a legit video of an event with no apparent natural cause, I would be very interested and would certainly try to explain it, but sure, that would be some type of evidence to me.
Let me get a bit wordy about it [me? no...]. So, I look at evidence in terms of how Imre Lakatos describes it in terms of developing scientific theories. So, all theories, at their core, contain specific observations that are built upon by new observations, which are discovered based on hypotheses generated by the core observations. In this way, a theory is almost like an onion, with observations covering it in "layers". Now, in most cases, observations most peripheral to the core can be changed without radically re-defining the theory or abandoning it altogether.
So, like, some inarguable evidence of a supernatural event is only going to get so far into my onion of "God isn't real". Like, the fact that I've never seen a convincing miracle is quite peripheral to that fact alone, so much so that it is completely possible, for me, to accept that supernatural things might occur which God had no part in. The ultimate thing that would push me from "Something supernatural has happened" to "God made this thing happen" comes in terms of interpretation. There would have to be some specific reason for me to attach the cause of the event to a specific divine entity before I made that leap. Given supernatural things are, by definition, impossible to investigate, we are looking at a situation where the only God I could probably ever accept is one that goes out of its way to demonstrate, to me personally, its own existence, and even then, my own ideas about my perception being subjective itself (as an aside, for a all powerful creator of the universe, such convincing should be trivial, and if one listen's to the words of those trying to convert, God cares very deeply about me, individually, so it would seem he should actually be trying to convince me, or he is so petty that the terms "benevolent" and "merciful" are being tied in semantic knots when describing him).
Originally posted by dadudemon
Double Edit - This dude I work with mentioned that they stopped being atheist because of DMT. They said their consciousness was opened and they felt God. Would that also function as evidence for you? Or is that just too questionable (hey, it worked for that guy)?
honestly, no, I understand neurochemestry too well. I've personally taken mushrooms and had the feeling of being overwhelmed by some divine like "presence" or whatever.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's because one can never "know" the truth. The eternal can only be known by that which is eternal: your soul. So I am appeasing my mind by not my soul by wanting video evidence. The Holy Ghost is supposed to testify to your soul, not your mind.Here's why: the video could be a fake or what I observed my mind did not get the truth from it because of a bias.
But...a video would certainly help assuage my mind so that I can focus on the soul a lot more.
Edit - For you (I talked to Digi about this already), would something like a video showing a real miracle help create some faith for you? Meaning, would you be more open to the transcendent if you saw a genuine miracle (if it were a video, pretend it was reviewed by digital forensic specialists and deemed authentic)?
Double Edit - This dude I work with mentioned that they stopped being atheist because of DMT. They said their consciousness was opened and they felt God. Would that also function as evidence for you? Or is that just too questionable (hey, it worked for that guy)?
The video would show us something we're unaware of. A divine explanation of it, however, would be just one among many. One of my least favorite theistic arguments is the finely-tuned universe. Not because that in and of itself is a bad argument (it is, imo) but because even if they were right, theists invoking the argument jump about 12 logical steps in an instant to "ergo, God." It shows a lack of understanding about the way evidence works, and the limits of our knowledge. I feel like someone proclaiming Jesus' divinity with a Youtube clip, or a divinity in general - however verified the video is - would be a similarly flawed argument.
The effects on the mind of various drugs are well-documented, and despite the sensations experienced, are almost entirely explainable. I'm quite sure the latter would do nothing to my beliefs, regardless of my individual experience.
I'm sure you know that my chief complaint about your post there is appealing to the soul...which effectively removes inquiry from the discussion. "Souls exist" is an unassailable position logically, because it has retreated beyond the realm of reason into pure faith.
I also know you realize this; you were always one of the more practical theists here on KMC.
{edit} inamilist beat me to most of those points, but I guess it was his opinion you were after anyway ( 😮 )
Originally posted by Digi
I'm sure you know that my chief complaint about your post there is appealing to the soul...which effectively removes inquiry from the discussion. "Souls exist" is an unassailable position logically, because it has retreated beyond the realm of reason into pure faith.
Yes, that was pretty much the bush I was beating around. The soul, a I am using it, is an object that barely interacts with the universe. As one Christian Neuroscientist put it, it pretty much functions as a transceiver between the individual and God but everything else that happens, happens within the laws of physics/brain (that's a gross oversimplification of what he said...and I probably insulted the way he put it...but I am not a neuroscientist).
Originally posted by Digi
I also know you realize this; you were always one of the more practical theists here on KMC.
Epic fistbump. estahuh
Originally posted by Oliver North
your last sentence is sort of what I am getting at. Like, soul/mind whatever, they would see no value, if only cognitively, to video evidence? Your position, that it helps the mind but not the soul, seems reasonable... why would they think helping the mind is a crutch?
The natural man is a natural enemy of God because he is flawed, by design. You can never appeal to the mind to justify faith because in the end, you must appeal to God for your faith through your soul which is not the mind.
Originally posted by Oliver North
In my own interpretation, that sounds like someone justifying the fact there is so little physical evidence for what they are talking about, by painting people who want "mind" satisfaction as inherently weak, which I think would be the opposite (someone who accepts to live in ignorance versus someone who seeks supernatural truth).
There is a Christian Philosopher (the one who wrote the Dawkin's Delusion, iirc) that says you can obtain a knowledge of God without the classical idea of evidence. I did not quite understand his argument but there are at least some people out there that think you can obtain a knowledge of God.
But the matters of evidence and faith are not mutually exclusive as I probably painted it. You can have personal/subjective faith that requires leaps of logic. (I heard this voice give me advice after prayer and it was the best advice for my situation (Confirmation bias or faith that their prayer was answered (I probably just created a false dilemma, but that's what I wanted it to boil down to)).
Originally posted by Oliver North
I think your question is more about the degrees of evidence it would take for me to accept something as miraculous (a supernatural event caused by a divine agent) than about showing a "real" video.
Yes, exactly. How much would it influence your worldview/existential view.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I mean, lets assume it is a legit video of an event with no apparent natural cause, I would be very interested and would certainly try to explain it, but sure, that would be some type of evidence to me.
As it would for me but I would always doubt something about it. That's the scientist in my speaking.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Let me get a bit wordy about it [me? no...].
By all means, always do and never hold back. The more you explain yourself, the more comfortable I become with the topic and your perspective.
Originally posted by Oliver North
So, I look at evidence in terms of how Imre Lakatos describes it in terms of developing scientific theories. So, all theories, at their core, contain specific observations that are built upon by new observations, which are discovered based on hypotheses generated by the core observations. In this way, a theory is almost like an onion, with observations covering it in "layers". Now, in most cases, observations most peripheral to the core can be changed without radically re-defining the theory or abandoning it altogether.
In this simile, I would consider that onion to have an inexorable layer. We can call this the core. Without certain evidence that core cannot be obtained/observed. This would be the testimony God gives the soul.
Originally posted by Oliver North
So, like, some inarguable evidence of a supernatural event is only going to get so far into my onion of "God isn't real". Like, the fact that I've never seen a convincing miracle is quite peripheral to that fact alone, so much so that it is completely possible, for me, to accept that supernatural things might occur which God had no part in.
I fully agree with this. Knowing our understanding is limited, anything that could break the laws of physics in this universe, as we know it, would be supernatural, as we know it. Matter traveling faster than light in a way that we have no way of comprehending with our current understanding of physics would be a supernatural event to us.
Originally posted by Oliver North
The ultimate thing that would push me from "Something supernatural has happened" to "God made this thing happen" comes in terms of interpretation. There would have to be some specific reason for me to attach the cause of the event to a specific divine entity before I made that leap. Given supernatural things are, by definition, impossible to investigate, we are looking at a situation where the only God I could probably ever accept is one that goes out of its way to demonstrate, to me personally, its own existence, and even then, my own ideas about my perception being subjective itself (as an aside, for a all powerful creator of the universe, such convincing should be trivial, and if one listen's to the words of those trying to convert, God cares very deeply about me, individually, so it would seem he should actually be trying to convince me, or he is so petty that the terms "benevolent" and "merciful" are being tied in semantic knots when describing him).
I agree with this. God is supposed to know you as an individual and you are one that stands by his convictions or views quite staunchly if you have clear evidence of it. So it would be easy for that personal God to create an awesome figure of righteousness for his cause, right? I mean, imagine and Oliver North that was truly converted to a version of God out there? That would be a fairly convincing and well-read individual, imo. 😄
Which is why I have come to the understanding or at least settled on a God that is pretty much Deistic in nature. Not completely, but pretty much.
Originally posted by Oliver North
honestly, no, I understand neurochemestry too well. I've personally taken mushrooms and had the feeling of being overwhelmed by some divine like "presence" or whatever.
See, that's awesome. I wish my beliefs allowed for something like that. I would want to experience that.
Well, for that gent, that experience was his subjective experience of evidence that you mentioned. That was his "moment" and epiphany. He said it both made him happy and scared the shit out of him when he sobered up. Happy that he knew there was something more but scared him because he realized he was wasting his life.
I have not yet had that epiphany that many tell me about. There are some atheists that have those epiphanies, too (except it helps them stop believing...so the opposite but still a perspective shaking epiphany). I wish I could have one of those epiphanies. At least I could stop being so undecided. 🙁
Originally posted by dadudemonYour beliefs don't allow chemically induced perceptual modification? So, no one even imbibes the fermented grape? Two solutions. 1) Convert. 2) Meditate / Lucid dream. The difference I found among these states and 'shrooms was more one of degree than kind.
See, that's awesome. I wish my beliefs allowed for something like that. I would want to experience that.
Originally posted by dadudemonAbout what? Exactly.
At least I could stop being so undecided. 🙁
Originally posted by Oliver North
Source?
Afghanistan
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bhutan
Brunei
Burma (Myanmar)
Chiapas, Mexico
China
Colombia
Comoros
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gaza and the West Bank
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mindanao, Philippines
Mauritania
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Tibet
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
http://www.persecution.org/awareness/persecuted-countries/
http://www.persecution.com/public/restrictednations.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51
These are 52 areas where Bible-believers are persecuted everyday.
But I don't expect you to listen to a word of it, anyway. You'll always find something you can nit-pick and ignore everything.
The video I posted gave documentation and quotation of pagan and atheist scholarly sources as to why Jesus was not just a myth, and really has no link to Horus, Mithras, Sol Invictus, or any other pagan deity. To claim so is not accurate in the slightest. But, again, you just found things to nit-pick and ignore the rest.
If you can refute this, then by all means give documented proof of it, and I will at least give it a listen. Don't just tell me "Oh it's all over the place." or some other opinion.
And I'm really not trying to be mean to anyone. I don't want to be mean or rude or think I'm the smartest guy in the room. I'm really not that smart. I'm just blessed to be saved.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18)
Originally posted by Bat Dude
Afghanistan
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bhutan
Brunei
Burma (Myanmar)
Chiapas, Mexico
China
Colombia
Comoros
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gaza and the West Bank
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mindanao, Philippines
Mauritania
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Tibet
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemenhttp://www.persecution.org/awareness/persecuted-countries/
http://www.persecution.com/public/restrictednations.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51
These are 52 areas where Bible-believers are persecuted everyday.
But I don't expect you to listen to a word of it, anyway. You'll always find something you can nit-pick and ignore everything.
The video I posted gave documentation and quotation of pagan and atheist scholarly sources as to why Jesus was not just a myth, and really has no link to Horus, Mithras, Sol Invictus, or any other pagan deity. To claim so is not accurate in the slightest. But, again, you just found things to nit-pick and ignore the rest.
If you can refute this, then by all means give documented proof of it, and I will at least give it a listen. Don't just tell me "Oh it's all over the place." or some other opinion.
And I'm really not trying to be mean to anyone. I don't want to be mean or rude or think I'm the smartest guy in the room. I'm really not that smart. I'm just blessed to be saved.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18)
He asked for a source. That's it. That's how information is shared. Nit-picking, as you call it, isn't a personal disrespect, it's intellectual integrity. I'd consider it more disrespectful to others if I took them at their word all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM
3:23-4:59 for the part that's most relevant to my point there. The nit-picking continues above, I see. Be happy that it does. It's how we get closer to Truth.
Persecution exists many places. It's unfortunate. But, it doesn't prove validity. This line of thought is still wholly removed from the question of Christianity's veracity.
The entire point of debate is - presumably - to listen to another side. I watched your video, considered its points. I remain unconvinced. That's no big deal except to say this: you're just blanketly assuming all others do is ignore points that don't agree with you. There does exist the possibility that they just happen to not agree.
Lastly, no one's obligated to spoon-feed information to you. Part of the problem is that a lot of this stuff isn't digestible in forum posts, so we can only refer to things in a general manner. But if your experience with non-religiosity peaks with Zeitgeist, you're sheltered.
And if you're really interested in specifics, here's a few names that will bear fruit on Amazon or other sites:
Joseph Campbell (the most recognizable of the bunch...not anti-religious, per se, but a good starting point if you're only familiar with his main ideas)
Randel Helms
Tim Callahan
Dr. Bart Ehrman
I'd point you toward more explicitly atheistic writers, but those mostly focus on debunking Christian myth.
Originally posted by Mindship
Your beliefs don't allow chemically induced perceptual modification? So, no one even imbibes the fermented grape? Two solutions. 1) Convert. 2) Meditate / Lucid dream. The difference I found among these states and 'shrooms was more one of degree than kind.
It doesn't allow harmful substances to be used or anything that alters your mind such that you cannot think clearly.
I'll go with #2.
Originally posted by Digi
Zeitgeist in particular is paranoia-driven drivel. At least "The Naked Truth," though it oversteps occasionally, attempts a more scholarly approach to the subject.
And both fail completely by not even getting their paganism right.
Whether you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of mankind or not isn't even the question. (I'm sorry for getting a little off-topic in that regard. You obviously know what my answer is to that question)
The question is if the story of Jesus' life is based on earlier pagan gods. And the answer to that question is a resounding no.